Misplaced Pages

#338661

94-600: The document was a protest against the Tariff of 1828 , also known as the Tariff of Abominations. It stated also Calhoun's Doctrine of nullification , i.e., the idea that a state has the right to reject federal law, first introduced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions . After the final vote on the Tariff of 1828, the South Carolina congressional delegation held two caucuses,

188-482: A New England response to Madison's war policy. The debate allowed many radicals to argue the cause of states' rights and state sovereignty. In the end, moderate voices dominated and the final product was not secession or nullification, but a series of proposed constitutional amendments. Identifying the South's domination of the government as the cause of much of their problems, the proposed amendments included "the repeal of

282-935: A Supreme Court decision in Pennsylvania, appointed an "extreme nationalist" in Joseph Story to the Supreme Court, signed the bill creating the Second Bank of the United States , and called for a constitutional amendment to promote internal improvements . Opposition to the War of 1812 was centered in New England. Delegates to a convention in Hartford, Connecticut , met in December 1814 to consider

376-472: A circuit judge, declared the South Carolina law as unconstitutional since it violated the United States' treaties with the United Kingdom. The South Carolina Senate announced that the judge's ruling was invalid and that the act would be enforced. The federal government did not attempt to carry out Johnson's decision. Historian Avery Craven argues that, for the most part, the debate from 1828 to 1832

470-523: A constitutional, but as a revolutionary right. Madison biographer Ralph Ketcham wrote: Though Madison agreed entirely with the specific condemnation of the Alien and Sedition Acts, with the concept of the limited delegated power of the general government, and even with the proposition that laws contrary to the Constitution were illegal, he drew back from the declaration that each state legislature had

564-401: A general level of protection at 35% ad valorem (compared to 25% with the 1816 act) and hiked duties on iron, woolens, cotton, hemp, and wool and cotton bagging. The bill barely passed the federal House of Representatives by a vote of 107 to 102. The Middle states and Northwest supported the bill, the South and Southwest opposed it, and New England split its vote with a majority opposing it. In

658-575: A moderating influence. He did not feel that the first step in reducing the tariff was to defeat Adams and his supporters in the upcoming election. William C. Preston , on behalf of the South Carolina General Assembly asked Calhoun to prepare a report on the present situation of the tariff. Calhoun readily accepted the challenge and in a few weeks time had a 35,000 word draft of what would become his "Exposition and Protest." Fearful that "hotheads" such as McDuffie might force

752-412: A moderating influence. He felt that the first step in reducing the tariff was to defeat Adams and his supporters in the upcoming election. William C. Preston , on behalf of the South Carolina legislature, asked Calhoun to prepare a report on the tariff situation. Calhoun readily accepted and in a few weeks had a 35,000-word draft of what would become his " Exposition and Protest ". Calhoun's "Exposition"

846-520: A nerve with his constituency. Nationalists such as Calhoun were forced by the increasing power of such leaders to retreat from their previous positions and adopt, in the words of Ellis, "an even more extreme version of the states' rights doctrine" in order to maintain political significance within South Carolina. South Carolina's first effort at nullification occurred in 1822. Its planter class believed that free black sailors had assisted Denmark Vesey in his planned slave rebellion. South Carolina passed

940-427: A nullification convention in 1829 was defeated by the South Carolina legislature meeting at the end of 1828. State leaders such as Calhoun, Hayne, Smith, and William Drayton all remained publicly noncommittal or opposed to nullification for the next couple of years. The division in the state between radicals and conservatives continued through 1829 and 1830. After the failure of a state project to arrange financing of

1034-484: A railroad within the state to promote internal trade, the state petitioned Congress to invest $ 250,000 in the company trying to build it. After Congress tabled the measure, debate in South Carolina resumed between those who wanted state investment and those who wanted to work to get Congress's support. The debate demonstrated that a significant minority of the state did have an interest in Clay's American System . The effect of

SECTION 10

#1732772142339

1128-540: A state believed a federal law unconstitutional, it could declare the law null and void in the state. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and Vice President John C. Calhoun , a native South Carolinian and the most effective proponent of the constitutional theory of state nullification. On July 1, 1832, before Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to run for the Senate , where he could more effectively defend nullification, Jackson signed into law

1222-485: A subordinate corporate condition. In fact, to divide power, and to give to one of the parties the exclusive right of judging of the portion allotted to each, is, in reality, not to divide it at all; and to reserve such exclusive right to the General Government (it matters not by what department) to be exercised, is to convert it, in fact, into a great consolidated government, with unlimited powers, and to divest

