OOC: Inspired by the Jackson thread; POD is sometime in 1827-28. Warning, textwall ahead.
IC: Hello there, fellow Alternate Historians!
I've just completed my sophomore dissertation on how John C. Calhoun's December 1828 assassination helped lead to the slow but steady alienation of the South away from the national Democrats, starting after Jackson's selection of Martin Van Buren, a moderate Northerner not known to be a friend of slavery(in fact, he would actually help organize the Free Soil Party in 1849, the year of President Jackson's death), over future South Carolina governor Robert Y. Hayne-and which came to a head when the Southern seceeded in 1857-58 following the election of Missouri governor(and former Californian adventurer) John C. Fremont to the Presidency, as the first ever Republican President: prior to this, the previous President, James Buchanan(who'd been governor of, and later, Senator from Pennsylvania, a particularly notable hotbed of anti-slavery sentiment) had tried to keep the peace but essentially gave up and allowed the anti-slavery folks free reign in his last year in office, even getting rid of the Fugitive Slave Act.
My question is, though, what if John Calhoun hadn't been assassinated?
Interestingly enough, before he died, Calhoun was apparently secretly working on a series of papers which had argued for South Carolina's secession over tariffs-which didn't come to pass thanks to Robert Hayne's being elected governor a few years later. If Calhoun had lived, would they have been able to gain enough support to try something, perhaps in 1832-33? How would this affect things going forward?
As many may know, one of Henry Clay's last acts before his death from pneumonia in April 1847 was to get the Republic of Texas admitted into the Union, and bringing the Mexican northwest into the fold, including the short-lived California Republic(which he fully intended to become a free-soil state, and his VP, Zachary Taylor, lived up to that promise). But what if James K. Polk had won the 1844 instead? Polk's main goal was Texas and all of the Oregon Country(under Clay, we got only everything south of 49* North), and sought to avoid California in order to not aggravate the Deep South's planting interests. Might California have perhaps remained independent, instead?
And what of the Know-Nothings? IOTL, although they had a fair amount of a following up North(especially in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Ohio, the northern states with the most significant anti-Catholic prejudice in the 1840s and 1850s), their biggest ideological support, especially from 1850 onwards, came from the Fire-Eaters and their allies in the Deep South. It's generally well-known at this point that James Buchanan had decided to attempt to build a coalition with immigrants, whom many reactionary Southerners viewed, with few exceptions(namely the Protestant Germans who weren't Texans, and the more conservative Ashkenazi Jews, who were perceived as not willing to rock the boat, and were therefore accepted), as potential allies of the Free Soilers and abolitionists, and a threat to the Southern social order as a whole(especially if they were Italian!). And while the Southern Know-Nothings rallied around Jefferson Davis(who wasn't exactly an extreme xenophobe himself, but who decided any support was good for him), the Northerners formed the Vanguard Party, with Clement Vallandigham as their (first and only) candidate.
What might happen here? If the Democrats are able to stay together for longer, might the Know-Nothings develop differently? Could they be a more Northern party, perhaps even pro-Republican?
Finally, what might have happened with slavery, and the Civil War? IOTL, the "Peculiar Institution" had already disappeared in Missouri in 1848(in no small part thanks to more recent Yankee settlers, although the vote was close-had it not been for the residents of a couple of Welsh-American towns near Ste. Genevieve, the gradual emancipation law might not have passed.)-although free blacks were heavily restricted from settling in the state until 1869; apparently, Oregon came close to *expelling* free African-Americans from their territory in 1857), and was just on it's way to dying out in Delaware and Maryland, too, by the time of Fremont's election. Could this be delayed with a stronger Democratic Party?
And, I might add, the process towards Civil War, in no small part, was sped up by the schism in the Democratic Party that had begun to accelerate rapidly after James K. Polk, the Southern favorite, lost both the 1844 and 1848 elections. But, with Calhoun living longer, would Jackson have been so cavalier about putting his opponents in their place?
OOC: Sorry about the textwall, but I figured going into detail would really help get a good discussion going. Also, here's a list of the first several U.S. presidents after the POD:
1828-1836: Andrew Jackson (Democratic-Tennessee)
1836-1840: Martin Van Buren (Democratic-New York)
1840-1847: Henry Clay (Whig-Kentucky)
1847-1852: Zachary Taylor** (Whig-Louisiana)
1852-1856: James Buchanan (Democratic-Pennsylvania)
1856-1863: John C. Fremont* (Republican-Missouri)
1863-1872: Abraham Lincoln (Republican-Illinois)
I'd also be interested in your ideas as to how the United States develops after Lincoln's term, and, if there's enough interest generated, I may consider starting a TLIAD based on this, within this next month.
