WI: South Carolina leaves the Union during the Nullification Crisis of 1832.

The Federal military was small at the time and the South was in general more powerful economically and politically, the further you go back from the OTL Civil War the less likely it becomes that the Union wins.

Yes but Andrew Jackson was a hell of a lot more popular in the South than Lincoln was, with him in the White House instead of Lincoln the South wouldn't be able to present a united front. With only bits of the south splitting off and them not having a few months to get organized it's be a painful painful beat down.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Well, after a brief review of Virginian political history, it seems the Jacksonians were definately more popular and powerful politically at the time, so I'd expect that state to side with the President. Even if Virginina's loyalty wasn't enough (which I suspect it would be) to cow anything S.C. or potential allies could come up with, this is unlikely to result in anything comparable to the "solid" south of the Civil War. And while we know the South wasn't solidily anti-Unionist in 1861, it's be markedly worse now. And I don't see any Northern state actually throwing it's weight behind a S.C. rebellion on a any real proto-copperhead movement taking hold there or being more successful than otl.
 
Well, after a brief review of Virginian political history, it seems the Jacksonians were definately more popular and powerful politically at the time, so I'd expect that state to side with the President. Even if Virginina's loyalty wasn't enough (which I suspect it would be) to cow anything S.C. or potential allies could come up with, this is unlikely to result in anything comparable to the "solid" south of the Civil War. And while we know the South wasn't solidily anti-Unionist in 1861, it's be markedly worse now. And I don't see any Northern state actually throwing it's weight behind a S.C. rebellion on a any real proto-copperhead movement taking hold there or being more successful than otl.

Exactly. Having "one of their own" in the White House would pretty much undercut any pan-state support for SC in the South, as it's been said before that the South Carolinians pretty much stood alone, even in the eyes of Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, etc who apparently thoroughly censured Calhoun & Co. over the whole deal. The issue and timeframe ITSELF might've produced a successful secession, but having this President in charge in this political environment and history equals a no-go for SC's stubbornness to blossom into anything more.
 
If South Carolina secedes, and is militarily reunited, which seems entirely likely, then theres going to be clear precedent for secession being illegal. There may even be a Supreme Court ruling or a constitutional amendment.

Which will make things even more .... interesting in the 1860s when the South is fighting a desperate rearguard action to maintain its infuence and its 'peculiar institution'.

Government might grind to a halt as southrons fillibuster EVERYTHING until they get their way, which they wont.
 
If South Carolina secedes, and is militarily reunited, which seems entirely likely, then theres going to be clear precedent for secession being illegal. There may even be a Supreme Court ruling or a constitutional amendment.

Which will make things even more .... interesting in the 1860s when the South is fighting a desperate rearguard action to maintain its infuence and its 'peculiar institution'.

Government might grind to a halt as southrons fillibuster EVERYTHING until they get their way, which they wont.

So we get a dysfunctional Congress almost 150 years earlier.
 
Maybe. After all, the "South" and the "Slave Lobby" was more powerful in Congress than it ever was on the Battlefield.

Actually, no. If the South could have just stopped everything until they got their way then there would have been no war. The problem was that they weren't able to do that.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Actually, no. If the South could have just stopped everything until they got their way then there would have been no war. The problem was that they weren't able to do that.

So, you're arguing that the South achieved more of its goals by loosing the Civil War than it could have by fillabustering, during, and otherwise deriding a Lincoln presidency? OTL, the South was able to re-establish its "way of life" politically after Reconstruction, sans the fugitive slave act of course. (Sharecropping/ slavery / prison labor gang. The differences are often just semantics, but of course the great migration happened after the Civil War because no one could legally go and kidnap blacks who left the south after the civil war back)

Anyway, I'd be curious as to why you think rebellion achieved more (used power better) than politics would have. Not to say the South could have gotten every last thing it wanted through politics, but I don't think most people evaluate by the standard of " does it come with a pony?"
 
1. Other states following South Carolina out of the Union is most unlikely. First, it's important to remember that Old Hickory, a Tennessean and strident Unionist, was President and head of the Democratic Party.In 1832, South Carolina's John C. Calhoun had not yet attracted the broad, regional following for his "southern slave power" politics that would destroy the national Democratic Party, not even close to it.

It took decades for Calhoun's philosophy to poison southern minds and turn them against the Union. The only state existing at that time that might -- might -- have followed SC out is MS, and given how lonely a stand that would have been, it is very, very implausible. That much is very self-evident in the facts of the political history of the period. To assume otherwise, you have to rewrite a whole lot more than just saying South Carolina jumps off the plank in 1832.

2. So, we have only SC leaving the Union. This is 1832, so it is before the existence of the railroad, but South Carolina is a coastal state with some big west-to-east rivers in it. Logistics would not have been a problem, and the Palmetto State would have faced the might of the entire United States under the iron-fisted leadership of Andrew Jackson. They would have been completely, utterly crushed.

3. As some others have pointed out, settling the secession question with Jackson crushing rebellion in South Carolina in 1832 would have put paid not just to the legal idea, but also to the political philosophy that gave rise to it. As I noted, it took decades for Calhoun to work his witchcraft on southern minds and turn a bare majority of them towards hardline sectionalism. South Carolina might have continued to burn with the resentment of the loser after that, but Calhoun's political agenda would have been consigned to the dustbin.
 
Last edited:
So, you're arguing that the South achieved more of its goals by loosing the Civil War than it could have by fillabustering, during, and otherwise deriding a Lincoln presidency? OTL, the South was able to re-establish its "way of life" politically after Reconstruction, sans the fugitive slave act of course. (Sharecropping/ slavery / prison labor gang. The differences are often just semantics, but of course the great migration happened after the Civil War because no one could legally go and kidnap blacks who left the south after the civil war back)

Anyway, I'd be curious as to why you think rebellion achieved more (used power better) than politics would have. Not to say the South could have gotten every last thing it wanted through politics, but I don't think most people evaluate by the standard of " does it come with a pony?"

No, what I am saying is if they could have stopped things by using legal means they would have done so. As idiotic as most Southern politicians were at the time it was obvious that it would be far less risky to do so that way than go to war.
 
Top