I think you missed the point of my post. I was showing how a previous President responded to a threat of nullification/secession therefore establishing a precedent upon which other Presidents could base their actions on. This was Andrew Jackson’s response to South Carolina during the nullification crisis.
I would even say that Andrew Jackson was following a precedent set by George Washington in his response to the whiskey rebellion. Though the whiskey rebellion didn’t involve an entire state the same principle would have applied if it did.
OIFVeteran:
"I would even say that Andrew Jackson was following a precedent set by George Washington in his response to the whiskey rebellion." Indeed, the new 1787 Constitution was first framed in response, at least in part, to the nation's failures during the 1786 Whiskey Rebellion.
Further, every early President faced some form of rebellion or secession threat, including:
- George Washington: Whiskey Rebellion, called up the US Army to suppress it.
- John Adams: Quasi War with France, Alien & Sedition Acts to suppress Americans with French sympathies.
- Thomas Jefferson: Secession threatened by former VP Aaron Burr, Jefferson had Burr arrested & tried for treason.
- James Madison: Hartford Convention threatened secession, Madison moved US Army from border frontier with Canada to position near New England in case of rebellion.
I'm not aware of any similar events under Monroe or JQ Adams, but Andrew Jackson famously faced down South Carolina in the 1830 Nullification crisis, sending a war fleet (
horrors! a war fleet!) to Charleston Harbor and this message:
"...please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.[68] "
Bottom line: our Founders in no way ever supported unilateral secession or rebellion,
at pleasure.
![]()