DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nullification Crisis Background Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Nullification Crisis Background Overview The Nullification Crisis Background The relationship between North and the South was tenuous when Andrew Jackson came to office in 1828. Ever since the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, Northerners and Southerners had fought over slavery and tariffs. Each region wanted to make sure their economies were protected in the new Union. Several times states threatened to leave the Convention and abandon the writing of the Constitution. By the end of the Convention, both sides had made significant compromises to the Constitution such as the “three-fifths clause,” the fugitive slave clause, and Article 1, Section 8 which allowed Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. These compromises were shaky. Neither side was truly pleased with the results. Forty-one years later, in 1828, the issue of tariffs surfaced again. Congress passed a high protective tariff on imported, primarily manufactured goods. The South, being predominately agricultural and reliant on the North and foreign countries for manufactured goods, saw this tariff as an affront to their economy. Vice President John C. Calhoun called this a “tariff of abominations” meant to favor the North. South Carolina declared that Congress was overstepping its power by offering such support of the North’s manufacturing industries. The confrontation quickly spun into a debate over the power of the federal government to decide the rights of states. In 1832, after the passing of another tariff, South Carolina declared the tariffs null and void and threatened to leave the Union in the Ordinance of Nullification. Jackson responded swiftly, calling the action treasonous. He asked Congress for the power to use military force to ensure that states adhered to federal law. While Congress debated the resulting Force Bill—which would grant the president his wish—Kentucky’s Henry Clay introduced a compromise tariff. Both bills passed in 1832. In the end, the North and South compromised, but not without revealing how fragile the relationship was. The Nullification Crisis foreshadowed the eventual secession of the South in 1860. Overview In this lesson, you will examine the wording of the Tariff of 1828 to discover how the tariff affected the economies of North and South. You will look at John C. Calhoun’s Exposition and Protest in which he outlines why the tariff is unconstitutional and harmful to the Southern economy. You will also read Andrew Jackson’s argument for the preservation of the Union in his Nullification Proclamation. Lastly, you will read excerpts from Daniel Webster’s 1830 speech showing how the debate had moved beyond tariffs to the issues of state sovereignty. You will engage in a discussion activity allowing you to hear each side of the issue and examine the Crisis critically. A PowerPoint presentation containing a brief history and introduction to the key individuals and terms from this period accompanies the lesson. Activity 1 - Barometer Activity Consider the following question: if a state disagrees with a law made by the national government, do you think the state has a right to refuse it? What if the state felt the law was unjust or oppressive? (10 minutes) Activity 2 – Begin Power Point - the first part of the PowerPoint presentation covering tariffs and the different economies of North and South. (5 minutes) (slides 1-6) Activity 3 – Read/Analyze the Tariff of 1828 - we will read this as a class. This is a difficult reading due to the legal language. I will stop frequently to review chunks of the text with the accompanying questions in the PowerPoint presentation. (10-15 minutes) Activity 4 – Finish the Power Point - reviewing the response to the Tariff of 1828 and the Nullification Crisis. (10-20 minutes) Activity 5 – HW reading – for the HW reading there will be three groups - each group assigned one of the following readings for homework: South Carolina Exposition and Protest, the Nullification Proclamation, or Daniel Webster’s Response to Robert Y. Hayne. You will discuss the readings and complete a related activity in the next day’s class. Day Two (45-60 minutes) Activity 1 – Expert Groups and Jigsaw Activity 2 – GTS Discussion (all at once) Which reading is the most persuasive? Were the tariffs fair? Was the nullification of tariffs an appropriate response by those who disagreed with tariffs? What can people do if they disagree with a law? Was the Force Bill an appropriate response from President Jackson? Assessments Pretend you are living in 1832. Write a persuasive letter to any of the figures involved in this crisis presenting an argument about the Nullification Crisis. .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Calhoun Webster
    CALHOUN WEBSTER : AND TWO VISIONS OF THE FEDERAL UNION SOUTH CAROLINA SENATOR JOHN C. CALHOUN SAW THE FEDERAL UNION AS A COMPACT OF STATES. MASSACHUSETTS SENATOR DANIEL WEBSTER SAW IT AS A NATION OF ONE PEOPLE. THEIR DIFFERING VISIONS LED TO HISTORIC DEBATES, BUT UNDERLYING THEM ALL WAS THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY. The intent of the writers of the Calhoun also pursued a career in Constitution was to create a politics. He was elected to the U.S. stronger central government than House of Representatives in 1810 and Library of Congress of Library existed under the old Articles of was the chief deputy of Speaker of John C. Calhoun (1782–1850), who served Confederation. During the ratifica- the House Henry Clay. Calhoun was as vice president, U.S. senator, and tion of the Constitution, many ex- a strong nationalist who pushed for member of Congress in his long political pressed fears the federal war against Britain in 1812. career, was the leading advocate for states’ rights. government would expand its pow- After the war, Calhoun sup- ers at the expense of the states. ported Henry Clay’s “American Sys- to the South, such a majority might The Bill of Rights, in the form of tem,” which called for Congress to someday vote to abolish slavery. 10 amendments, was added to the fund roads, canals, ports and other These developments changed Cal- Constitution to further limit the pow- national improvements. In 1816, he houn from a nationalist to an advo- ers of the federal government. The voted for a tariff (a tax on foreign cate for states’ rights.
