And I will enforce it: An American Timeline (idea)

[Jackson Lennock]

The early 1830s was a tumultuous period with a lot of sectional matters coming to a boil:

• Tariffs, which had a north-south split
• Slavery, which did not yet have a clear north-south split as the antislavery movement was concentrated in the Upper South at this time. Nat Turner's Rebellion and the failure of manumission proved a watershed moment.
• Incorporation of the Bill of Rights. Barron v. Baltimore was only in 1833, and it was an open question of those provisions of the Bill of Rights which did not explicitly mention the Congress (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9) applied to States. Prior to his moment, at least one Justice on the Court (Johnson) and two State Supreme Courts (New York and Pennsylvania) had suggested states had to follow certain Bill of Rights Provisions (The Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment provision on Double Jeopardy, and possibly the Seventh)
• Indian Removal - an issue of significant importance in Georgia and the old Southwest; which the North wasn't very keen on since it wasn't their problem anymore (not that they'd been much kinder a century prior)

Nullification emerged as an issue with respect to tariffs and Indian Removal (Georgia under John Quincy Adams opting to ignore a Federal Treaty with the Creek...). There's strong argument that Jackson backed Indian Removal (despite his intense ire at the quasi-nullificationism of Georgia) to divide the Deep South and isolate South Carolina. Meanwhile he accepted Van Buren's counsel on a half-measure over the tariff in order to further conciliation. On the one hand, it was perhaps shrewd statesmanship. On the other hand, it largely amounted to giving troublemakers what they wanted and provided significant ideas on what you could get away with down the line. Jackson ended the Nullification Crisis by predicting on May 1, 1833, that "the tariff was only a pretext, and disunion and Southern confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro, or slavery question." In that respect, Jackson was right.


I could see a few dominoes happening which trigger a very different United States.

First, Jackson had two major counsel throughout the Nullification Crisis: the conciliatory Martin Van Buren and the Hardline former Federalist Daniel Webster. If Van Buren had been successfully sent off to be Minister to the United Kingdom in 1831 (Calhoun was the tiebreaker ... while he was Jackson's VP ... what a piece of work), then it's the hardline Webster that Jackson is listening to. Jackson doesn't back down on the Tariff, and South Carolina tries to secede.

Second, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 fails in the House. Historically it passed 101 to 97. Georgia would be very bothered by this.

Third, John Marshall actually seeks federal enforcement of Worcester v. Georgia. I'll emphasize - the only thing at issue in Worcester was whether Worcester should be freed, and Georgia did this historically without the Court asking for Federal enforcement. Here, they ask for enforcement and Jackson abides. "I will enforce it." Georgia announces it will be in league with South Carolina on the resistance to northern and western forces (Jackson being more a western frontiersman than a Southerner).

Fourth, as Jackson brings down the hammer on Georgia and South Carolina, Virginia (at least, as the Virginians disliked nullification but also thought Jackson was crossing the line) joins suit. This perhaps is followed by Alabama and Mississippi, but those states seems less anti-Jackson OTL than Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina and were more firmly 'western' states on the frontier than they were southern states at this point.

Fifth, there's the Nat Turner Rebellion. The vote to manumit slaves in Virginia in 1831-1832 failed by a vote, and here it passes by a vote.

My guess is that the Creek and Cherokee side with Jackson and the Union against Georgia if Georgia tries to secede. Jackson, whatever his biases and bigotries, ultimately cared first and foremost about whether you were with him or against him. He had no qualms with Creek Soldiers at the Battle of New Orleans, for example. The punishment imposed on Georgia could be the Cherokee getting their status protected and the Creek (who had been forced over into Alabama in 1827) getting their lands back in Georgia. In doing so, Jackson is making more room available for his supporters in Alabama too.

South Carolina and Virginia had strong internal cleavages during the period, and Jackson could simply take the approach of coalescing with the pro-union side in both states. Georgia seems unique in that its political process across parties was united on challenging Federal Authority.