1316-511: The South Carolina Exposition and Protest , in which he urged nullification of the tariff within South Carolina. The South Carolina legislature, although it printed and distributed 5,000 copies of the pamphlet, took none of the legislative action that the pamphlet urged. The expectation of the tariff's opponents was that with the election of Jackson in 1828, the tariff would be significantly reduced. Jackson in 1829 said

1410-665: The 1832 election by Martin Van Buren . Calhoun resigned the vice presidency in December 1832 to take a seat in the US Senate , where he continued to speak in opposition to the 1828 tariff. Tariff of 1828 The Tariff of 1828 was a very high protective tariff that became law in the United States on May 19, 1828. It was a bill designed to fail in Congress because it was seen by free trade supporters as hurting both industry and farming, but it passed anyway. The bill

1504-678: The Force Bill —authorizing the president to use military forces against South Carolina—and a new negotiated tariff, the Compromise Tariff of 1833 , which was satisfactory to South Carolina. The South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance on March 15, 1833, but three days later, nullified the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture of principle. The crisis was over, and both sides found reasons to claim victory. The tariff rates were reduced and stayed low to

1598-516: The Nat Turner insurrection in Virginia. Calhoun was not alone in finding a connection between the abolition movement and the sectional aspects of the tariff issue. It confirmed for Calhoun what he had written in a September 11, 1830, letter: I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that

1692-554: The Northeastern states was suffering from low-priced imported manufactured items from Britain. The major goal of the tariff was to protect the factories by taxing imports from Europe. Southerners from the Cotton Belt , particularly those from South Carolina , felt they were harmed directly by having to pay more for imports from Europe. Allegedly, the South was also harmed indirectly because reducing exports of British goods to

1786-510: The Tariff of 1833 , a compromise. Nullification crisis The nullification crisis was a sectional political crisis in the United States in 1832 and 1833, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson , which involved a confrontation between the state of South Carolina and the federal government. It ensued after South Carolina declared the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and therefore null and void within

1880-516: The Webster–Hayne debate was to energize the radicals, and some moderates started to move in their direction. The state election campaign of 1830 focused on the tariff issue and the need for a state convention. On the defensive, radicals underplayed the intent of the convention as pro-nullification. When voters were presented with races where an unpledged convention was the issue, the radicals generally won. When conservatives effectively characterized

1974-699: The peculiar institution of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness. From this point,

SECTION 20

#1732772142339

2068-472: The states' rights position being articulated in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions . The Kentucky Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson , contained the following, which has often been cited as a justification for both nullification and secession : ... that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be

2162-462: The three-fifths clause , a requirement that two-thirds of both houses of Congress agree before any new state could be admitted to the Union, limits on the length of embargoes, and the outlawing of the election of a president from the same state to successive terms, clearly aimed at the Virginians." The war was over before the proposals were submitted to President Madison. After the conclusion of

2256-465: The "numerous market-oriented enterprises, particularly banks, corporations, creditors, and absentee landholders". The Tariff of 1816 had some protective features, and it received support throughout the nation, including that of John C. Calhoun and fellow South Carolinian William Lowndes . The first explicitly protective tariff linked to a specific program of internal improvements was the Tariff of 1824 . Sponsored by Henry Clay , this tariff provided

2350-535: The 1828 tariff was constitutional. In response, the most radical faction in South Carolina began to advocate that the state itself declare the tariff null and void within South Carolina. In Washington, an open split on the issue occurred between Jackson and Vice-President Calhoun. On July 14, 1832, Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832 which made some reductions in tariff rates. Calhoun finally resigned. The reductions were too little for South Carolina—the "abominations" of 1828 were still there. In November 1832

2444-631: The Charleston non-agricultural class. Governor Hamilton was instrumental in seeing that the association, which was both a political and a social organization, expanded throughout the state. In the winter of 1831 and spring of 1832, Hamilton held conventions and rallies throughout the state to mobilize the nullification movement. The conservatives were unable to match the radicals in organization or leadership. The state elections of 1832 were "charged with tension and bespattered with violence," and "polite debates often degenerated into frontier brawls." Unlike

2538-558: The General and State Governments, and that the latter hold their portion by the same tenure as the former, it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. The right of judging, in such cases, is an essential attribute of sovereignty, of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself, and being reduced to

