Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

The Nullification Crisis By Rebecca E. Balzan, Summaries of United States History

The nullification crisis: constitutional battle or personal feud From Mary Baldwin university.

Typology: Summaries

2021/2022

Uploaded on 03/31/2022

loche
loche 🇺🇸

4.3

(16)

241 documents

1 / 5

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
1
THE NULLIFICATION CRISIS: CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE OR PERSONAL FEUD?
By: Rebecca E. Balzan
Thesis Statement:
Despite federalism serving as a guiding doctrine for relations between states and the
federal government since the founding of the United States, federalism played a relatively minor
role during the Nullification Crisis of 1830 to 1833 proving less relevant than the overbearing
political tensions and personal animosities existing between two key American political figures,
Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun.
Summary:
In an era wrought with sly partisan maneuvering and bombastic personalities competing
for popularity in a changing American political landscape, it is easy to overlook constitutional
conflicts rooted in niche ideological differences. This was the reality of the Jacksonian era. Such
controversies oftentimes paled in comparison to the sweeping legislation enacted under populist
President Andrew Jackson. The Nullification Crisis of 1830 to 1833 was one such conflict that
manifested into national strife between President Jackson and his administration, versus the state
of South Carolina and other states and individuals sympathetic to nullification. This crisis pitted
the federal and state governments against one another, challenging the concept of federalism and
increasing sectional division. Despite its unassuming nature centuries later, the crisis was one of
the crucial precursors that escalated the division between the states and the federal government,
ultimately culminating into secession and the Civil War. Monumental figures, such as President
Andrew Jackson, Vice President John C. Calhoun, New York Senator Martin Van Buren,
Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, South Carolina Governor Robert Hayne, and Secretary
of State Henry Clay, each cast sweeping shadows tinted in partisan views and personal
misgivings laced throughout the nullification crisis, causing it to transcend mere ideological
debate on policy, and adopt a more ominous meaning.
Nullification, whether a state can make void a congressional law, dates back to the
foundations of the United States. In relation to federalism, nullification alters the balance
between the federal and state governments and shifts the subordinate power of the states and
allows them to adopt a power reserved to the federal government. The crisis originated from a
conflict caused by the Tariff of 1828, and grew into national strife, pitting the federal
government against South Carolina and the president against the vice president. Since the crisis
appears to be rooted in political ideology and was seemingly “resolved” with the Compromise
Tariff of 1833, its significance is easily downplayed. Yet, the crisis reveals a nation affected by
19th century concerns unimagined or purposely ignored by the founders, and reflected increasing
sectionalism between the North, the South, and the West. Deeply rooted and intertwined in this
policy conundrum are speeches instigating the crisis’s perpetuation. The mounting tensions
between President Jackson and John C. Calhoun, the champions of anti-nullification and
nullification respectively, and key events led to a climax and eventually “resolution” of the issue.
Historical Framework:
A brief timeline of events that led to the culmination of the crisis include: the adoption of
the protective Tariff of 1824; the subsequent Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download The Nullification Crisis By Rebecca E. Balzan and more Summaries United States History in PDF only on Docsity!

THE NULLIFICATION CRISIS: CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE OR PERSONAL FEUD?

By: Rebecca E. Balzan Thesis Statement:

Despite federalism serving as a guiding doctrine for relations between states and the federal government since the founding of the United States, federalism played a relatively minor role during the Nullification Crisis of 1830 to 1833 proving less relevant than the overbearing political tensions and personal animosities existing between two key American political figures, Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun.

Summary:

