Global InformationNullification crisis information
 | This article contains too many or overly lengthy quotations. (November 2019) |
| ||
|---|---|---|
Military career
7th President of the United States
Presidency
First term
Second term
Post-presidency
Legacy
 |
||
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 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.[1][2]
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 the Southern agrarian states that imported most manufactured goods. The tariff's opponents expected that Jackson's election as president would result in a significant reduction of it.[3] 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 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.[4]
On July 1, 1832, before Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to run for the Senate, where he could more effectively defend nullification,[5] Jackson signed into law the Tariff of 1832. This compromise tariff received the support of most Northerners and half the Southerners in Congress.[6] 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.[7] South Carolina initiated military preparations to resist anticipated federal enforcement,[8] but on March 1, 1833, Congress passed both 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 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.[9]
- ^ See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board Archived August 7, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, 364 U.S. 500 (1960), Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), and United States v. Peters Archived July 12, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809).
- ^ "[S]tates throughout U.S. history have attempted to use variations of the nullification doctrine to invalidate national law. However, every attempt by states to nullify federal law was clearly rejected by not only the federal government but also by other states." Card, Ryan, "Can States 'Just Say No' to Federal Health Care Reform? The Constitutional and Political Implications of State Attempts to Nullify Federal Law", 2010 B.Y.U. Law Review 1795, 1808 (2010) Archived January 18, 2015, at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ Remini, Andrew Jackson, v2, pp. 136–137. Niven, pp. 135–137. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, p. 143.
- ^ Craven, p. 65. Niven, pp. 135–137. Freehling, Prelude to Civil War, p. 143.
- ^ Niven p. 192. Calhoun replaced Robert Y. Hayne as senator so that Hayne could follow James Hamilton as governor. Niven writes, "There is no doubt that these moves were part of a well-thought-out plan whereby Hayne would restrain the hotheads in the state legislature and Calhoun would defend his brainchild, nullification, in Washington against administration stalwarts and the likes of Daniel Webster, the new apostle of northern nationalism."
- ^ Howe p. 410. In the Senate, only Virginia and South Carolina voted against the 1832 tariff. Howe writes, "Most southerners saw the measure as a significant amelioration of their grievance and were now content to back Jackson for reelection rather than pursue the more drastic remedy such as the one South Carolina was touting."
- ^ "South Carolina Legislature Passes the Ordinance of Nullification". History Engine. University of Richmond. Archived from the original on February 13, 2020. Retrieved November 21, 2019.
- ^ Freehling, Prelude to Civil War pp. 1–3. Freehling writes, "In Charleston Governor Robert Y. Hayne ... tried to form an army which could hope to challenge the forces of 'Old Hickory'. Hayne recruited a brigade of mounted minutemen, 2,000 strong, which could swoop down on Charleston the moment fighting broke out, and a volunteer army of 25,000 men, which could march on foot to save the beleaguered city. In the North, Governor Hayne's agents bought over $100,000 worth of arms; in Charleston, Hamilton readied his volunteers for an assault on the federal forts."
- ^ Wilentz, p. 388.