2632-606: The Negro Seamen Act, which required all black foreign seamen to be imprisoned while their ships were docked in Charleston . The United Kingdom strongly objected, especially as it was recruiting more Africans as sailors. Worse, if the captains did not pay the fees to cover the cost of jailing, South Carolina would sell the sailors into slavery . Other Southern states also passed laws against free black sailors. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson , in his capacity as

2726-460: The Resolutions of 1798 , published in 1800 after they had been decried by several states. This asserted that the state did not claim legal force. "The declarations in such cases are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied by other effect than what they may produce upon opinion, by exciting reflection. The opinions of the judiciary, on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by force." If

2820-639: The Senate, the bill, with the support of Tennessee Senator Andrew Jackson , passed by four votes, and President James Monroe , the Virginia heir to the Jefferson-Madison control of the White House , signed the bill on March 25, 1824. Daniel Webster of Massachusetts led the New England opposition to this tariff. Protest against the prospect and the constitutionality of higher tariffs began in 1826 and 1827 with William Branch Giles , who had

2914-791: The South Carolinians, entered the fray over the tariff. As a state representative, Rhett called for the governor to convene a special session of the legislature. An outstanding orator, Rhett appealed to his constituents to resist the majority in Congress. He addressed the danger of doing nothing: But if you are doubtful of yourselves—if you are not prepared to follow up your principles wherever they may lead, to their very last consequence—if you love life better than honor,—prefer ease to perilous liberty and glory; awake not! Stir not!—Impotent resistance will add vengeance to your ruin. Live in smiling peace with your insatiable Oppressors, and die with

South Carolina Exposition and Protest - Misplaced Pages Continue

3008-463: The South. South Carolina had been adversely affected by the national economic decline of the 1820s. During this decade, the population decreased by 56,000 whites and 30,000 slaves, out of a total free and slave population of 580,000. The whites left for better places; they took slaves with them or sold them to traders moving slaves to the Deep South for sale. Historian Richard E. Ellis describes

3102-511: The Southern agrarian states that imported most manufactured goods. The tariff's opponents expected that Jackson's election as president would result in its significant reduction. When the Jackson administration failed to take any action to address their concerns, South Carolina's most radical faction began to advocate that the state nullify the tariff. They subscribed to the legal theory that if

3196-649: The States, in reality, of all their rights, it is impossible to understand the force of terms, and to deny so plain a conclusion. The report also detailed the specific southern grievances over the tariff that led to the current dissatisfaction." On December 19, 1828, the report was presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives , which had five thousand copies of it printed and distributed. The presidential election had occurred, and John Quincy Adams had been defeated by Andrew Jackson . Calhoun, who still had designs on succeeding Jackson as president,

3290-683: The Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress. South Carolina remained unsatisfied, and on November 24, 1832, a state convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification , which declared that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina after February 1, 1833. South Carolina initiated military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement, but on March 1, 1833, Congress passed both

3384-702: The U.S would make it difficult for the British to pay for Southern cotton. The reaction in the South, particularly in South Carolina, led to the Nullification Crisis. The 1828 tariff was part of a series of tariffs that began after the War of 1812 and the Napoleonic Wars , when the blockade of Europe led British manufacturers to offer goods in America at low prices that American manufacturers often could not match. The first protective tariff

3478-600: The Union. Moreover, competition from the newer cotton producing areas along the Gulf Coast , blessed with fertile lands that produced a higher crop-yield per acre, made recovery painfully slow. To make matters worse, in large areas of South Carolina slaves vastly outnumbered whites, and there existed both considerable fear of slave rebellion and a growing sensitivity to even the smallest criticism of "the peculiar institution." State leaders, led by states' rights advocates such as William Smith and Thomas Cooper , blamed most of

3572-503: The Virginia legislature pass resolutions denying the power of Congress to pass protective tariffs, citing the Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and James Madison's 1800 defense of them. Madison denied both the appeal to nullification and the unconstitutionality; he had always held that the power to regulate commerce included protection. Jefferson had, at the end of his life, written against protective tariffs. The Tariff of 1828

3666-454: The War of 1812 Sean Wilentz notes: Madison's speech [his 1815 annual message to Congress] affirmed that the war had reinforced the evolution of mainstream Republicanism, moving it further away from its original and localist assumptions. The war's immense strain on the treasury led to new calls from nationalist Republicans for a national bank. The difficulties in moving and supplying troops exposed