IC: Hello there, fellow Alternate Historians!
I've just completed my sophomore dissertation on how John C. Calhoun's December 1828 assassination helped lead to the slow but steady alienation of the South away from the national Democrats, starting after Jackson's selection of Martin Van Buren, a moderate Northerner not known to be a friend of slavery(in fact, he would actually help organize the Free Soil Party in 1849, the year of President Jackson's death), over future South Carolina governor Robert Y. Hayne-and which came to a head when the Southern seceeded in 1857-58 following the election of Missouri governor(and former Californian adventurer) John C. Fremont to the Presidency, as the first ever Republican President: prior to this, the previous President, James Buchanan(who'd been governor of, and later, Senator from Pennsylvania, a particularly notable hotbed of anti-slavery sentiment) had tried to keep the peace but essentially gave up and allowed the anti-slavery folks free reign in his last year in office, even getting rid of the Fugitive Slave Act.
My question is, though, what if John Calhoun hadn't been assassinated?
Interestingly enough, before he died, Calhoun was apparently secretly working on a series of papers which had argued for South Carolina's secession over tariffs-which didn't come to pass thanks to Robert Hayne's being elected governor a few years later. If Calhoun had lived, would they have been able to gain enough support to try something, perhaps in 1832-33? How would this affect things going forward?
As many may know, one of Henry Clay's last acts before his death from pneumonia in April 1847 was to get the Republic of Texas admitted into the Union, and bringing the Mexican northwest into the fold, including the short-lived California Republic(which he fully intended to become a free-soil state, and his VP, Zachary Taylor, lived up to that promise). But what if James K. Polk had won the 1844 instead? Polk's main goal was Texas and all of the Oregon Country(under Clay, we got only everything south of 49* North), and sought to avoid California in order to not aggravate the Deep South's planting interests. Might California have perhaps remained independent, instead?
And what of the Know-Nothings? IOTL, although they had a fair amount of a following up North(especially in Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Ohio, the northern states with the most significant anti-Catholic prejudice in the 1840s and 1850s), their biggest ideological support, especially from 1850 onwards, came from the Fire-Eaters and their allies in the Deep South. It's generally well-known at this point that James Buchanan had decided to attempt to build a coalition with immigrants, whom many reactionary Southerners viewed, with few exceptions(namely the Protestant Germans who weren't Texans, and the more conservative Ashkenazi Jews, who were perceived as not willing to rock the boat, and were therefore accepted), as potential allies of the Free Soilers and abolitionists, and a threat to the Southern social order as a whole(especially if they were Italian!). And while the Southern Know-Nothings rallied around Jefferson Davis(who wasn't exactly an extreme xenophobe himself, but who decided any support was good for him), the Northerners formed the Vanguard Party, with Clement Vallandigham as their (first and only) candidate.
What might happen here? If the Democrats are able to stay together for longer, might the Know-Nothings develop differently? Could they be a more Northern party, perhaps even pro-Republican?
Finally, what might have happened with slavery, and the Civil War? IOTL, the "Peculiar Institution" had already disappeared in Missouri in 1848(in no small part thanks to more recent Yankee settlers, although the vote was close-had it not been for the residents of a couple of Welsh-American towns near Ste. Genevieve, the gradual emancipation law might not have passed.)-although free blacks were heavily restricted from settling in the state until 1869; apparently, Oregon came close to *expelling* free African-Americans from their territory in 1857), and was just on it's way to dying out in Delaware and Maryland, too, by the time of Fremont's election. Could this be delayed with a stronger Democratic Party?
And, I might add, the process towards Civil War, in no small part, was sped up by the schism in the Democratic Party that had begun to accelerate rapidly after James K. Polk, the Southern favorite, lost both the 1844 and 1848 elections. But, with Calhoun living longer, would Jackson have been so cavalier about putting his opponents in their place?
OOC: Sorry about the textwall, but I figured going into detail would really help get a good discussion going. Also, here's a list of the first several U.S. presidents after the POD:
1828-1836: Andrew Jackson (Democratic-Tennessee)
1836-1840: Martin Van Buren (Democratic-New York)
1840-1847: Henry Clay (Whig-Kentucky)
1847-1852: Zachary Taylor** (Whig-Louisiana)
1852-1856: James Buchanan (Democratic-Pennsylvania)
1856-1863: John C. Fremont* (Republican-Missouri)
1863-1872: Abraham Lincoln (Republican-Illinois)
I'd also be interested in your ideas as to how the United States develops after Lincoln's term, and, if there's enough interest generated, I may consider starting a TLIAD based on this, within this next month.
Last edited: