WI: South Seceeds 1820?

What if the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 didn't go the way of the South, and Dred Scott v Sanford went the other way (I know Justice Taney and most of his fellow Justices were slave-owning southerners, but just stick with me here), would the South have seceded 40 years earlier? They would be in the best position possible, most of their land hasn't been converted to solely cotton farming, the British can be realistic allies as the Oregon territory is still contested between them and the US, and the Brits haven't made Slavery illegal yet. The north isn't nearly as industrialized as it would be by 1860. I'm thinking we get rid of Henry Clay and have the North stop catering towards the sound, like Filmore not signing the Fugitive Slave act in 1850.

What I am looking for is one PoD to start off the chain reaction that would lead to either all or most of these things happening; the main goal here is Southern Succession with all Slave states (Virginia, Kentucky, The Carolinas, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc) not before 1820 and not after 1860. The earlier the better. Remember, the south doesn't have to win, I don't care about that, I don't even care about the Civil War aspect.
 
The south was so politically and economically dominant at that point, you're more likely to see the north or the northeast secede.
 
What if the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 didn't go the way of the South, and Dred Scott v Sanford went the other way (I know Justice Taney and most of his fellow Justices were slave-owning southerners, but just stick with me here), would the South have seceded 40 years earlier? They would be in the best position possible, most of their land hasn't been converted to solely cotton farming, the British can be realistic allies as the Oregon territory is still contested between them and the US, and the Brits haven't made Slavery illegal yet. The north isn't nearly as industrialized as it would be by 1860. I'm thinking we get rid of Henry Clay and have the North stop catering towards the sound, like Filmore not signing the Fugitive Slave act in 1850.

What I am looking for is one PoD to start off the chain reaction that would lead to either all or most of these things happening; the main goal here is Southern Succession with all Slave states (Virginia, Kentucky, The Carolinas, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc) not before 1820 and not after 1860. The earlier the better. Remember, the south doesn't have to win, I don't care about that, I don't even care about the Civil War aspect.

Nullification Crisis might be a good starting point. The war won't be about slavery at all, in this case, though. I think that a war about where slavery is an important issue would be difficult before the Kansas-Nebraska compromise and/or Fugitive Slave Act.
 
The south was so politically and economically dominant at that point, you're more likely to see the north or the northeast secede.

That's...something I've never heard of. Could be interesting. Wasn't cotton over 50% of the US exports in 1840?

Nullification Crisis might be a good starting point. The war won't be about slavery at all, in this case, though. I think that a war about where slavery is an important issue would be difficult before the Kansas-Nebraska compromise and/or Fugitive Slave Act.

*goes to look up what the Nullification Crisis is*
 
I'm confused as to how the Compromise of 1850 and Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) could cause the South to secede in 1820.
 
I'm confused as to how the Compromise of 1850 and Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) could cause the South to secede in 1820.

Quantum Butterflies? :D


To the OP:

Yes, Nullification Crisis is the most likely point, but even that's pushing it as that was a Calhoun power play and if he went through with his threats it would probably see just SC and maybe Georgia leave...right when Andrew L. MthrF'kin' Jackson is POTUS. I'd predict a nasty, brutish, and short "war of Calhoun's Rebellion" in that case.

Getting all of the Slave States, particularly Virginia on board this early will be very difficult. Even OTL in 1860 the Middle States stayed "neutral" until Lincoln wanted to send troops through VA to put down the rebellion...and even then a third of VA "seceeded" to form WV rather than leave the Union. Also, this early the western States (AL, MS, MO, etc.) will be very underpopulated and still "beset by Indian savages".

More likely for northern states to secceed ala Jared's Decades of Darkness.
 
What I am looking for is one PoD to start off the chain reaction that would lead to either all or most of these things happening; the main goal here is Southern Succession with all Slave states (Virginia, Kentucky, The Carolinas, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc) not before 1820 and not after 1860.

The problem with that is that the amount of slavery was proportional to support of secession. It will be very hard for border states to support secession because even though slavery was legal, slavery was not a dominant part of the economy. There were always many more local elites who did not have an interest in slavery and therefore were extremely unlikely to support slavery.

The only way is if the Federal government was engaged in obviously tyrannical acts, but so selectively that the general population would also not be outraged. That is very hard to imagine. It is much easier to imagine some one acting tyrannically, and the country as a whole making sure the person is impeached or removed. It is much harder to think of acts that only Southerners, slave holders and non-slave holders, would view as tyrannically, but non-Southerners uniformly do not.

Prior to the Republicans, all major parties were cross country. There were both northern and southern Whigs as well as Democrats. There was immense desire to avoid disunion and to seek compromise on both sides, and it was instituionalized in the major parties. I don't think there would be any chance of secession prior to the Mexican War.

If the outcome of the Mexican War was different - for example, more Mexican territory was taken that was potentially for slave state expansion, then possibly that might cause enough political turmoil that someone does something that causes a crisis. Maybe William Walker succeeds at one or more filibuster attempts causing many Americans to view him as a hero, but a free soil Whig President makes sure those areas do not become annexed, or perhaps even allows foreign countries to intervene and attempt to eliminate him afterwards?

In my mind, only something of this nature - more expansion for the sake of slavery - might bring the crisis forward in time. But you would need some fair accomplis that would enrage the free soilers. If it is not already fact, I see attempts at compromise to win out.
 
Nullification Crisis might be a good starting point. The war won't be about slavery at all, in this case, though. I think that a war about where slavery is an important issue would be difficult before the Kansas-Nebraska compromise and/or Fugitive Slave Act.
Ya' Know, Between The 3 of them ...

Presidents Milliard Fillmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan; Pretty Much Laid The Ground-Work, for The Civil War ...

Has Anybody Ever thought of doing a Time-Line, Where Zachary Taylor, Lives Long enough, to Finish out his Term?

:confused:
 
Top