    [Show full text]
  • DAY#1 ​ ​CP Government & Government Blizzard Bag
    DAY#1 CP Government & Government Blizzard Bag Name ____________________ ​ ​ ​ A. Directions- Fill in the boxes below by selecting the constitutional principle being referred to ​ in each constitutional description. \ B. Directions- Check the box to identify whether the Federalists or Anti-Federalists supported ​ (Fed) or opposed (Anti) the item described. C. Directions- From the choices listed below, select the four ways in which our constitutional ​ government can be changed. Write your answers in the blank boxes below. D. Directions- Fill in the boxes below by selecting the amendment that protects an individual ​ from the abuse referred to in the description. DAY #2 CP Government & Government Blizzard Bag Name__________________ ​ ​ A. Directions- Identify which group was affected by an amendment introduced by the ​ Progressive Movement. B. Directions- Identify which group gained voting rights by each amendment. ​ C. Directions- Fill-in boxes below by selecting the appropriate amendment referred to in each ​ description. D. Directions- Fill in boxes below by selecting the amendment that is being described. ​ DAY #3 CP Government & Government Blizzard Bag Name _____________ ​ ​ The Nullification Crisis The Nullification Crisis occurred in the early 1830s in South Carolina, during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. The United States suffered an economic downturn throughout the 1820s, which especially affected South Carolina. Many South Carolina politicians blamed the economic downturn on the national tariff policy that was enacted after the War of 1812. This tariff policy was implemented to help Northern manufacturing industries better compete in domestic markets against well established European manufacturers. The Nullification Crisis occurred when the South Carolina state government refused to enforce the federal government’s tariffs, declaring them to be unconstitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Nullification Crisis: Civil War Averted the Economies of the North and South
    NULLIFICATION CRISIS: CIVIL WAR AVERTED THE ECONOMIES OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH Economy of the North Fishing, shipbuilding industry and naval supplies, trade and port cities Skilled craftsmen, shopkeepers, manufacturing (textiles, tools, metals, building materials, etc.) Economy of the South Large farms/plantations, cash crops (tobacco, indigo, rice, cotton), wood products, small farms Slavery THE DEBATE OVER TARIFFS Tariffs are taxes that the government puts on imported goods (Goods brought in from other countries). Pro: If you were a craftsman or manufacturer in the United States, you would like tariffs because your products would not have that additional tax, therefore your products are cheaper than foreign products. People will be more likely to buy your products. Con: If your business is agriculture, you need to sell your food and raw materials and buy manufactured goods. You may depend on foreign nations to buy your goods and in return you buy their manufactured goods. You are afraid that tariffs will make foreign goods more expensive. You worry that if you don’t buy their goods, then they won’t buy your farm goods and your economy will suffer. 1828 Congress passes a controversial high protective tariff Who do you predict will support this new law, and who will oppose this tariff? JOHN C. CALHOUN Vice President under Andrew Jackson Believed the Tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional since it favored the North Insisted that states had a right to refuse to follow a law if the state felt it violated its rights States could declare a federal law null and void This is called nullification, a rejection of the law He and many other Southerners called the 1928 tariff a “Tariff of Abominations” ANDREW JACKSON 7th President of the United States Believed in preserving the Union and fought nullification Recommended to Congress to reduce the Tariff of 1828, so they passed another tariff in 1832 NULLIFICATION ORDINANCE South Carolina was not pleased with the new tariff either.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Mangiaracina James Crisisinfluence.Pdf
    THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY THE INFLUENCE OF THE 1830s NULLIFICATION CRISIS ON THE 1860s SECESSION CRISIS JAMES MANGIARACINA SPRING 2017 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in History with honors in History Reviewed and approved* by the following: Amy Greenberg Edwin Erle Sparks Professor of History and Women’s Studies Thesis Supervisor Mike Milligan Senior Lecturer in History Honors Adviser * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. i ABSTRACT This thesis aims to connect the constitutional arguments for and against secession during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 with the constitutional arguments for and against secession during the Secession Crisis of 1860-1861. Prior to the Nullification Crisis, Vice President John C. Calhoun, who has historically been considered to be a leading proponent of secession, outlined his doctrine of nullification in 1828. This thesis argues that Calhoun’s doctrine was initially intended to preserve the Union. However, after increasingly high protective tariffs, the state delegates of the South Carolina Nullification Convention radicalized his version of nullification as expressed in the Ordinance of Nullification of 1832. In response to the Ordinance, President Andrew Jackson issued his Proclamation Regarding Nullification. In this document, Jackson vehemently opposed the notion of nullification and secession through various constitutional arguments. Next, this thesis will look at the Bluffton Movement of 1844 and the Nashville Convention of 1850. In the former, Robert Barnwell Rhett pushed for immediate nullification of the new protective Tariff of 1842 or secession. In this way, Rhett further removed Calhoun’s original intention of nullification and radicalized it.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate 6761 4864
    1932 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 6761 4864. By Mr. LINDSAY: Petition of Nichols Copper Co., sentatives of the wholesale and retail merchants, bankers, Laurel Hill, Long Island, N. Y., favoring the passage of and manufacturers of Williamson, W. Va., urging that Con­ House Resolution 319; to the Committee on Ways and Means. gress enact legislation providing that bus and truck lines be 4865. Also, petition of Warrior Ideal Democratic Organiza­ placed under the rules and regulations and direction of the tion, 9 Seigel Street, Brooklyn, N. Y., favoring a universal Interstate Commerce Commission; to the Committee on 5-day week; to the Committee on Labor. Interstate and Foreign Commerce. 486ft Also, petition of Louis Brosky, 213 Kent Street, 4884. By Mr. STALKER: Petition of members of the Brooklyn, N.Y., executive secretary of the Unemployed and Woman's Christian Temperance Union of Washington, D. C., Unattached Veterans of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, N.Y., favor­ opposing the resubmission of the eighteenth amendment to ing the immediate payment of the adjusted-service certifi­ be ratified by State conventions or by State legislatures, cates, House bill. 1; to the Committee on Ways and Means. and supporting adequate appropriations for law enforce­ 4867. By Mr. NELSON of Maine: Petition of George S. ment and for education in law observance; to the Committee Staples and 86 other citizens of Maine, urging support for on the Judiciary. House bill 9891, to provide pensions for certain railroad 4885. Also, petition of residents of Hornell, N. Y., protest­ employees; to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com­ ing against compulsory Sunday observance; to the Com­ merce.
