Earlier Civil War

[BlueandGrayl]

During the late 1820s and early 1830s, there was a bit of sectional tension between the Northern and Southern states over tariffs under the presidency of John Quincy Adams the infamous "Tariff of Abominations" signed by JQA but enacted by Andrew Jackson was designed to protect industry in the North as well as agriculture in the West from foreign imports and it caused the South to buy and import goods from the North or European countries such as Britain unsurprisingly this was met with disapproval from much of the South and it passed only by a narrow margin of 105 "yes" votes (most coming from the Mid-Atlantic and Western States as well as 16 from the New England states) against 94 "no" votes (many from Southern states but also 23 from New England) as shown by John C. Calhoun (Vice President of the United States) would basically lead the Nullification movement in his home state of South Carolina arguing that states had a right to nullify an unconstitutional law as well being the author of South Carolina Exposition and Protest as shown by these maps:
url
url
url
Politically, the Tariff of Abominations hurt John Quincy Adams as he was made a scapegoat by Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats the same guys who also were instrumental in labeling Adams and Clay making a "Corrupt Bargain" in the 1824 election (which saw Jackson win the electoral vote but still end up going to Adams thanks to a vote by the House of Representatives) now having a Congress and House of Representatives already hostile and Jacksonian after the 1826 legislative elections JQA would lose to Andrew Jackson in the 1828 election, by the time Jackson came into office he would be later thruster into what would become known as the Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 in which Jackson and the Unionists faced off against Calhoun and the Nullists over the right of a state to nullify a law and tariffs with Jackson going even as far as to threaten South Carolina by force and an Ordinance of Nullifcation being adopted at the Nullfivation Convention as well as Robert Hayne establishing a military force that would be at Chalreston if a military conflict broke out Calhoun also discussed about one particular issue in mind "I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can be no longer disguised, that the eventually the peculiar domestic institution of the Southern states and the consequent direction that which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regards to taxation and appropriations in opposition relation to the majority of the Union". Eventually though a deal was reached and the Compromise Tarif of 1833 and the Force Bill would be passed promising that tariffs would be lowered even the other Southern states weren't too happy with SC's behavior Alabama denounced it as "unsound in theory and dangerous in practice", Mississippi "reckless precepitancy", and Georgia "mischievous" and "rash and revolutionary", I can see why having a fellow Tennessee Southerner facing off against a South Carolina Southerner just wasn't much of a sectional crisis to the rest of the South. I'd say that if you want to have an earlier Civil War break out between the late 1820s and early 1830s have John Quincy Adams be reelected as president in 1828 how to do this well have Andrew Jackson support him and John C. Calhoun not run for the presidency in 1824 this was actually reflected in a letter by Jackson to James Gadsden from December 6, 1821 here he stated "You know my private opinion of Mr. Adams: Talents, virtues, and integrity, and I am free to declare that I have never changed this opinion of Mr. Adams since it was first formed, I think of him a man of the first rate mind of any in America as a civilian and scholar, and I have never doubted of the attachment to our republican Government... [I am] at liberty to say in my name both to my friends and enemies - that I will as far as my influence extends support Mr. Adams unless Mr. Calhoun should be brought forward." Adams also defended Jackson in many cabinet meetings (see "Andrew Jackson: The Course of American Empire"). Two-party system butterflies aside, John Quincy Adams was of course a supporter of a centralized government as well as building national infrastructure and improvements as well as industry and strongly opposed slavery also given his New Englander Yankee background if the Tariff of Abominations or an ATL equivalent had been enacted by JQA (keep in mind JQA had Henry Clay a strong supporter of tariffs) it would cause very heated tensions between North and South as well as give Calhoun more credibility o the other Southern states regarding the whole tariff issue perhaps leading to an earlier Civil War breaking by the time JQA finishes his second term. A big difference here is well the capacities of the North and South in an 1830s Civil War, industry in America wasn't as developed as it would be in the 1860s and it had fewer states (about 24 in total) nor had there been an established nationalized financial system and the nation's population was lower (about only 12.8 million) and at least two of the largest cities in 1830 were Southern: New Orleans (46,082) and Charleston (30,289) respectively plus Virginia's population was around 1 million while the populations of North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, and Georgia were in the top ten most populous states at the time, the large-scale Irish and German immigration wasn't prevalent, Britain didn' have the colonies of Egypt and India where they could find cotton elsewhere and they still were importing a lot of cotton from the South, the generals were also different Robert E. Lee was only just a 26 year old army engineer, Joseph E. Johnston was about 25 years old but a general army officer, Gideon J. Pillow was 27 years, Grant, Sherman, McClellan, Beuaregard, Jackson, Mosby, Forrest, Stuart, Longstreet, Bragg, Halleck, Hampton III, Kirby Smith, Burnside, Rosecrans, and Sheridan were either newborns or were just young so in regards to prominent commanders for this 1830s Civil War we would have Winfield Scott (Confederate, given his Virginian background), William Jenkins Worth (Union), David E. Twiggs (Confederate), Zachary Taylor (Confederate), Walter Keith Armistead (Confederate), Samuel P. Heintzelmann (Union), Duncan Lamont Clinch (Confederate), Robert F. Stockton (Union), Stephen W. Kearny (Union), Edmund P. Gaines (Confederate), Henry Dodge (Union), Edward Baker (Union), Wade Hampton II (Confederate), Alexander Macomb (Union), Franklin Pierce (Union), John E. Wool (Union), David Faragut (Union or Confederate since he hasn't lived long enough to be firmly Union), Jefferson Davis (Confederate, he's old enough to be included he was a military man), Samuel Curtis (Union), Morgan Lewis (Union), John A. Quitman (Confederate), Thomas Sidney Jesup (Union, he was from the West Virginia county of Berkeley), William S. Harney (Confederate), George Mercer Brooke (Confederate), Richard K. Call (Confederate), Richard Gentry (Union), James Gadsden (Confederate), Pierce Mason Butler (Confederate), Adley Hogan Gladden (Confederate), John B. Magruder (Confederate), Francis L. Dade (Confederate), Archibald H. Gillespie (Union) etc. all of whom either served in the Mexican American War, the Second Seminole War, or the War of 1812

