The US Civil War of 1833

[Xenos]

In 1832, President Andrew Jackson's Government passes yet another tariff act to protect fledgling industry in the Northern states from fierce British competition. The state of South Carolina becomes infuriated as it depends upon imports of cheap British textiles. South Carolina's state convention in November declares the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 illegal within its borders.
President Jackson is not willing to compromise and a naval squadron is dispatched to Charleston in February 1833. In March Jackson arrests the governor of Virginia on (not unfair) charges of impeding the passage of federal troops through his state to pacify South Carolina. The South Carolinians are now assured of 'Southern Solidarity' and leave the Union that same month. Catalyzed by propaganda and rumours of impending abolition, the other Southern states soon follow.

So how would this earlier civil war develop?

 

[67th Tigers]

Before the development of rail and steamboat logistics invading the south is nearly impossible. The US is cleft in twain.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

But, in the Nullification Crisis, was any state except SC prepared to secede?

If all of the ACW South secedes, they probably succeed, since as 67th tigers points out, the infrastructure isn't there, and the North doesn't have the massive industrial (and population) advantage over the south that it did in the ACW.

If it's just SC, it's a curb-stomp. If it's SC and VA with e.g. NC, GA, MS and AL remaining 'neutral', then the North invades Virginia by land and SC by water (which is tough, but SC is a small state, so, I imagine doable).

 

[Nikephoros]

Pretty sure it was just SC.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Ya only SC was serious about starting a Civil War since Andrew Jackson was a War Hero and a Southern himself and didnt NC offer to allow Federal Troops to be stationed there if SC did sucede?

 

[Xenos]

South Carolina wasn't the only state that had issues with the Federal Government. The protectionist policies of the Northern states were deeply opposed by the free-trade supporting Southern states. Andrew Jackson actually did have strong doubts about the 'loyalty' of Virginia.
So I don't think it's too far-fetched to suggest that South Carolina wasn't an isolated case and the USA actually was on the brink of war in 1833.
On the subject of the war itself, I don't believe battles would be on the scale of the 1861-5 war. The logistics available to both sides at this time would not be sufficient to support the mobilization of millions as in the 1860's. Also, the two sides would certainly be more equal. The mass immigration from Europe to the industrial North has not yet occured. A war fought on such a huge terrain with no railways, no mass-communication, or aerial reconnaisance would probably resemble the Napoleonic Wars and drag on inconclusively for many years. Casualties would be enormous due to prolongued fighting and inadequate medical support. Also, foreign intervention would be far more likely than in the 1861-1865 war. Britain would certainly be angered by the 'cotton famine' in its Lancashire mills and Mexico would most likely use the opportunity to complete the annexation of Texas.
I'm quite sure that this war would be very different from the one in the OTL.

 

[A.M. Turtle]

I assume Jackson would perform harsh action against SC. Also if the state's right not issue solved after this incident I think Jackson would be an even bigger inspiration for Lincoln on what to do.

 

[Deleted member 5719]

A war fought on such a huge terrain with no railways, no mass-communication, or aerial reconnaisance would probably resemble the Napoleonic Wars and drag on inconclusively for many years. .

Most of what you sat is correct, but I take issue with this. We're looking at a situation more like contemporary South American civil wars. Difficult terrain, "locust" armies travelling vast distances with bad supplies. Comparatively small armies which exist more or less independently of their initial supporters. Generals becoming warlords, troops are increasingly irregulars as the war drags on.

Anything could happen in a situation like this, but you're probably looking at a choice between one and several dictatorships.

 

[President Sam Houston]

Although, Mexico had no need in 1833 to "annex" Texas, since Texas was a part of Mexico already, and had been since Mexico gained its independence.

Also, I do not believe that a "civil war" in 1833 would resemble either a European war of that era, nor the actual Civil War of 1861-1865.

The entire population of the US at the time was maybe 12-13 million. The various powers involved in the Napoleonic wars totalled approximately 150 million. Outside of the eastern seaboard, the US was still sparsely populated.

The US's most recent war, the War of 1812, had casualties a tiny fraction of that of the Napoleonic wars. US had less than 3000 KIAs.

So, if the US went to war in 1833 against SC and a number of other seceeding states, while the war and hostilities may drag on for a lengthy period of time, I do not think there would be many battles fought, certainly not many major battles. Without too much bloodshed, hostilities could remain without many people really seeing the horrors of war.