    [Show full text]
  • The Counterproductivity of Protectionist Tariffs
    Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 8 January 2021 The Counterproductivity of Protectionist Tariffs David Korn Liberty University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/jspp Part of the American Politics Commons, and the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Korn, David (2021) "The Counterproductivity of Protectionist Tariffs," Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy: Vol. 1 : Iss. 2 , Article 8. Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/jspp/vol1/iss2/8 This Research Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Korn: The Counterproductivity of Protectionist Tariffs Introduction Protective tariffs have been a part of fiscal policy since the inception of the United States. They have been tried in many historical contexts and stages of technological development. While protective tariffs benefit the protected industries by shielding them from foreign competition, they have consistently damaged domestic economies as a whole, regardless of their implemented setting. Resources that would have been used for improving domestic economies are diverted towards industries less efficient than their foreign competitors. Proponents of protectionist tariffs, like Franklin D. Roosevelt, often claim domestic markets need shielding from unfair competition, but whenever they are implemented, instead of bolstering domestic industry, the U.S. economy is slowed. The Creation of Protectionist Tariffs Early United States history reflects the side effects of protectionist tariffs. As a fledgling country, the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • John Tyler Before the Presidency: Principles and Politics of a Southern Planter
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 2001 John Tyler Before the Presidency: Principles and Politics of a Southern Planter. Christopher Joseph Leahy Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Leahy, Christopher Joseph, "John Tyler Before the Presidency: Principles and Politics of a Southern Planter." (2001). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 242. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/242 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • 1829 *I861 Appropriations, Banking, and the Tariff
    1829 *I861 Appropriations, Banking, and the Tariff The Committee of Ways and Means nence in the decades immediately preceding e period 1829-1861, the committee’s chairman came to be regarded as the d the tariff. The c ver the nation’s the creation of policy, probably to a larger extent than any other ee during the antebellum era. “The great body of ndrew Jackson’s election to the Presidency marked the culmination legislatzon was referred A of a period of social, economic, and political change that began to the committee of ways with the American Revolution and intensified after the War of 1812. One of the most significant of these changes was the introduction of and means, whzch then democratic reforms in order to broaden the political base, such as the had charge of all extension of the vote to all adult white males. The Virginia dynasty appropnatzons and of all ended with the presidential election of 1824. From the disaffection fax laws, and whose surrounding the election and Presidency of John Quincy Adams, a chazrman was recognzzed new and vigorous party system began to coalesce at the state level. as leader of the House, The second American party system developed incrementally be- practzcally controllang the tween 1824 and 1840. The principal stimulants to the development of the new parties were the presidential elections. By 1840, two parties order of zts buszness. ” of truly national scope competed for control of ofices on the munici- (John Sherman, 1895) pal, state, and federal level. The founders of these new parties were not all aristocratic gentlemen.
    [Show full text]
  • Tariffs and Nullification
    Page 24 Chapter 5 The Crisis of 1833: Tariffs and Nullification "Our Federal Union — it must be preserved!" (Andrew Jackson) "The Union –— next to our liberty, most dear." (John C. Calhoun) ehind this exchange of toasts between President Andrew Jackson and his Vice- President, John C. Calhoun in 1830, lay a division in the U.S. as wide as this nation and Bas disruptive as a civil war. Although a Southerner and a slave owner, Andrew Jacksons’s statement reflected a commitment to keeping the country whole. John Calhoun, born and raised in South Carolina, had come to Congress in 1811 as an ardent nationalist. He supported the B.U.S., internal improvements, and the tariff of 1816. But Calhoun's state had moved away from its earlier commitment to nationalism, and the South Carolinian had to choose between allegiance to his state or to his country. While serving as Vice-President in 1828, Calhoun had secretly written a document entitled The South Carolina Exposition and Protest which argued that states could nullify laws which they judged to be unconstitutional. Now, in 1830, Calhoun made a public declaration of his sentiments, "the Union – next to our liberty, most dear. May we always remember that it can only be preserved by respecting the rights of the states."22 In 1830, the feelings for both the nation and for the states were casting long shadows across the land. On the floor of the Senate, champions of these sharply conflicting sentiments, Robert Hayne of South Carolina and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts squared off in a debate of classic proportions.
    [Show full text]
  • Tariff Politics and Congressional Elections: Exploring the Cannon Thesis Andrew J. Clarke* University of Virginia Andrewclarke@V
    Tariff Politics and Congressional Elections: Exploring the Cannon Thesis Andrew J. Clarke* University of Virginia [email protected] Jeffery A. Jenkins University of Virginia [email protected] Kenneth S. Lowande University of Virginia [email protected] While a number of studies have examined the politics of tariff decision making in the United States, little work has examined the subsequent political effects of tariff policy. We help fill this gap in the literature by analyzing—both theoretically and empirically—the electoral implications of tariff revision. Specifically, we investigate the veracity of the Cannon Thesis – the proposition advanced by Speaker Joe Cannon in 1910 that the majority party in the U.S. House was punished when it made major revisions to the tariff. We find that from 1877 to 1934, major tariff revisions were, on average, associated with a significant loss of votes for majority-party members – both regionally and nationally – that translated into a loss of House seats. We find support for the notion that major tariff revisions generated inordinate uncertainty among various business interests, which the opposition party could then use (by leveraging fear and market instability) to mobilize its base and gain ground in the following election. Our results provide a new explanation for the delegation of tariff policymaking to the Executive branch. *All authors were equal contributors. Paper presented at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the Congress & History Conference, University of Maryland. We thank Richard Bensel and Chuck Finocchiaro for comments. Introduction The tariff – and international trade more generally – has been among the most contentious issues in American politics since the Nation’s inception.