3760-565: The alien and sedition acts, but opposed the idea of state review of federal laws. Southern Republicans outside Virginia and Kentucky were eloquently silent about the matter, and no southern legislature heeded the call to battle. The election of 1800 was a turning point in national politics, as the Federalists were replaced by the Democratic-Republican Party led by Jefferson, but the four presidential terms spanning

3854-515: The authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. Historians differ over

South Carolina Exposition and Protest - Misplaced Pages Continue

3948-559: The bill levied heavy taxes on raw materials consumed by New England such as hemp, flax, molasses, iron, and sail duck. With an additional tariff on iron to satisfy Pennsylvania interests, Van Buren expected the tariff to help deliver Pennsylvania , New York , Missouri , Ohio , and Kentucky to Jackson. Over opposition from the South and some from New England, the tariff was passed with the full support of many Jackson supporters in Congress and signed by President Adams in early 1828. As expected, Jackson and his running mate John Calhoun carried

4042-593: The constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with them on

4136-550: The entire South with overwhelming numbers in every state but Louisiana, where Adams drew 47% of the vote in a losing effort. But many Southerners became dissatisfied as Jackson, in his first two annual messages to Congress, failed to launch a strong attack on the tariff. Historian William J. Cooper Jr. writes: The most doctrinaire ideologues of the Old Republican group [supporters of the Jefferson and Madison position in

4230-579: The extent to which either resolution advocated the doctrine of nullification. Historian Lance Banning wrote, "The legislators of Kentucky (or more likely, John Breckinridge , the Kentucky legislator who sponsored the resolution) deleted Jefferson's suggestion that the rightful remedy for federal usurpation was a "nullification" of such acts by each state acting on its own to prevent their operation within its respective borders. Rather than suggesting individual, although concerted, measures of this sort, Kentucky

4324-410: The federal government and civil war within the state. With silence no longer an acceptable alternative, Calhoun looked for the opportunity to take control of the antitariff faction in the state; by June he was preparing what would be known as his Fort Hill Address. Published on July 26, 1831, the address repeated and expanded the positions Calhoun had made in the "Exposition". While the logic of much of

4418-467: The federal government that violated the Constitution. This veto, the core of the doctrine of nullification, was explained by Calhoun in the Exposition: If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments, and that the latter hold their portion by the same tenure as

4512-523: The federal governments would be a matter of political and ideological discussion through the Civil War as well as afterwards. In the early 1790s the debate centered on Alexander Hamilton 's nationalistic financial program versus Jefferson's democratic and agrarian program, a conflict that led to the formation of two opposing national political parties. Later in the decade the Alien and Sedition Acts led to

4606-434: The force of terms, and to deny so plain a conclusion. The report also detailed the specific southern grievances over the tariff that led to the current dissatisfaction. Fearful that "hotheads" such as McDuffie might force the legislature into taking drastic action against the federal government, historian John Niven describes Calhoun's political purpose in the document: All through that hot and humid summer, emotions among

4700-437: The former, it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. The right of judging, in such cases, is an essential attribute of sovereignty, of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself, and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition. In fact, to divide power, and to give to one of

4794-422: The futility of his plans for the presidency would lead him into their ranks. Calhoun, meanwhile, had concluded that Van Buren was establishing himself as Jackson's heir apparent. At Hamilton's prompting, McDuffie made a three-hour speech in Charleston demanding nullification of the tariff at any cost. In the state, the success of McDuffie's speech seemed to open up the possibilities of both military confrontation with

SECTION 50

#1732772142339

4888-545: The house 105 to 94 on April 23 and passed the Senate 26 to 21 on May 13. President Adams signed it and the tariff became law. Adams became a hated man in the South. Farmers in Western states and manufacturers in the Mid-Atlantic states argued that the strengthening of the nation was in the interest of the entire country. This same reasoning swayed two-fifths of U.S. Representatives in the New England states to vote for

4982-463: The late 1790s] first found Jackson wanting. These purists identified the tariff of 1828, the hated Tariff of Abominations, as the most heinous manifestation of the nationalist policy they abhorred. That protective tariff violated their constitutional theory, for, as they interpreted the document, it gave no permission for a protective tariff. Moreover, they saw protection as benefiting the North and hurting

5076-507: The legislation while blaming it on New England. The goal was to write a bill so bad—so "abominable"—that it would never pass but would help Van Buren and the Southerners while hurting the Adams-Clay coalition. The House committee drafted a bill that imposed very high duties on raw materials, including iron, hemp (for rope) and flax , but eliminated the protective features on woolen goods. The alliance organized by Van Buren that included

5170-443: The legislature into taking some drastic action against the federal government, Calhoun aimed for a more measured process: All through that hot and humid summer, emotions among the vociferous planter population had been worked up to a near-frenzy of excitement. The whole tenor of the argument built up in the "Exposition" was aimed to present the case in a cool, considered manner that would dampen any drastic moves yet would set in motion

5264-567: The machinery for repeal of the tariff act. It would also warn other sections of the Union against any future legislation that an increasingly self-conscious South might consider punitive, especially on the subject of slavery. Calhoun's "Exposition" was completed late in 1828. In it, Calhoun argued that the tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional because it favored manufacturing over commerce and agriculture. The tariff power, he felt, could be used to generate revenue but not to provide protection from foreign competition for American industries. He believed that

5358-414: The middle states and the south voted down every attempt by New Englanders to amend the bill. The alliance was confident the bill was so unfavorable that it would be defeated in Congress, hurting Adams and Clay in the process. To the astonishment of the alliance, a substantial minority of New England voted for the final bill, on the grounds that the principle of protection was of enormous value. The bill passed

5452-555: The noble consolation that your submissive patience will survive triumphant your beggary and despair. Rhett's rhetoric about revolution and war was too radical in the summer of 1828 but, with the election of Jackson assured, James Hamilton Jr. on October 28 in the Colleton County Courthouse in Walterborough "launched the formal nullification campaign." Renouncing his former nationalism, Hamilton warned

5546-463: The nullifiers accelerated their organization and rhetoric. In July 1831, the States Rights and Free Trade Association was formed in Charleston and expanded throughout the state. Unlike state political organizations in the past, which were led by the South Carolina planter aristocracy, this group appealed to all segments of the population, including non-slaveholder farmers, small slaveholders, and

5640-413: The open Senate seat, the legislature chose the more radical Stephen Decatur Miller over William Smith. With radicals in leading positions, in 1831 they began to capture momentum. State politics became sharply divided along Nullifier and Unionist lines. Still, the margin in the legislature fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for a convention. Many of the radicals felt that convincing Calhoun of

5734-409: The parties the exclusive right of judging of the portion allotted to each, is, in reality, not to divide it at all; and to reserve such exclusive right to the General Government (it matters not by what department to be exercised), is to convert it, in fact, into a great consolidated government, with unlimited powers, and to divest the States, in reality, of all their rights, It is impossible to understand

SECTION 60

#1732772142339

5828-409: The people of a state or several states, acting in a democratically elected convention, had the retained power to veto any act of the federal government that violated the Constitution. The veto, the core of the doctrine of nullification, was explained: If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between

5922-404: The people that "Your task-master must soon become a tyrant, from the very abuses and corruption of the system, without the bowels of compassion, or a jot of human sympathy." He called for implementation of Jefferson's "rightful remedy" of nullification. Hamilton sent a copy of the speech directly to President-elect Jackson. But despite a statewide campaign by Hamilton and McDuffie, a proposal to call

6016-517: The period from 1800 to 1817 "did little to advance the cause of states' rights and much to weaken it." Over Jefferson's opposition, the power of the federal judiciary, led by Federalist Chief Justice John Marshall , increased. Jefferson expanded federal powers with the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory and his use of a national embargo designed to prevent involvement in a European war. Madison in 1809 used national troops to enforce

6110-439: The power to act within its borders against the authority of the general government to oppose laws the legislature deemed unconstitutional. Historian Sean Wilentz explains the widespread opposition to these resolutions: Several states followed Maryland's House of Delegates in rejecting the idea that any state could, by legislative action, even claim that a federal law was unconstitutional, and suggested that any effort to do so

6204-477: The race as being about nullification, the radicals lost. The October election was narrowly carried by the radicals, although the blurring of the issues left them without any specific mandate. In South Carolina, the governor was selected by the legislature, which chose James Hamilton, the leader of the radical movement, and fellow radical Henry L. Pinckney as speaker of the South Carolina House. For

6298-416: The said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ... The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to

6392-506: The same time appealing to Andrew Jackson 's supporters in the North, John C. Calhoun and other Southerners joined Martin Van Buren in crafting a tariff bill that would also weigh heavily on materials imported by the New England states . It was believed that President John Quincy Adams 's supporters in New England would uniformly oppose the bill for this reason and that the Southern legislators could then withdraw their support, killing

6486-470: The satisfaction of the South, but the states' rights doctrine of nullification remained controversial. By the 1850s, the issues of the expansion of slavery into the western territories and the threat of the Slave Power became the central issues in the nation. The historian Richard E. Ellis wrote: By creating a national government with the authority to act directly upon individuals, by denying to

6580-424: The second at the home of Senator Robert Y. Hayne . They were rebuffed in their efforts to coordinate a united Southern response and focused on how their state representatives would react. While many agreed with McDuffie that tariff policy could lead to secession, they all agreed that, as much as possible, the issue should be kept out of the upcoming presidential election . Calhoun, while not at this meeting, served as

6674-454: The second at the home of Senator Robert Y. Hayne . They were rebuffed in their efforts to coordinate a united Southern response and focused on how their state, by itself, would react. While many agreed with George McDuffie that tariff policy could lead to secession at some future date, they all agreed that as much as possible the issue should be kept out of the upcoming presidential election. John C. Calhoun, while not at this meeting, served as

6768-494: The situation: Throughout the colonial and early national periods, South Carolina had sustained substantial economic growth and prosperity. This had created an extremely wealthy and extravagant low country aristocracy whose fortunes were based first on the cultivation of rice and indigo, and then on cotton. Then the state was devastated by the Panic of 1819 . The depression that followed was more severe than in almost any other state of

6862-416: The sovereign boundaries of the state. However, courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court , repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification by states . The controversial and highly protective Tariff of 1828 was enacted into law during the presidency of John Quincy Adams . The tariff was strongly opposed in the South, since it was perceived to put an unfair tax burden on

6956-412: The speech was consistent with the states' rights position of most Jacksonians, and even Daniel Webster remarked that it "was the ablest and most plausible, and therefore the most dangerous vindication of that particular form of Revolution", the speech still placed Calhoun clearly in a nullified camp. Within South Carolina, his gestures at moderation in the speech were drowned out as planters received word of

7050-459: The state called for a convention. By a vote of 136 to 26, the convention overwhelmingly adopted an ordinance of nullification drawn by Chancellor William Harper . It declared that the tariffs of both 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable in South Carolina. President Jackson could not tolerate the nullification of a federal law by a state. He threatened war and South Carolina backed down. The Nullification Crisis would be resolved with

7144-436: The state many of the prerogatives that they formerly had, and by leaving open to the central government the possibility of claiming for itself many powers not explicitly assigned to it, the Constitution and Bill of Rights as finally ratified substantially increased the strength of the central government at the expense of the states. The extent of this change and the problem of the actual distribution of powers between state and

7238-706: The state's economic problems on the Tariff of 1816 and national internal improvement projects. Soil erosion and competition from the New Southwest were also very significant reasons for the state's declining fortunes. George McDuffie was a particularly effective speaker for the anti-tariff forces, and he popularized the Forty Bale theory. McDuffie argued that the 40% tariff on cotton finished goods meant that "the manufacturer actually invades your barns, and plunders you of 40 out of every 100 bales that you produce." Mathematically incorrect, this argument still struck

7332-452: The states collectively agreed in their declarations, there were several methods by which it might prevail, from persuading Congress to repeal the unconstitutional law, to calling a constitutional convention, as two-thirds of the states may. When, at the time of the nullification crisis, he was presented with the Kentucky resolutions of 1799, he argued that the resolutions themselves were not Jefferson's words, and that Jefferson meant this not as

7426-411: The subject of slavery. The report was submitted to the state legislature, which had 5,000 copies printed and distributed. Calhoun, who still had designs on succeeding Jackson as president, was not identified as the author, but word on this soon leaked out. The legislature took no action on the report at that time. In the summer of 1828, Robert Barnwell Rhett , soon to be considered the most radical of

7520-506: The subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it ... The Virginia Resolutions, written by James Madison , hold a similar argument: The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by

7614-415: The tariff increase. In 1824, New England was on the verge of bankruptcy due to the influx of the use of European cloth. New England was in favor of the tariff increase for entering goods from Europe to aid in the country's economic success. A substantial minority of New England Congressmen (41%) saw what they believed to be long-term national benefits of an increased tariff, and voted for it; they believed