 

[Xenos]

Although, Mexico had no need in 1833 to "annex" Texas, since Texas was a part of Mexico already, and had been since Mexico gained its independence.

Also, I do not believe that a "civil war" in 1833 would resemble either a European war of that era, nor the actual Civil War of 1861-1865.

The entire population of the US at the time was maybe 12-13 million. The various powers involved in the Napoleonic wars totalled approximately 150 million. Outside of the eastern seaboard, the US was still sparsely populated.

The US's most recent war, the War of 1812, had casualties a tiny fraction of that of the Napoleonic wars. US had less than 3000 KIAs.

So, if the US went to war in 1833 against SC and a number of other seceeding states, while the war and hostilities may drag on for a lengthy period of time, I do not think there would be many battles fought, certainly not many major battles. Without too much bloodshed, hostilities could remain without many people really seeing the horrors of war.

Well Mexico wasn't in total control of Texas at this time. The territory had already taken major steps towards self-government.

Also, I don't think it would be comparable to the War of 1812 either. In this war, the Americans faced only a small force as the British were more concerned with the larger European campaign. In a civil war mobilization inevitably escalates as each side tries to gain an advantage over the other.
When I compared this conflict to the Napoleonic Wars I was mostly referring to the equipment, weaponry, and logistics, which would be radically different by the 1860's.

 

[Falastur]

For the sake of someone who doesn't know very much detail about this period, supposing - just supposing - that VA and SC were able to drag the war to a stalemate and force the acceptance of their secession or something, but no other state followed them, what would the implications be on the later Civil War period (the slavery issue of the 60s)? Does Texas get divided into three to balance up the slave state issue? Does the south become stronger or weaker now that it both doesn't have VA but also is separated from the north by a neutral/allied state? Can the north still invade by land if VA has seceded and presumably takes their inland claims with them? What happens to NC now it's (possibly) completely cut off and a US enclave? And so on and so forth.

 

[The Kiat]

Be kind of a short war, since it was confined to South Carolina.

 

[robertp6165]

Catalyzed by propaganda and rumours of impending abolition, the other Southern states soon follow.

I generally find your scenario at plausible, but, not the "rumours of impending abolition" part. Slavery was not at issue in the 1832 Crisis, and indeed, following the recent Missouri Compromise 12 years before, the issue was kind of muted at that time. And Andrew Jackson was himself a major slaveholder, and had no interest in abolition. So there is no reason why "rumors of impending abolition" would be floating around the South during this crisis.

 

[robertp6165]

But, in the Nullification Crisis, was any state except SC prepared to secede?

To immediately secede? No. But neither were they opposed to the idea that South Carolina had the right to secede if it so chose. The reason they were not prepared to secede is simply they didn't feel it was necessary at that time. Were they prepared to allow the Federal Government to pass through their territory to invade South Carolina? Were they willing to send troops to put down a secessionist movement in South Carolina? I beg leave to doubt it.

And so, the scenario presented of Virginia interfering with the passage of troops through her territory, and Andrew Jackson heavy-handedly arresting the governor in response, is very believable, and if such had occurred, it could well have galvanized the South against the Federal Government and led to the secession of many, if not most of the Southern States. Couple this with a Lincolnesque demand for troops to "put down the rebellion," which Jackson would almost certainly have made, and the secession of most of the South is virtually assured.

 

[GeneralInTheShell]

To immediately secede? No. But neither were they opposed to the idea that South Carolina had the right to secede if it so chose. The reason they were not prepared to secede is simply they didn't feel it was necessary at that time. Were they prepared to allow the Federal Government to pass through their territory to invade South Carolina? Were they willing to send troops to put down a secessionist movement in South Carolina? I beg leave to doubt it.

And so, the scenario presented of Virginia interfering with the passage of troops through her territory, and Andrew Jackson heavy-handedly arresting the governor in response, is very believable, and if such had occurred, it could well have galvanized the South against the Federal Government and led to the secession of many, if not most of the Southern States. Couple this with a Lincolnesque demand for troops to "put down the rebellion," which Jackson would almost certainly have made, and the secession of most of the South is virtually assured.

So we get an independent south? what do they call themselves?

 

[The Sandman]

...except that Tennessee stays with Jackson. And Unionist sentiment in the rest of the South is going to be far greater, since there hasn't been the additional 25 years or so of slavery and its economic consequences to poison the well.