    [Show full text]
  • Andrew Jackson and Presidential Power
    ANDREW JACKSON AND PRESIDENTIAL POWER John Yoo* I. IN TR O D U CTIO N ...................................................................... 521 II. THE INVASION OF FLORIDA .............................................. 526 III. TH E BA N K WA R ................................................................... 536 IV . T H E TAR IFF .......................................................................... 562 V . CO N CLU SIO N S ....................................................................... 573 I. INTRODUCTION While Andrew Jackson laid the foundations for what we can begin to recognize as the modern presidency, he would have been out of place in the modern world. He fought duels, owned slaves, and killed Indians (as well as British spies). He carried a lifelong hatred of Great Britain because, as a captured boy soldier during the Revolutionary War, he was struck in the face with a sword for refusing to clean a British officer's boots. During the War of 1812, he won a resounding victory over the British at the Battle of New Orleans. During the peace, Jackson invaded and occupied Spanish Florida without clear orders. His views on slavery and on Indians would be deemed more than just politically incorrect today. When he lost the election of 1824 despite winning the most votes, Jackson did not graciously withdraw but spent the next four years attacking the "corrupt bargain" that had thrown the Presidency to John Quincy Adams.1 * Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley School of Law Boalt Hall); Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute. I thank Jesse Choper, Robert Delahunty, Sai Prakash, and Gary Schmitt for their comments. Claire Yan provided excellent research assistance. 1. I have drawn on the wealth of Jackson histories in writing this Article.
    [Show full text]
  • US History April 13 Th – 17Th Mr. Maiorano's Office Hours Via Zoom
    8th Grade History: US History April 13th – 17th 8th Grade History: US History April 13th – 17th Time Allotment: 30 minutes per day Mr. Maiorano’s Office Hours via Zoom: Period 1: Monday and Wednesday from 10:00am – 10:50am Period 2: Monday and Wednesday from 11:00am – 11:50am Period 6: Tuesday and Thursday from 1:00pm – 1:50pm Mr. Growdon’s Office Hours via Zoom: Period 3: Monday and Wednesday from 1:00pm – 1:50pm Period 4: Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00am – 10:50am Student Name: ________________________________ Teacher Name: ________________________________ 1 8th Grade History: US History April 13th – 17th Packet Overview Date Objective(s) Page Number Monday, 1. DAY OFF 3 April 13th Tuesday, 1. Explain how the Tariff Debate became a debate about State 3 April 14th and Federal Power. Wednesday, 1. Describe the major arguments for and against the 8 April 15th nullification of Tariffs from the Webster-Hayne Debate Thursday, 1. Explain why Jackson disagrees with Chief Justice John 15 April 16th Marshall on the Worcester vs. Georgia Case Friday, 1. Quiz: Jackson on Tariff Debate, and Indian Removal Act 27 April 17th Additional Notes: As we enter another week of Remote Learning, take some time to reflect on the lyrics of our school song, “The Minstrel Boy” The minstrel boy to the war is gone The Minstrel fell! But the foeman's chain In the ranks of death you'll find him Could not bring that proud soul under His father's sword he hath girded on The harp he lov'd ne'er spoke again And his wild harp slung behind him For he tore its chords asunder "Land of Song!" cried the warrior bard And said "No chains shall sully thee (Should) "Tho' all the world betrays thee Thou soul of love and brav'ry One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard Thy songs were made for the pure and free One faithful harp shall praise thee!" They shall never sound in slavery Academic Honesty I certify that I completed this assignment I certify that my student completed this independently in accordance with the GHNO assignment independently in accordance with Academy Honor Code.
    [Show full text]