Jackson and the Tariffs and Nullification
Read through the synopsis of Jackson and the tariffs and Nullification and all the primary
source documents. As a group you have thirty minutes to analyze the material and
present this story to your classmates while paying attention to some of the questions
below. Please do not limit yourselves to just those questions as they are meant to get you
started. Remember your classmates will not have the documents so you must be clear in
addressing each of them in your presentation. You will have no more than five to six
minutes to present your in-depth findings.
Some questions to ponder:
Was the tariff fair to the South?
Should states have the power to nullify laws?
What effect would the President’s actions on the Union?
A suggestion on presenting the material:
Break your group into pro and anti-tariff north
Anti-tariff and pro nullification south
Undecided west
You may choose to have the north and south debate the issue while trying to gain the
support of the west.
Do not do the boring stand up and talk presentation.
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)
B
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
as 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
22
states.”
-
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.
Webster, the aggressor, had challenged Hayne to commit himself to the doctrine of
nullification. Hayne took the bait, quoted Jefferson’s Kentucky resolution and held
as sacred a resistance to unauthorized taxation. In a reply that took two days to
deliver, Webster attempted to shred the elaborate nullification argument.
The debate over the nature of the Union occupied the Senate for four whole
months, though little remained to be said after Webster and Hayne had completed
their speeches. The debates were far more than an exercise in oratory. They helped
shape public opinion on the crucial issues of nationalism or sectionalism, union or
states, national laws or state nullification. Young boys like Abraham Lincoln,
reading Webster’s Second Reply to Hayne, grew up with a passion to defend the
John Calhoun
Union. In the South, Hayne’s speeches helped plant the seeds which would
blossom into secession in 1861. The speeches prepared the minds of the nation for
the events to come. But for the immediate future another issue was far more pressing the tariff.
—
The Tariff of Abominations
In order to frustrate and thus defeat the middle and New England states in their desire to gain more
protection for their industries, Southerners deliberately voted higher tariff rates in 1828. They hoped to
make the tariff so high that even its supporters would object to it. This high-risk strategy backfired. ