The nullification crisis of 1832 was a political crisis centered around protests against the protective tariffs put by the federal government. The protests originated mainly from the southern states which were predominantly agricultural-led by South Carolina during Andrew Jackson's presidency. The tariffs were introduced because the local industries were facing stiff competition from cheaper imported goods particularly from Europe. South Carolina, however, declared the tariffs null and void within their state because they felt they were being forced to pay highly for goods which they did not produce and also because higher taxes meant Britain would find it hard to pay for the cotton imported from the Southern states. The act of declaring these imposed tariffs null and void and opposing the federal government led to this crisis being called the nullification crisis of 1833. The Nullification Crisis of 1833 is historically significant because it was the first time an extreme expression of states' rights versus the federal government was encountered. Historians argue whether the crisis was a win or a loss for South Carolina and the south altogether because of South Carolina's particularism. The Crisis should be further studied due to possible repeating actions of questions of constitutionality of individual states rights and law making.
The Nullification Crisis between South Carolina and the federal government topic was selected because the conflicting arguments of the union holding full power over sovereign states are interesting as it shows the early forms of political parties and people’s concerns at the time regarding government authority. This event is historically significant because it is the first time that an extreme expression of states’ rights versus the federal government was encountered. The Nullification Crisis is also seen to be an important event advancing the Civil War by many historians.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The primary source used is one written by John C. Calhoun in 1845, it speaks about the difference between a numerical and concurrent majority and how a numerical majority is a form of negative power. John C. Calhoun was a native of South Carolina and served as vice president of Andrew Jackson from 1829 to 1832. Calhoun was a white politician who was a strong nationalist and eventually a leading theorist of nullification. Calhoun believed, “the national government had been created by an agreement between sovereign states. (Foner, Voices of freedom, 196)”. He writes his document to all people whether it be citizens, slaves or political officers. Calhoun proves his point by explaining, “one regards numbers only, and considers the whole community as a unit… the other, regards interests as well as numbers; considering the community as made up of different and conflicting interests. (Foner, Voices of Freedom , 196)”. Calhoun goes further to stress the importance that the numerical majority will and is causing an error in properly constructing a constitutional government, falling into some form of absolute government and the use of negative power. These points are significant because they emphasize the importance of proper representation of the people for the overall construction of the government. These critical points stress that "there can be no systematic, peaceful, or effective resistance to the natural tendency of each to come into conflict with others: and without this, there can be no constitution. (Foner, Voices of Freedom, 198)”.
The Nullification Crisis partially began when President Andrew Jackson introduced what were called ‘protective tariffs’ which raised taxes on imported manufactured goods and raw materials. This was done with a view of protecting the northern states’ industries which were facing stiff competition from goods imported from larger parts of Europe particularly Britain. This tariff raised extreme opposition in the South, sparking outrage to nullify and void the tariff within their state of South Carolina. Although most of the Southern states citizens were farmers and slave owners, South Carolina was the only state that claimed to nullify the tariff and stand against it. This created controversy whether the South using its particularism was truly a win for them or just a strategy of appeasement from the federal government. The tariff was the last straw for southerners as their heightened suspicion of the union was increasing due to the Missouri controversy regarding slaveholding state decisions as well as the North outnumbering southern whites 2:1. This caused concern over the power to define the relationship between federal and state governments rights (Foner, 2014).
The Nullification crisis had a huge historical significance in the history of the United States. First of all, the nullification crisis demonstrated that nullification is not in any way a viable manner of exerting will on national politics and this made the South Carolina radicals to realize that only the threat of secession would be a more effective tool, and this eventually contributed to the civil war. In addition to this, the nullification crisis had a huge impact on the people, particularly the southerners. The southerners were affected mainly because they were farmers and they were the ones to bear the full cost of the introduced tariffs as opposed to the northerners who were more industrialized. The Southerners, therefore, sided with Calhoun who at the time was Jackson's vice president, yet he was in favor of nullification ( Foner, 2014) .
Several historians have from time to time published articles, journals and even books in trying to interpret and expound on this nullification crisis topic. Keith Whittington explains that federalism and its constitutional nature have often been complex problems in the history of the United States. Federalism is somewhat of an intermediate position between a nation and a confederation and due to this ambiguity, there is some sort of a political tension (Whittington, 1996). The founding fathers placed some limits on the constitution which gives rise to numerous questions which are open to deliberation. Whittington writes that although courts are key in enforcing the limits of federalism, or exclusive focus cannot be placed on judicial pronouncements to get a constitutional meaning. Nullification debate, therefore, was based on the argument that federalism is a matter of constitutional politics and not constitutional law only (Whittington, 1996). The ability of the nullifiers to capture the political mechanism employed in the states and to trigger deliberation is proof that their demands were within the constitutional framework which had some gaps although some were corrected by the passing of amendments, for instance, the Alien and Sedition Act.
Donald Ratcliffe in his scholarly article states that the nullification crisis has been misunderstood because too much emphasis has been placed on South Carolina yet the whole southern states with the exception of the border states turned against federal authority (Ratcliffe, 2000). In doing this, historians lose three important perspectives. First, historians underestimate the significant threat of rebellion posed by the whole of the southern states and not just South Carolina. Secondly, historians ignore the success made by the south in ‘securing its end’ way before South Carolina nullified the tariffs policy (Ratcliffe, 2). The last aspect which is a consequence is that historians fail to notice that the outcome of the nullification crisis was a defeat to South Carolina's particularism but to the other southern states who chose to operate within the framework of American politics, it was a victory. Ratcliffe goes ahead to say that as a matter of fact, though South Carolina was on a brink of rebellion, they sought answers through democratic negotiations. They hoped to still unite with the north and eventually manage to win control of the national government despite being the minority. South Carolina clearly had supported Jackson in the presidential elections as Ratcliffe puts it, “Even in South Carolina many of the discontented, especially in the upcountry believed Jackson’s victory would bring the necessary reform of the tariff” (Ratcliffe 8).
Richard Latner too shares his perspective on the nullification crisis. He writes to say that South Carolina's protest against the tariffs was only a surface manifestation of their deep worries that the North would perhaps subvert their slave system. The Jackson's administration is seen to have successfully put an end to the crisis by use of conciliation and coercion at the same time. It is evident that President Jackson loathed nullification concept as he is quoted to have said it was an abominable doctrine which strikes at the root of government. He even went ahead to voice his opposition to the nullification concept in the newspapers as he believed it would lead to anarchy. President Jackson also cited the unwillingness of the southern radicals to compromise their position and listen to his administration. He, therefore, adopted the ‘carrot-stick strategy' where he alternated soothing words to the rebels and tariffs reform with threats of military action which worked well. Jackson and his administration, however, missed the connection between nullification and the defense of slavery system by the south but instead exaggerated Calhoun's position in the nullification movement. Latner goes further to write that President Jackson also discounted evidence tying nullification to the defense of slavery (Ratner 26). It is true that the issue of slavery was subordinate to other economic issues raised by the nullifiers, but Jackson and his administration failed to notice that nullifiers often raised the slavery issue in their public speeches and editorials. He writes that “even though Jackson noted the radicals increased militance, he continued to regard it within the framework of a conspiracy theory” (Ratner 26)
The importance of continuing to study this topic is due to the fact that it still holds historical relevance up to date. This is because of the questioning of limits and the constitution’s role in deciding issues. The Federalist versus anti-federalist debate is now the equivalent of Democratic versus Republican parties. As well as the debate between strong central government versus small local governments. In addition to this, there is still a lesson to be learned which can be applied in today’s setting. A lesson that can be applied is that forms of rebellion can appear from years of distress and feelings of not being heard from the government. The South endured the Missouri crisis which was one of the leading factors of feeling that the central government was not to be trusted. Being aware of possible states uproars is something to be cautious of.
Conclusion
Important lessons can be learned from The Nullification Crisis of 1832. Prolonged unresolved issues can lead to very devastating outcomes if not taken care of early enough. Jackson’s administration failed to fully understand what the South demanded and instead regarded it as a conspiracy theory which blew up right up in front of their faces. The Nullification Crisis started the controversial topic of the role of the constitution in state versus federal government rights. Historians argue whether or not South Carolina truly made it clear they won the right for sovereign states to nullify. The crisis is relevant to central versus small government and the interpretations of the constitution.
References;
Foner, E. (2014). John C. Calhoun, The Concurrent Majority (ca. 1845). Voices of freedom: a documentary history (4th ed., Vol. 1). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Latner, R. (1977). The Nullification Crisis and Republican Subversion. The Journal of Southern History, 43 (1), 19-38.
Ratcliffe, D. J. (2000). The Nullification Crisis, Southern Discontents, and the American Political Process. American Nineteenth Century History , 1 (2), 1.
Whittington, K. E. (1996). The Political Constitution of Federalism in Antebellum America: The Nullification Debate as an Illustration of Informal Mechanisms of Constitutional Change. Publius , 26 (2), 1+. Retrieved from http://db24.linccweb.org/login?url=http://go.galegroup.com.db24.linccweb.org/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&u=lincclin_spjc&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA19176125&asid=500393cc572120051ff6d562f43fa2df