Sixth, Justice Baldwin (who Jackson put on) retires in 1831 (which he considered doing OTL) and is replaced by a more Nationalist figure who'd be in the Marshall-Story-Johnson camp on the Court (Johnson being the Justice who suggested the Second and Fourth Amendments applied to the States). It could be John Quincy Adams, as a means of Jackson getting rid of him, Webster (to reward his loyalty but get him out of the way on the issue of the Bank), Van Buren (if he isn't sent to the United Kingdom ... and I assume judicial duties would lead to him not having as open a discussion with Jackson), or Roger Taney (made AG in 1831, considered a more moderate figure in his early years than later on), or somebody else. The Supreme Court rules in favor of Barron in Barron v. Baltimore, and the Due Process of Law and Takings Clauses apply against the states, kicking off a process of Incorporation.

Webster's OTL aim to try and meld the Jackson-Webster alliance into a 'Constitution and Union Party' could perhaps succeed here.

If Virginia does emancipation, it will make it very difficult in Maryland and Delaware to maintain. It could be an example for North Carolina and Kentucky and Tennessee as well, and foster a general politics of anti-planterism in the South (with a lot of antislavery politics in the south historically being tied to opposition to primogeniture - ergo, opposition to consolidated control of land and opportunity by the planter elite). The South divided, the Court nudging in the direction of not opposing Slavery where it is but not letting it expand further, and there being more political opposition to it without knee-jerk antinortherism buttressing the planters' political base, and you could get a rotting away of slavery over time.

Plus, efforts at industrialization which the Planters blocked OTL (like the 1850s proposal to do industry in Birmingham) might succeed. Influx of immigration would weaken slavery.

 

[Jackson Lennock]

Continuing...

There was anti-nullification militia in South Carolina ready for Jackson's command in South Carolina, so I think South Carolina could be dealt with swiftly, and the Unionist forces could be put in charge in a straightforward way. My guess is that a case like Luther v. Borden (which involved a Civil War in Rhode Island and the question of which government was legitimate) would pop up in this little Civil War, since Virginia and South Carolina would probably have the same issue.

Georgia was much more united, so I think Jackson might have to rely upon the force nearby which would be most inclined towards siding with the Federals: The Creek and the Cherokee. Imagine if Georgia is used as the plot of land for the Creek and Cherokee (and later Choctaw and Chickasaw) to be put in. Jackson would be securing the loyalty of Alabama and Mississippi, solving the Indian issue, and punishing a state that repeatedly attempted to undermine the Union.




Red striped = Unionist regions in the south (West Virginia, the western portions of Georgia traditionally held by Creek and Cherokee, and Poinsett's Militia located around Charleston). I marked off the region that I think would be assigned to the Creek and Cherokee (based on older land claims) in red stripes.

North Carolina I marked in Orange. They're in between Virginia and South Carolina, and would feel strong pressure to either announce their neutrality or throw lots with the secessionists. My guess is they try for neutrality and the others invade them quickly, seeing a strong need to secure continuity. North Carolina would have a civil war within itself, I think.

Other interesting maps ...



Observe that Georgia and South Carolina are unique in how they chose Presidential electors by legislature and not via the people. It was an elitist system.

Virginia had intense class divides too, if you look closely.





I sort of enjoy the idea that Nat Turner delays his revolt for a time, for some reason. Without the revolt, there are more votes for emancipation in 1831-1832 in Virginia. When Virginia secedes, he launches his revolt and is (oddly) allied with Federal forces against Virginia. When the Union shows up, Jackson and Co aren't sure what to do about it ... but Jackson fought at New Orleans with various slaves, so if they're shooting at the right people he probably is fine with it for the time being.



Nat Turner was an odd figure - an incredibly sharp learner who perhaps could have been a prominent lawyer if not for his being enslaved.



EDIT: A hypothetical 'State of Zion' Centered on the Great Dismal Swamp region and Northampton County of Virginia. The Capital, given the messianic ideas of Nat Turner, would be Jerusalem (the County seat of Northampton County). I find this idea very implausible given the politics of the time, but it could be a sort of Sea Islands experiment several decades early, and could perhaps work out in the context of there being a Civil War and extreme measures being tolerated. Manumission-Deportation ideas would put focus upon Zion, rather than Liberia.