In an era wrought with sly partisan maneuvering and bombastic personalities competing for popularity in a changing American political landscape, it is easy to overlook constitutional conflicts rooted in niche ideological differences. This was the reality of the Jacksonian era. Such controversies oftentimes paled in comparison to the sweeping legislation enacted under populist President Andrew Jackson. The Nullification Crisis of 1830 to 1833 was one such conflict that manifested into national strife between President Jackson and his administration, versus the state of South Carolina and other states and individuals sympathetic to nullification. This crisis pitted the federal and state governments against one another, challenging the concept of federalism and increasing sectional division. Despite its unassuming nature centuries later, the crisis was one of the crucial precursors that escalated the division between the states and the federal government, ultimately culminating into secession and the Civil War. Monumental figures, such as President Andrew Jackson, Vice President John C. Calhoun, New York Senator Martin Van Buren, Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster, South Carolina Governor Robert Hayne, and Secretary of State Henry Clay, each cast sweeping shadows tinted in partisan views and personal misgivings laced throughout the nullification crisis, causing it to transcend mere ideological debate on policy, and adopt a more ominous meaning. Nullification, whether a state can make void a congressional law, dates back to the foundations of the United States. In relation to federalism, nullification alters the balance between the federal and state governments and shifts the subordinate power of the states and allows them to adopt a power reserved to the federal government. The crisis originated from a conflict caused by the Tariff of 1828, and grew into national strife, pitting the federal government against South Carolina and the president against the vice president. Since the crisis appears to be rooted in political ideology and was seemingly “resolved” with the Compromise Tariff of 1833, its significance is easily downplayed. Yet, the crisis reveals a nation affected by 19th century concerns unimagined or purposely ignored by the founders, and reflected increasing sectionalism between the North, the South, and the West. Deeply rooted and intertwined in this policy conundrum are speeches instigating the crisis’s perpetuation. The mounting tensions between President Jackson and John C. Calhoun, the champions of anti-nullification and nullification respectively, and key events led to a climax and eventually “resolution” of the issue.

Historical Framework:

A brief timeline of events that led to the culmination of the crisis include: the adoption of the protective Tariff of 1824; the subsequent Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of

Abominations; the Eaton Affair (1829); the South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828); the Tariff of 1832; President Jackson’s proclamation against nullification and Robert Hayne’s counter proclamation (1832); the Force Bill of 1833; Henry Clay’s Compromise Tariff of1833; and South Carolina’s repeal of nullification (1833). While these events give context to the evolution of the crisis, a simple timeline fails to expose the personal maneuverings and private agendas nestled within each of the events. Not only does what happened prior to the crisis matter, but so too do the players of specific parts and who endorsed which platform. The animosity between Jackson and Calhoun had reached new heights by April 1830 at the Jefferson Birthday Dinner. The President and Vice President were thus pitted against each other with their opposing views exposed and on display for a host of others to see. The affair was meant to celebrate and commemorate the life and principles espoused by Thomas Jefferson, late champion of the Democratic-Republicans. Some of the guests at the dinner included: Andrew Jackson, John C. Calhoun, Martin Van Buren, Robert Hayne, and Daniel Webster. The dinner’s proceedings reached a dramatic climax as Andrew Jackson rose to deliver his toast. The audience sat, ears primed to hear what Jackson, supposed friend of the states, had to say. Martin Van Buren, whose short stature prohibited him from viewing the president, climbed atop his chair to watch the scene unfold.^1 Jackson stood and proclaimed, “Our Federal Union, it must be preserved.” Heads turned to Calhoun, expecting a response from the vice president. Calhoun, taking Jackson’s words as a direct affront against South Carolina, raised his glass and declared, “The Union- next to our liberty the most dear. May we all remember that it can only be preserved by respecting the rights of the state and distributing equally the benefit and burden of the Union.”^2 Historian Richard Sternberg offers a theory of Jackson’s motives as devaluing his political opponent, making the rhetoric exchanged at the Jefferson Birthday Dinner have less to do with ideological differences and much more to do with personal animosity and ambition. Amid the debacle of the nullification crisis, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall, faced another constitutional conundrum in Worcester v. Georgia (1832).^3 This case related to federalism and questioned whether Georgia had the authority to regulate laws in relation to a Native American tribe. Marshall ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Samuel Worcester, and agreed with the federal government’s supremacy in the conflict. Despite the decision, Georgia refused to release Worcester from prison. Jackson cast his sympathies with Georgia and the state’s attempt to assert authority over the Cherokee Nation. He did not take action to force Georgia to rescind its unconstitutional law. Instead, Jackson reportedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it now if he can.”^4 This remark symbolizes the president's pejorative disposition towards the Supreme Court and Federalist, John Marshall. Worcester v. Georgia had massive implications to the nation’s Native American policy, resulting in the Native American Removal Act which legitimized the Trail of Tears. To understand Jackson and Calhoun, it is essential to review their individual, and at times contradictory, political philosophies. Jackson’s personal ideology was fluid and dependent on the mood of the people and his personal mood. Jackson viewed the presidency as, “an instrument of the people against the combined interests of the rich and the incumbent;” this mindset designated the holder of authority in the executive branch as a hero of the majority and the