7708-481: The tariff would strengthen the manufacturing industry nationally (see table). The Democratic Party had miscalculated: despite the insertion by Democrats of import duties calculated to be unpalatable to New England industries, most specifically on raw wool imports, essential to the wool textile industry, the New Englanders failed to sink the legislation, and the Southerners' plan backfired. The 1828 tariff

7802-467: The vociferous planter population had been worked up to a near-frenzy of excitement. The whole tenor of the argument built up in the "Exposition" was aimed to present the case in a cool, considered manner that would dampen any drastic moves yet would set in motion the machinery for repeal of the tariff act. It would also warn other sections of the Union against any future legislation that an increasingly self-conscious South might consider punitive, especially on

7896-560: The wretchedness of the country's transportation links, and the need for extensive new roads and canals. A boom in American manufacturing during the prolonged cessation of trade with Britain created an entirely new class of enterprisers, most of them tied politically to the Republicans, who might not survive without tariff protection. More broadly, the war reinforced feelings of national identity and connection. This spirit of nationalism

7990-444: Was a local South Carolina affair. The state's leaders were not united and the sides were roughly equal. The western part of the state and a faction in Charleston, led by Joel Poinsett and Thomas Smith Grimké , remained loyal to the Union. Only in small part was the conflict between "a National North against a States'-right South". After the final vote on the Tariff of 1828, South Carolina's congressional delegation held two caucuses,

8084-421: Was completed late in 1828. He argued that the tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional because it favored manufacturing over commerce and agriculture. He believed the tariff power could be used only to generate revenue, not to provide protection from foreign competition for American industries, and that the people of a state or several states, acting in a democratically elected convention, had the power to veto any act of

8178-494: Was content to ask its sisters to unite in declarations that the acts were "void and of no force", and in "requesting their appeal" at the succeeding session of the Congress." The key sentence, and the word "nullification" was used in supplementary Resolutions passed by Kentucky in 1799. Madison's judgment is clearer. He was chairman of a committee of the Virginia Legislature, which issued a book-length Report on

8272-408: Was largely the work of Martin Van Buren (although Silas Wright Jr. of New York prepared the main provisions) and was partly a political ploy to elect Andrew Jackson President. Van Buren calculated that the South would vote for Jackson regardless of the issues, so he ignored their interests in drafting the bill. New England, he thought, was just as likely to support the incumbent John Quincy Adams, so

8366-412: Was linked to the tremendous growth and economic prosperity of this postwar era. However in 1819, the nation suffered its first financial panic and the 1820s turned out to be a decade of political turmoil that again led to fierce debates over competing views of the exact nature of American federalism. The "extreme democratic and agrarian rhetoric" that had been so effective in 1798 led to renewed attacks on

8460-468: Was not identified as the author but word soon leaked out. The legislature took no action on the report at that time. In 1832, as vice president under Jackson, Calhoun went public with his ideas during the nullification crisis . Both that and the political fallout from the Petticoat affair ended friendly relations between Calhoun and Jackson. As a result, Calhoun was replaced as Jackson's running mate in

8554-414: Was passed by Congress in 1816, and its rates were increased in 1824 . Southern states such as South Carolina contended that the tariff was unconstitutional and were opposed to the newer protectionist tariffs, as they would have to pay, but Northern states favored them because they helped strengthen their industrial-based economy. In an elaborate scheme to prevent passage of still higher tariffs, while at

8648-422: Was signed by President Adams, although he realized it could weaken him politically. In the presidential election of 1828 , Andrew Jackson defeated Adams with a popular tally of 642,553 votes and an electoral count of 178 as opposed to Adams's 500,897 tally and 83 electoral votes. Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina strongly opposed the tariff, anonymously authoring a pamphlet in December 1828 titled

8742-484: Was treasonous. A few northern states, including Massachusetts, denied the powers claimed by Kentucky and Virginia and insisted that the Sedition law was perfectly constitutional . ... Ten state legislatures with heavy Federalist majorities from around the country censured Kentucky and Virginia for usurping powers that supposedly belonged to the federal judiciary. Northern Republicans supported the resolutions' objections to

8836-556: Was vehemently denounced in the South and escalated to a threat of civil war in the Nullification Crisis of 1832–33. The tariff was replaced in 1833, and the crisis ended. It was called the "Tariff of Abominations" by its Southern detractors because of the effects it had on the Southern economy. It set a 38% tax on some imported goods and a 45% tax on certain imported raw materials. The manufacturing-based economy in

#338661