The Nullification CrisisBy Neal Walter Young

Questions to Keep in Mind How have various branches interpreted the Constitution? What are tariffs and how do they impact trade? What is nullification and how is it's use justified? How did slavery intensify the conflict?

In this section we will cover how trade policies led to a showdown over state's rights and the future of slavery. To understand how all of these culminated in the Nullification Crisis, we must first discuss the history and impact of tariffs and nullification doctrine.

Revenue and Protectionist Policy Revenue was a constant problem under the Articles of Confederation. This problem was

solved by Article I (8) of the Constitution which gave Congress the power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.' In this section we will be focusing on duties. Duties are the taxes placed on goods imported from another country and a tariff is simply a list of duties that sets policy. Duties set by various tariffs accounted for over 90% of all government revenue in the early years and were widely supported. Tensions, however, later arose from their use to protect domestic manufacturing.

In 1792, Alexander Hamilton argued that it was necessary to protect America’s infant manufacturing industry, and proposed doing this by making foreign goods more expensive through raising high duties. Consumers would then buy the comparatively cheaper, domestically produced goods. This protectionist policy was implemented following the War of 1812 to combat British attempts to damage America’s economy by flooding the market with cheap products. While appearing necessary, many agrarian states supported a protectionist tariff only as a temporary measure while others, such as John Randolph of Virginia, opposed it outright because it 'bestow[ed] premiums on manufactures out of the pockets' of farmers.

A State’s Right? Each branch had its own way of dealing with unsavory laws: the Legislature could repeal, the Executive could veto, and the Judicial could rule them unconstitutional. Less clear was what a state could do. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, argued the States could refuse to implement 'deliberate, palpable, and dangerous' violations of the Constitution. Known as nullification, this power was not explicitly given to the States but rather stemmed from a belief that the Union was a compact of sovereign entities whose laws were supreme within their borders.

Nullification would rear its head in the years to come, notably in Georgia over Indian removal and South Carolina over discriminatory laws, but it would only become a national issue following an eruption over trade policy.

Political Missteps Building up to the election of 1828, Democrats were unified behind Andrew Jackson as their

candidate and eager to damage the popularity of his opponent: John Quincy Adams. The

incumbent, Adams, received much of his support from Northern manufacturers who agreed with his protectionist policies. For this reason, the Democrats proposed radical increases to duties that would put Adams and his party, the Whigs, into a corner. The pro-protectionist Whigs either oppose the bill and lose support from their base, or vote for the bill and ensure the agrarian states came out in mass to elect Jackson. A few of the increases, such as those on molasses and hemp rope, were intentionally created to ensure that Whigs from New England would vote against the tariff as they were thought to offset advantages gained from those placed on manufactured goods.

As planned, the congressmen from the South voted against the tariff they had proposed. New England, however, was divided after an amendment to woolens duties was allowed. The result: 105 for and 94 against. The radical tariff that was never meant to pass had become law. The Democrat’s gamble would prove to be a costly one.

The ‘Tariff of Abominations’Northern agricultural states and the entirety of the South referred to the Tariff of 1828 as the

'Tariff of Abominations.' Many believed in George McDuffie's theory that decreased trade and higher prices would result in 40% lower profits. This was a more palatable, if rather unrealistic, explanation for economic hardships that likely had far more to do with the overproduction of cotton and failure to develop industry. Even so, the anger was real. President Adams would later lobby for its repeal saying we 'must relieve the South, or fight them.'

The Great DebateAndrew Jackson, a slave owner born in the Carolinas, won in a landslide as many believed he

would amend the tariff and curb federal power. True, he was a strong supporter of states’ rights, but he also valued the Union above all else; He saw it as the only way to secure freedom from foreign powers and fend off unfriendly tribes. Jackson also revered the Constitution as an agreement between the people, through, but not for, the States. Before he made his position public, the issue would be argued in one of the greatest debates of American history.

Robert Hayne, of South Carolina, eloquently defended the supremacy of state law, the institution of slavery, and many other issues in a blockbuster debate with Daniel Webster, of Massachusetts, over the very spirit of our founding document. Hayne, like Jefferson before him, saw the Constitution as a compact between sovereign states. Webster countered that if each state could overrule the government, their union would become a 'rope of sand.' It was during this debate that the 'godlike Daniel' asserted that the freedom so dearly valued could only be achieved together: "Liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable."