For this hypothetical secession of the Southern states for all intents and purposes we're going to call it the Confederate States of America (like OTL) with its capital based in either Charleston, South Carolina or New Orleans, Louisiana though it might move to Richmond since it is growing into a industrial center in the following decades and the states a part of it will be Virginia (minus its western part as it voted in favor of the tariff), North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, the Florida Territory, the Arkansas Territory, and Tennessee possibly even Missouri based on the three voting maps that I compiled on the vote on the 1828 tariff by the Northern and Southern states, the president would be of course John C. Calhoun and the vice president Robert Barnwell Rhett. Kentucky probably either stays in the Union (since Henry Clay is alive) and Missouri could go either way. In regards to a post-war Confederacy well considering how it rebelled against unfair financial policies coupled with a New Englander Yankee president since the Confederate Constitution here doesn't include that "not foster any branch of industry" clause and that the capital isn't too tied up in certain assets it gives the Confederates much more to develop industry but will probably occur much later in say the late parts of the 19th century and since they are linked to Britain and France economically I can imagine them wanting to invite investors and business to their country.

 

[steve59p]

B&G

Interesting scenario and definitely an interesting possibility. A few questions please?
a) Didn't realise the tariff protect farming interests as well. I was thinking it was only for industrial goods and there was a good degree of opposition in the west. Also was there much capacity for food imports from Europe given the more limited shipping capacity and the large amount of agricultural land in the US. - Ah read your 1st link and by argiculture it seems to mean largely producing woolen goods. [Whether raw wool or their manufacture into clothing I'm not sure].

b) What you say above says that "caused the South to buy and import goods from the North or European countries such as Britain". Presuming this is a typo as I think the purpose, as well as providing money to the federal government, was to restrict competition from Europe so the infant US industries could get off the ground?