I strongly suspect that the rest of the South is quick to distance themselves from the Carolinian madness, as well as from the Virginian governor who was stupid enough to interfere with Andrew Jackson. Especially given the fact that South Carolina succeeding in its nullification efforts would give the at-the-time insignificant abolition movement a major boost; after all, every northern state could then claim that laws regarding slavery no longer apply and that any slave brought into Northern territory is therefore freed.

 

[Salamon2]

I'd think that North Carolina as well as Tennessee would stay. Didn't they offer to allow Jackson to station a garrison there if SC did seceede? Also they'd have some affection for a president born in their state & having lived and worked within it for a while before moving to administer their western claims which eventually became TN.

This is bringing back fond memories on my research of AJ.

~Salamon2

 

[robertp6165]

...except that Tennessee stays with Jackson. And Unionist sentiment in the rest of the South is going to be far greater, since there hasn't been the additional 25 years or so of slavery and its economic consequences to poison the well.

I strongly suspect that the rest of the South is quick to distance themselves from the Carolinian madness, as well as from the Virginian governor who was stupid enough to interfere with Andrew Jackson.

If they take an active part in a war to force South Carolina back into the Union after it has seceded, they would have basically conceded that the right of secession doesn't exist and that the federal government may legally use force to coerce a State back into the Union. In so doing they just killed any remedy they might have had against future abuses of power by the federal government...and the slavery issue, although muted and not a part of this particular crisis, was on the radar screen of the nation at the time. And I just can't see them being that foolish, no matter how popular Andrew Jackson might be at that time. Tennessee? Maybe. That's Jackson's home State. But the rest? That's much less certain.

...Especially given the fact that South Carolina succeeding in its nullification efforts would give the at-the-time insignificant abolition movement a major boost; after all, every northern state could then claim that laws regarding slavery no longer apply and that any slave brought into Northern territory is therefore freed.

Well, South Carolina seceding is a case where Nullification failed, not where it succeeded. Nullification is a doctrine that one applies when it is within the Union. If your attempt to nullify a piece of offensive federal legislation fails, THEN you protect your rights by leaving the Union.

So it's difficult to see how Northern States could see this as a justification for nullifying the Fugitive Slave Acts. Nullfication would have been discredited in any case.

 

[robertp6165]

I'd think that North Carolina as well as Tennessee would stay. Didn't they offer to allow Jackson to station a garrison there if SC did seceede?
~Salamon2

I'd like to see a source for that. The tariffs article on the North Carolina History Project website doesn't mention it at all, and indeed indicates that opinion in the State was divided.

And, allowing Jackson to station a garrison there is a far cry from allowing him to use the State as a base of operations against South Carolina. Stationing a garrison there might be simply a request for troops for protection of North Carolina against any potential aggression from an independent South Carolina.

 

[The Sandman]

If they take an active part in a war to force South Carolina back into the Union after it has seceded, they would have basically conceded that the right of secession doesn't exist and that the federal government may legally use force to coerce a State back into the Union. In so doing they just killed any remedy they might have had against future abuses of power by the federal government...and the slavery issue, although muted and not a part of this particular crisis, was on the radar screen of the nation at the time. And I just can't see them being that foolish, no matter how popular Andrew Jackson might be at that time. Tennessee? Maybe. That's Jackson's home State. But the rest? That's much less certain.

It's the reasoning for why South Carolina tried it that would be important. South Carolina would be attempting to secede after, more or less, a decision on a single bill that wasn't actually going to utterly shatter the existing economic structure went against them. That so lowers the acceptable boundaries as to when you could theoretically work for nullification or secession that it renders the entire concept ludicrous; the other southern states would turn on them so as to keep these sort of extreme measures available for situations that might actually require them.

Well, South Carolina seceding is a case where Nullification failed, not where it succeeded. Nullification is a doctrine that one applies when it is within the Union. If your attempt to nullify a piece of offensive federal legislation fails, THEN you protect your rights by leaving the Union.

So it's difficult to see how Northern States could see this as a justification for nullifying the Fugitive Slave Acts. Nullification would have been discredited in any case.

The idea that the North could use this as an excuse, were South Carolina's nullification or secession attempts to be accepted, would be a major incentive for the rest of the South to distance themselves from Charleston.