A similar split between Jackson and his vice president, John Calhoun, was made clear in April of 1830 at the Jefferson Birthday Dinner. Though much is made of their personal disagreements, this appears to be a substantial reason for their enmity.

Threats of Secession The Tariff of 1832, while far from perfect, was viewed by many, from North and South, as a

progressive step forward as it lowered the average rate of taxation on most products to 1824 levels. States like Alabama were pacified and talk of nullification was deemed 'unsound in theory and dangerous in practice.'

Increasingly isolated, South Carolina nonetheless rejected the move: its economy was in need

of a more advantageous agreement and, more importantly, it did not feel it could afford to flinch if it wanted to defend slavery down the road. For these reasons the legislature passed the Ordinance of Nullification stating that attempts to impose the Tariff of 1828 or 1833 would be 'inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union.' In other words, they would secede.

Senator Hayne resigned to become governor, and Calhoun left the Executive to take his place. While Hayne called upon 25,000 volunteers, Jackson carried out his own military maneuvers. In his mind, 'their object is disunion' and 'disunion, by armed force, is treason. There would be war before session, but fortunately neither side wanted to strike first.

Back in the Senate, a 'carrot' and a 'stick' measure were taking shape. Henry Clay, the famed Great Compromiser, was working on a new tariff with Calhoun and others that would lower rates in stages, while Jackson focused on pushing through the Force Bill that would cement his authority to send in the troops. In combination they were meant to change South Carolina's calculations around nullification while giving them a politically feasible way out of the crisis.

The Force Bill was passed on March 1, 1833 and the Compromise Tariff, as previously arranged, followed suit the very next day.

Battles to Come The crisis had been resolved, but the underlying problems lingered. The 'warm attachment to the Union of States' was cooling and, as the stakes grew, compromise would become far more difficult.

Connection Questions: In this section we defined and went over the history of nullification and tariffs. Though without using the same words, both of these concepts are playing a large role in public discourse. Below, you will have the opportunity of choosing one of these topics and comparing their use during early American History to present day.

Please answer one of the following:1) The Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement between 12 countries that border the Pacific Ocean, is currently being debated in Congress. What are some of the potential benefits and negatives discussed by political leaders? Are there connections to points made in your reading?

2) In recent years, dozens of states have enacted laws regarding the legalization of marijuana that contradict federal law. For this reason, citizens can be punished for violating federal law while still being in compliance with state law. What arguments have been made in favor of nullification? What arguments have been made in opposition? Are there any that are similar to those discussed in your readings?

Bibliography

Brands, H.W. Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. New York: Random House, 2005.

Burstein, Andrew. The Passions of Andrew Jackson. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2003.

Congressional Digest. "U.S. Tariff Policy, 1789-1945." Congressional Digest 27, vol. 5 (May 1948).

Danzer, Gerald, J. Jorge Klor de Alva, Louis Wilson, and Nancy Woloch. The Americans. Evanston, IL: McDougal Littell, 1998.

Downey, Matthew, James Giese, and Fay Metcalf. United States History in the Course of Human Events. New York: West Publishing Company, 1997.

"Exposition and Protest, Reported by the Special Committee of the House of Representatives, on the Tariff, 19 December 1828." Teaching American History in South Carolina Project, http://www.teachinghistory.org

Garraty, John. The American Nation. New York: Harper & Bowl, 1971.

Hamilton, Alexander. "Report on Manufactures." Constitution Society, http://constitution.org

Kennedy, David, Lizabeth Cohen, and Thomas Bailey. The American Pageant: A History of the Republic. 12th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001.

Meacham, Jon. American Lion. New York: Random House, 2008.

New York Public Library. American History Desk Reference. New York: Macmillian, 1997.

Randolph, John. "Against a Protective Tariff." Annals of American History, http://www.america.eb.com

Ratcliffe, Donald. "The Nullification Crisis, Southern Discontents, and the American Political Process." American Nineteenth Century History 1, no. 2 (Summer 2000).

Taussig, F.W. The Tariff History of the United States. 5th ed. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1910.

Tindall, George and David Shi. America: A Narrative History. 7th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007.

The following sources were accessed through the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, http://avalon.law.yale.edu:

An Act Imposing Duties on Tonnage: July 20, 1789Andrew Jackson's Proclamation on Nullification, December 10, 1832First Inaugural Address of Andrew Jackson, March 4, 1829Kentucky Resolution - 1799Ratification of the Constitution by the State of South CarolinaSecond Inaugural Address of Andrew Jackson, March 4, 1833

Virginia Resolution; December 24, 1798