c) Would the simplest solution possibly be Jackson dying, possibly in a dual or some other incident, or possibly getting himself seriously discredited? Although as you suggest if there's no 'corrupt bargain' that could be an option.

d) Would it be possible to break up that 2nd paragraph. Its so large currently it makes it somewhat harder to read.

e) Very true that in a war in the early 1830's the US is markedly less developed and lower in population. Suspect this would help the south more as not only does the north not have the same industrial edge but also transport and communication will be poorer which overall should help the south, presuming the north is doing most of the attacking. Also I suspect that the USN will be less capable of blockading the entire coastline.

e) Not sure what the attitude of Europe would be. Britain has/is just ending slavery in its own colonies and hasn't yet moved towards free trade so on slavery it will be opposed but the hope of being able to trade more freely with the south could make it swing the other way. France has recently changed to the Orleanist regime and is probably more occupied with events in Europe and industry is less developed so I suspect most of Europe won't be greatly involved.

f) Would Virginia still see its NW regions seek to split off from the state if it joined the anti-tariff group? This is a generation earlier and the formal issue is tariffs so would there be the same driver?

g) Unless this is ended pretty quickly its likely to distract the US from events in Texas so there is likely to be less support for the rebels there. They may still win given how incompetent Santa Anna was but that could have some impacts.

Anyway very interesting possible TL. Are you planning on developing it or just raising it as a a subject for discussion?

Steve

 

[BlueandGrayl]

B&G

Interesting scenario and definitely an interesting possibility. A few questions please?
a) Didn't realise the tariff protect farming interests as well. I was thinking it was only for industrial goods and there was a good degree of opposition in the west. Also was there much capacity for food imports from Europe given the more limited shipping capacity and the large amount of agricultural land in the US. - Ah read your 1st link and by argiculture it seems to mean largely producing woolen goods. [Whether raw wool or their manufacture into clothing I'm not sure].

b) What you say above says that "caused the South to buy and import goods from the North or European countries such as Britain". Presuming this is a typo as I think the purpose, as well as providing money to the federal government, was to restrict competition from Europe so the infant US industries could get off the ground?

c) Would the simplest solution possibly be Jackson dying, possibly in a dual or some other incident, or possibly getting himself seriously discredited? Although as you suggest if there's no 'corrupt bargain' that could be an option.

d) Would it be possible to break up that 2nd paragraph. Its so large currently it makes it somewhat harder to read.

e) Very true that in a war in the early 1830's the US is markedly less developed and lower in population. Suspect this would help the south more as not only does the north not have the same industrial edge but also transport and communication will be poorer which overall should help the south, presuming the north is doing most of the attacking. Also I suspect that the USN will be less capable of blockading the entire coastline.

e) Not sure what the attitude of Europe would be. Britain has/is just ending slavery in its own colonies and hasn't yet moved towards free trade so on slavery it will be opposed but the hope of being able to trade more freely with the south could make it swing the other way. France has recently changed to the Orleanist regime and is probably more occupied with events in Europe and industry is less developed so I suspect most of Europe won't be greatly involved.

f) Would Virginia still see its NW regions seek to split off from the state if it joined the anti-tariff group? This is a generation earlier and the formal issue is tariffs so would there be the same driver?

g) Unless this is ended pretty quickly its likely to distract the US from events in Texas so there is likely to be less support for the rebels there. They may still win given how incompetent Santa Anna was but that could have some impacts.

Anyway very interesting possible TL. Are you planning on developing it or just raising it as a a subject for discussion?

Steve

Thanks for your response, I toyed around this idea along with another TL I wrote about on paper (which I did some research by reading books and articles) about a no Lincoln, no Grant, no Davis world Civil War with John C. Fremont and Preston Brooks taking charge resulting in different battles, leaders, and an entirely different Western Theater (remember since Grant doesn't live long enough there isn't a Fort Henry/Donelson) well as Fremont incompetently handling the Union war effort (keep mind he was very politically inexperienced and in OTL's 1856 presidential campaign his campaign backers received little help from him there's a reason why his wife had to be involved) such as alienating Kentucky and Missouri from the Union and driving them to join the Confederacy due to him placing martial law upon those states and emancipation of the slaves of those places as well as confiscating them and arresting and executing anyone suspected of supporting the Confederates like OTL's Kentuckians and Missourians reaction to Fremont Emancipation which worried Lincoln and his Unionists (Fremont of course was a Radical Republican and especially with him in charge as well as aforementioned affiliation with the Radicals this is going to cause both concern and worry in both states about their policies unlike Lincoln who was a pragmatist and willing to make some compromises with the border states on their institutions by exempting them from the Emancipation Proclaimation and reversing the Fremont Emancipation being from Kentucky as he wanted to please the border states and War Democrats) the POD being that Lincoln and Grant both die the former in a duel with James Shields and the latter by drowning in White Oak Creek (both of which did actually occur but both avoided death).


For one of your questions about Jackson well as I explained its John C. Calhoun simply not choosing to run for president thus Andrew Jackson continues to support John Quincy Adams like what Jackson stated prior it also brings butterflies as the Democrats and Whigs aren't formed but instead two different parties/analogs could emerge. As in regards to Northwest/West Virginia well unlike the rest of the state NW/W. Virginia was a largely mountainous place inhabited by small farmers and so bordered the states of Pensylvania and Ohio sharing little in common with their planter counterparts in the Eastern part the state so they might be a little reluctant to join plus the links to the maps on the vote West Virginia seemed to vote in favor of the tariff. Britain already will have ended slavery but like you mentioned the hope of free trade might influence Britain. Well in regards to Texas, culturally shares a lot in common with the South and once they successfully revolt due to Santa Anna's incompetence as you noted well there's going to be some competition between the Nationalist and the Annexation factions though when there is independent Confederacy keep in mind since Manifest Destiny was so strong at the time the Confederate government perhaps ask Texas to join if the Annexationists led by Sam Houston win. Anyway I agree this is a very interesting idea for a Early Civil War POD.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Interesting thread sir...

Looking at your first posted url in the OP, my first impression of the map was 'Maritime vs. Landbased'. Then I read the caption and saw - "Passage of the "Tariff of Abominations," 1828 Note that the North-South split on the 1828 tariff paralleled the division between free and slave states; an exception was Kentucky, a slave state that endorsed the high tariff of 1828."

Funny how we interpret things...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[BlueandGrayl]

Interesting thread sir...

Looking at your first posted url in the OP, my first impression of the map was 'Maritime vs. Landbased'. Then I read the caption and saw - "Passage of the "Tariff of Abominations," 1828 Note that the North-South split on the 1828 tariff paralleled the division between free and slave states; an exception was Kentucky, a slave state that endorsed the high tariff of 1828."

Funny how we interpret things...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

Well, I along with another CWAH timeline (that is about a no Lincoln, no Grant, no Davis world) is meant to subvert not only common Civil War cliches/tropes but also have a Civil War between North and South with different leaders, different generals, and entirely different theaters. I always thought that having a 1830s Civil War would make the odds even next to well the no Lincoln, no Davis, no Grant TL (w/Fremont and his incompetent handling of the Union war effort given his political inexperience) I've mentioned earlier and wrote down on paper I still doing a bit of research though.

I think in regards to the title of this timeline I've thought about naming it "The Nullist and the Unionist" as a nod to the South Carolina Nullists and Unionists another name I've also considered is "Now and Forever One" which is based off an excerpt from "Second Reply to Hayne" by Daniel Webster (who I probably am going to include as happened to try to run for President on multiple occasions but failed). And if this does evolve into a full-blown TL then I appreciate the help of fellow CWTers on this timeline for research and if there is anything implausible there in there don't be unhelpful and say "good luck" or stand there do nothing (I saw this with an Alternate History Discussion newbie writing "The Days of Dixie", a Confederate victory timeline) actually provide some info that fits into this story

 

[BlueandGrayl]

Typically Civil War Alternate History novels usually have the following:
* Lincoln and Davis are leaders
* Grant and Lee are involved
* Some big battle in OTL is the POD of a Confederate victory


Personally when writing the no Lincoln, no Grant, no Davis and "Now and Forever One" timelines I always seek to do the Civil War under different leaders, battles, and theaters.

