|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 30, 2024 1:40:13 GMT
What if Andrew Jackson over-celebrates his second inauguration in 1833 outdoors, catches pneumonia, and dies a couple weeks later, leaving VP Martin Van Buren to inherit the as yet unresolved tariff and nullification controversy?
How tough is Van Buren on Calhoun's obstinacy, given bitter relations between the two men? On the other hand, he lacks the war hero record of Jackson and implicit cultural trust of other southerners.
How do things resolve if Van Buren is either a relative pushover, or if he pushes back hard, but with South being more defiant?
OK, I just realized the timing is a little off for this, since Jackson finished off the crisis with the iron fist of the force bill and the velvet glove of the compromise tariff of 1833 on March 1st, 1833, which was three days *before* his 2nd inauguration on March 4th, 1833. Importantly, March 4th was Van Buren's first and only inauguration as Vice-President. None other than John C. Calhoun had been Vice-President until December 31st, 1832 (though Van Buren had been VP-elect for a few weeks), and the position was unfilled between Jan 1 and Mar 4.
So maybe we have to make Andrew Jackson ill starting in February 1833, to significantly slow down his participation in legislative negotiations that accomplish the Compromise tariff, and possibly the force bill as well, but he rouses himself enough to make it through the inauguration, and then dies days to a week or two later, leaving Van Buren with an unresolved crisis.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 30, 2024 13:13:46 GMT
What if Andrew Jackson over-celebrates his second inauguration in 1833 outdoors, catches pneumonia, and dies a couple weeks later, leaving VP Martin Van Buren to inherit the as yet unresolved tariff and nullification controversy? How tough is Van Buren on Calhoun's obstinacy, given bitter relations between the two men? On the other hand, he lacks the war hero record of Jackson and implicit cultural trust of other southerners. How do things resolve if Van Buren is either a relative pushover, or if he pushes back hard, but with South being more defiant? OK, I just realized the timing is a little off for this, since Jackson finished off the crisis with the iron fist of the force bill and the velvet glove of the compromise tariff of 1833 on March 1st, 1833, which was three days *before* his 2nd inauguration on March 4th, 1833. Importantly, March 4th was Van Buren's first and only inauguration as Vice-President. None other than John C. Calhoun had been Vice-President until December 31st, 1832 (though Van Buren had been VP-elect for a few weeks), and the position was unfilled between Jan 1 and Mar 4. So maybe we have to make Andrew Jackson ill starting in February 1833, to significantly slow down his participation in legislative negotiations that accomplish the Compromise tariff, and possibly the force bill as well, but he rouses himself enough to make it through the inauguration, and then dies days to a week or two later, leaving Van Buren with an unresolved crisis.
Gut feeling, given I don't know enough about the characters involved but assuming that Jackson dies without the compromise tariff being more than vague ideas - possibly largely limited to members of the government and that the venom between van Buren and Calhoun is that bad that neither are willing to compromise. Van Buren uses the forces and powers of the force bill to suppress S Carolina but with it actually coming to bloodshed and without Jackson's southern influence it probably leaves a bad taste in the mouth for many in the south and smaller numbers in other areas. It would appear to decide the relative power between the President and the States but could cause a back-lash in following years.
One other issue which might have been important in the aftermath is would van Buren have been as brutal in the forced deportation of the southern Indian nations from east of the Mississippi to what later became Oklahoma? It had already started with most of the Choctaw forced out and the Seminoles in open revolt at attempts to forcibly remove them but I don't know if van Burden was as deeply hostile to the Indians as Jackson. If he does then things might go as OTL. If not then that could further upset the southern states with regards to both him and possibly Washington as a whole.
|
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Aug 30, 2024 17:03:44 GMT
So, you are pretty confident Van Buren would push for a force bill and get one, not get a compromise tariff, South Carolina would resist tariff collection and federal enforcement, but would be alone in legal and forceful nullification. Then Van Buren would have the guts to use military force to suppress South Carolina resistance and likely secession, and political support to do this, and not hesitate or back down.
Seeing him coming, the South Carolinians would still stand and fight and not back down, though outnumbered both because they hate Van Buren even more than Jackson as a Yank, and underestimate his will and ability to lead a fight as a Yank and non-veteran. The Federal forces and South Carolina militia comes to blows? Federal forces crush the South Carolina forces based on superior numbers in a reasonable amount of time, and none of the other southern states rise to fight in South Carolina’s defense.
Ringleaders of the nullification/secession movement are punished in some manner, and the federal government “supervises” occupied South Carolina working with locals willing to be federal loyal who opposed the nullification all along, before full state rights are restored. The war is not lengthy or radicalizing enough to cause anything more than isolated, incidental emancipation of some individual rebel leader’s slaves as part of “fines”. So there is no broad resolution of the slavery issue, and there is leftover resentment of the fed gov in SC and possibly neighboring states where some SC people move or have relatives.
But is the idea of later secessions over slavery or any other issue crushed and deterred for all time, or just dormant for the moment, with a chance of regrowing in possibly bitter, resentful, fertile southern soil? With a later round of secession being possibly bigger than the first?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 24,832
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Aug 30, 2024 17:58:32 GMT
So, you are pretty confident Van Buren would push for a force bill and get one, not get a compromise tariff, South Carolina would resist tariff collection and federal enforcement, but would be alone in legal and forceful nullification. Then Van Buren would have the guts to use military force to suppress South Carolina resistance and likely secession, and political support to do this, and not hesitate or back down. Seeing him coming, the South Carolinians would still stand and fight and not back down, though outnumbered both because they hate Van Buren even more than Jackson as a Yank, and underestimate his will and ability to lead a fight as a Yank and non-veteran. The Federal forces and South Carolina militia comes to blows? Federal forces crush the South Carolina forces based on superior numbers in a reasonable amount of time, and none of the other southern states rise to fight in South Carolina’s defense. Ringleaders of the nullification/secession movement are punished in some manner, and the federal government “supervises” occupied South Carolina working with locals willing to be federal loyal who opposed the nullification all along, before full state rights are restored. The war is not lengthy or radicalizing enough to cause anything more than isolated, incidental emancipation of some individual rebel leader’s slaves as part of “fines”. So there is no broad resolution of the slavery issue, and there is leftover resentment of the fed gov in SC and possibly neighboring states where some SC people move or have relatives. But is the idea of later secessions over slavery or any other issue crushed and deterred for all time, or just dormant for the moment, with a chance of regrowing in possibly bitter, resentful, fertile southern soil? With a later round of secession being possibly bigger than the first?
I wouldn't say pretty confident as I'm speculating [i.e. guessing] from relatively little info. If as stated Jackson because of his illness only gets the force bill through and the compromise tariff isn't past in his time then given van Buren would possibly have less power in getting something through and or if as you say he and Calhoun are on pretty unfriendly terms then I could see either/both of them unwilling to compromise which likely leads to either a military clash. At least unless Calhoun is removed by other figures in S Carolina as they decided getting the state occupied because of what they consider a personal feud between the two men.
If so it might settle the issue of secession without a larger war but then you could also see some backlash, not just in the south about the idea that the President can override the views of the states. Possibly more so if unlikely OTL there's no compromise tariff attempted. The tariff was an issue for multiple states resenting the way the rapidly industrializing NE was dominating the economic decisions in a way that was against the interests [at least in the short term] of most states. This could possibly come back to bite van Buren or some later President badly. Alternatively, assuming there's a Lincoln like figure elected and the bulk of the slave states feel their interests are gravely threatened they could decide that secession isn't an option, at least not without a lot of planning in advance perhaps. In which case they might try another option but not sure what.
Of course there could be some compromise and/or Calhoun is forced to back down as OTL in which case there's less potential butterflies.
|
|