(^1) Jon Meacham, American Lion , New York, NY: Random House Publishing Group, 2008, 135. (^2) H. W. Brands, Heirs of the Founders, New York: NY, Penguin Random House LLC, 2018, 180. (^3) Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515, (1832). (^4) John Ehle. Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation, Bantam Doubleday Dell, Publishing Group, Inc, 1988,

Bibliography

Primary

The Alien Act. Fifth Congress. Enrolled Acts and Resolutions. General Records of the United States Government. Record Group 11. National Archives. July 6, 1798. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=16.

Calhoun, John, C. “South Carolina Exposition and Protest.” 1828. https://www.warrenhills.org/cms/lib/NJ01001092/Centricity/Domain/145/South%20Caro lina%2 0Exposition%20and%20Protest.pdf.

Hayne, Robert, Webster, Daniel. “The Great Debate.” Edited by Lindsay Swift. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Co. 1898.

Jackson, Andrew. “Fourth Annual Message to Congress.” December 4, 1832. https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-4-1832-fourth- annual-message-congress.

______. “Proclamation No.26 Respecting the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina.” http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=011/llsl011.db&recNum= 16/.

Jefferson, Thomas. “Kentucky Resolutions.” Dec. 3, 1799. https://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/primary-source-documents/virginia- andkentucky-resolutions/.

Madison, James. “Virginia Resolutions.” Dec. 24, 1798. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-17-02-0128.

Sedition Act. Ch. 74. 1 Stat. 596. 1798. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=16&page=transcript

Smith, Bayard, Margaret, Hunt, Gaillard. The First Forty Years of Washington Society: Portrayed by the Family Letters of Mrs. Samuel Harrison Smith (Margaret Bayard) From the Collection of her Grandson, J. Henley Smith. New York: Scribner. 1906. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001263225.

Story, Joseph. “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.” Boston: Hillard Gray & Co. 1833. 318-219, 326.

Twentieth Congress, Sess. I. Ch. 55, 1828, A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875, 270, https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=004/ll004.db recNum=317.

Webster, Daniel. “The Second Reply to Hayne.” Jan. 26-27, 1830.

Worcester v. Georgia, 31 US 515, (1832).

Secondary

Barlett, Irving, H. John C. Calhoun: A Biography. New York: NY. W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 1993.

Brands, H., W. Heirs of the Founders. New York: NY. Penguin Random House LLC. 2018.

Cheek, H., Lee, Jr. John C. Calhoun Selected Writings and Speeches. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing Inc. 2003.

Dunn, Susan. Dominion of Memories: Jefferson, Madison and the Decline of Virginia. New York: NY. Basic Books. 2007.

Ehle, John. Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. 1988.

Grove, John, G. John C. Calhoun’s Theories of Republicanism. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. 2016.

Gutzman, K., R., Constantine. “The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions Reconsidered: ‘An Appeal to the Real Laws of Our Country.’” The Journal of Southern History. Vol. 66. No.

  1. Aug. 2000. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2587865.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ac25332d26b09c 71ee69a909377b70.

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

Remini, Robert, V. Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822– 1832. New York, NY: Harper & Row Publishers. 1981.

Remini, Robert, V. The Jacksonian Era. Harlan Davidson, Inc. 1989.

Seagrave, Adam, S. “Madison’s Tightrope_._ ” Polity. Vol. 47. No. 2. April 2015. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24540299.pdf.

Stenberg, Richard, R. “The Jefferson Birthday Dinner, 1830.” The Journal of South History. Vol.

  1. No. 3. Aug. 1938.

Watson, Harry, L. Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America. New York, NY: Hill and Wang, 1990.