 

[BlueandGrayl]

Interesting thread sir...

Looking at your first posted url in the OP, my first impression of the map was 'Maritime vs. Landbased'. Then I read the caption and saw - "Passage of the "Tariff of Abominations," 1828 Note that the North-South split on the 1828 tariff paralleled the division between free and slave states; an exception was Kentucky, a slave state that endorsed the high tariff of 1828."

Funny how we interpret things...

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

You know considering we've talking on the"Could the South have won the war? If so how?" thread I really my idea of a 1830s Civil War or a no Lincoln, no Davis, no Grant timeline perhaps could balance the odds a bit.

 

[Saphroneth]

There was one idea I toyed with a short while ago which was a war coming off the back of a Pig War between the US and Britain. Basically Pig War breaks out, US invasion of Canada gets rebuffed, British blockade the US, US economy under heavy strain and unable to properly support a large modern army (no rifle imports), 1860 election is fought on a four-cornered question of south v north and in war v out, pro-war northern candidate wins, South secedes almost immediately because of harsh economic damage inflicted on the South by the blockade because the North wants more free soil.

On the one hand the US already has a formed army, but on the other hand it's up trying to invade Canada and has taken heavy losses trying. If the British do lift the blockade on the South and allow arms shipments through then the Southern militia may well end up better armed than the US Army...

 

[BlueandGrayl]

There was one idea I toyed with a short while ago which was a war coming off the back of a Pig War between the US and Britain. Basically Pig War breaks out, US invasion of Canada gets rebuffed, British blockade the US, US economy under heavy strain and unable to properly support a large modern army (no rifle imports), 1860 election is fought on a four-cornered question of south v north and in war v out, pro-war northern candidate wins, South secedes almost immediately because of harsh economic damage inflicted on the South by the blockade because the North wants more free soil.

On the one hand the US already has a formed army, but on the other hand it's up trying to invade Canada and has taken heavy losses trying. If the British do lift the blockade on the South and allow arms shipments through then the Southern militia may well end up better armed than the US Army...

There's also The Grey by herricks (a fellow Texan) its a timeline where the Civil War starts earlier in the 1840s with the Northern regions of New England and the Mid-Atlantic gaining power much sooner post-War of 1812 due to a successful Hartford Convention as a result of the British winning at New Orleans though territorial expansion occurs when Napoleon comes back to fight the British and by revoking the Three-Fifths Compromise thus weakening the South in the U.S. leading it to become independent as the Confederate States of America it also involves Britain (w/Canada) going to war America due to a territorial dispute thus the British and the Confederates win with the ramifications explored in Europe and North America. It's still an ongoing timeline and I don't want to spoil anymore details I highly recommend you check out this timeline at Alternate History Discussion and see for yourself what its like.

I also have flirted with the idea of a Civil War starting in the 1830s like I listed up here and have even asked for some advice by other CWTers on this TL it is called "Now and Forever One" (taken from a phrase used by Daniel Webster) the POD as mentioned before is John C. Calhoun of South Carolina deciding not to run for President instead deciding to focus on his duties as the Head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (which he was in OTL) so Andrew Jackson of Tennessee doesn't make the "corrupt bargain" accusation towards John Quincy Adams of Massachusetts since he continues to support him never running for president in the process thus the 1824 election is a three-way election instead being the first sectional one (OTL's 1824 election did split the country into supporting a different candidate): JQA winning the Northeast/Yankee states (New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois) plus a few votes from states that went to other candidates (Maryland and Louisiana) giving him a total of 133 votes while William H. Crawford of Georgia wins the Southern states (including those won by Jackson in OTL: Virginia, Georiga, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, and Delaware) with a total of 99 votes and Henry Clay the Western states of Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri with a total of 37 votes as OTL I've used the electoral votes map to determine the vote also considering how some of the states won by the candidates were excluded in the popular vote which include Delaware, Georgia, New York, South Carolina, and Vermont it means that there could that this ATL 1824 election still end ups with no candidate having won enough of the (popular) vote to win a majority and the House of Representatives to vote on a candidate probably JQA and for Henry Clay he was already a supporter of his policies (high tariffs, national construction of highways, railroads and canals part of the "American System", staunch American nationalism and belief in "Manifest Destiny") so logically he chooses JQA (From a John Quincy Adams biography book: "Clay had good reasons for supporting John Quincy. Not only had they worked together well at Ghent [Belgium], but Clay had an intimate knowledge of John Quincy's thinking. Both were fervent nationalists with a deep belief in 'manifest destiny' and the necessity of building a federally financed network of highways and canals. John Quincy also favored Clay's 'American System', and Clay had also supported John Quincy's foreign policy of American neutrality and noninvolvement in foreign affairs") there's also the New England textile manufacturers you see they wanted to have higher protective tariffs due to the War of 1812 cutting off trade with Britain the New England manufacturers had a monopoly and when 1828 arrived they wanted higher tariffs (John Quincy Adams biography book: "As the 1828 election approached, New England textile manufacturers set up a drumbeat of demand for protection for higher protective tariffs. The War of 1812 had cut off cloth imports from England and given New England manufacturers a monopoly".) however in regards to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations well "Henry Clay's ardor in support of protective tariffs was well known, but there was considerable uncertainty regarding Adams's views. His New England constituency was divided between long-standing concern for promotion of foreign commerce and newly developing interest in protection of domestic industry. A further complication was the fact that administration supporters had lost control of Congress in the election of 1826. Senator Martin Van Buren had supported William H. Crawford for the presidency in 1824, opposed Adams's election, and remained hostile to the administration throughout Adams's tenure. Recognizing the divisions that marked the Adams administration's position on the tariff, Van Buren led a campaign designed to set high tariffs to protect mid-Atlantic and western agricultural interests—levies on raw wool, flax, molasses, hemp, and distilled spirits. In the end, Congress forced Adams to accept a stricter tariff than he would have preferred by refusing to consider more moderate proposals. Adams had to choose between a stringently protective tariff or no tariff at all, and Adams accepted the former." (from http://millercenter.org/president/jqadams/essays/biography/4) plus there was this reaction by a Southern socialite named Sarah Seaton (the sister of a prominent publisher of the National Intellegincer on Adams' inaguration "The city is thronged with strangers, and Yankees swarm like the locusts of Egypt in our houses, our beds, and our kneading throughs" and as Adams position on protective tariffs appear to be uncertain and the New England textile manufacturers are divided between promoting foreign commerce and protecting domestic industry though since Clay already was firm on tariffs and the New England manufacturers did at least high protective tariffs JQA might have accepted an ATL version of the 1828 tariff from them also because Jackson isn't there to accuse JQA and Clay of making a "corrupt bargain" the former doesn't lose control of Congress resulting in being New England-controlled which wouldn't please the South so much coupled with JQA's hostility to one of their precious institutions and Nat Turner's revolt in 1831 is likely going to cause very heated tension between North and South over a number of lingering issues like financial policies and a certain institution in the territories culminating in an ATL version of the Nullification Crisis damaging JQA's reputation in the process and when another president like Daniel Webster is elected well a Civil War breaks out in 1833 between the Southern states (Virginia minus its western part, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee, the Arkansas and Florida territories) and the Northern states (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and the Michigan, Wisconsin, Maryland, Kentucky and other non-state western territories not as settled as in 1861) Missouri is a toss up despite voting for Clay they also voted against the tariff as shown in the three maps.