The South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification was enacted into law on November 24, 1832. As far as South Carolina was concerned, federal laws could be dismissed and there was no tariff. A line had been drawn. Would President Jackson dare to cross it? Jackson rightly regarded this states-rights challenge as so serious that he asked Congress to enact legislation permitting him to use federal troops to enforce federal laws in the face of nullification. Fortunately, an armed confrontation was avoided when Congress, led by the efforts of Henry Clay, revised the tariff with a compromise bill. This permitted the South Carolinians to back down without "losing face." In retrospect, Jackson's strong, decisive support for the Union was one of the great moments of his Presidency. If nullification had been successful, could secession have been far behind?
The secession of 1860 and early 1861 did not come as the result of a popular vote. It was forced through the confederate states by a small group of Democrat Party activists.
If a strong president had threatened the use federal troops in 1860 there it is likely there would not have been a secession.
President Buchanen worked with Jefferson Davis and the secessionists to help them.
President Jackson had many faults and no one can say for certain what would have actually happened. But Trump is far more knowledgeable regarding U.S. history than the media.
Bookmark
Awesome post! (-:
The Nullification Crisis during Jackson’s Presidency prefigured one of the main issues of the civil war.
Were the states mere vassals of the very national government that they created, or did they have an equal say in deciding what is Constitutional.
Jefferson and Madison of the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798 defended state’s rights,as had the Anti-Federalists. Hamilton and the Federalists wanted a ruling national government.
Mr. President, signing a budget that funds planned parenthood slaughter and does not fund the wall, might just give you a civil war.
Sir, your name is Donald John Trump, not bush 45.
The Secessionists of 1776 won.
Trump is far more knowledgeable regarding U.S. history than the media.
***********
That may be, but methinks he comments and opines on too many things and that often feeds the media with quotes that allow them to ridicule him. Why constantly invite controversy? He should learn that less can be more.
Just my 2 cents.
The Civil War was a direct evolution of those states-rights sentiments.
So the only ignorant ones here are the journalists laying bare their bias.
Trump could say things a little smoother but once again he will expose how ignorant and biased the media really is..
found this to support what both you and President Trump have said ... the kicker is that it comes from NPR! What will the libs do about this?
the wrong side won in 1865
some bad generals , poor political leadership
can we have a do over?
If he were alive in 1860, maybe he could have prevented secession and war.
I was wrong, but it wasn't any big deal.
The first crisis over slavery came in 1820.
Through compromise, the country was able to stave off war for 40 years.
Given first-rate leadership it's possible we could have held off war for some time longer.
But after the Clay-Webster-Jackson generation died off, there were only second-raters around.
Correct. No Jackson fan here, but he made it clear he would send in troops if SC seceded. If the rest of the South had seceded, the Union likely would have won sooner as South would have been much weaker economically and its officers like Lee wouldn’t have had Mexican War experience.
“It was forced through the confederate states by a small group of Democrat Party activists.”
A “small group” can’t get that many state legislatures to vote in the majority for their proposals.
Best summation of those events I have ever seen. Thank you!
Great history info!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3549191/posts?page=1#1
Gotta ping this one out!!!
This is an excellent book (posthumous Pulitzer Prize) on the long run up to the Civil War:
The Impending Crisis, 1848-1861 by David M. Potter
The book is available at Amazon for as little as $9.00 used:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061319295/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o03_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1
A lot of reviews on the Amazon website, so I won’t repeat them here.
Instead of 1832, Professor Potter begins with the US victory over Mexico in 1848 because of the effect that adding so much new territory to the southwestern United States had on fanning the already smoldering Free State/Slave State political powder keg into full flame. But, be warned, this is a book about events leading up to the Civil War. The war itself is only briefly mentioned in a scant few paragraphs on the last two pages of the book.
I have yet to see a decent treatment of the state militia movement in the years prior to the war. It was critical - especially for the South - in getting forces into the field quickly and was the mechanism by which many units were raised, trained, and equipped in the 1861-1863 time period.
“A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.”
In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery— the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.
The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
It has enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us, until the whole popular mind of the North is excited and inflamed with prejudice.
It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.
{EXCERPT}
http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html
"I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn't have had the Civil War."
Very nice, but you left out the name of the one person most responsible for the civil war. Hint: who was the Al Gore of 1860?
Hint2: Who was President Buchanan’s Vice President?
How is John C. Breckinridge the single person most responsible for the Civil War?
1: Breckinridge split the democrat party into two parties.
- Instead of going into the 1860 election united, and thereby easily improving their performance in the election and maintaining their National dominance, the democrats split into 2 parties. Douglas leading the Northern faction and the original party. Breckinridge leading the Southern faction and splitting States. A good leader here would have United the party knowing that a split party spelt electoral doom.
2: Breckenridge won the southern states. Every one of Breckenridges strong states would soon secede. A strong leader would have convinced his followers to remain in the Union and engaged in a more measured method of secession.
3: Breckenridge next got appointed to the US Senate. He did not use his leadership position in the Senate to preserve the Union. Eventually, he gets expelled for treason and becomes a general with the Confederates.
Side point: Breckenridge did not make a good general. He loses his attack on Baton Rouge.
4: Eventually Breckenridge becomes Secretary of War for the Confederates. He tried to help the Confederate government escape, but loses them to Union troops. However, he escapes and flees the country.
This one man, had he not been a traitor, was in the best, most influential, position of any in the Democrat party.
He was the Al Gore of his day, but instead of a legal challenge, he instigated a civil war while pretending to be otherwise.
I knew coming to FR would explain it all. I just knee jerk ignore the news when I hear it now.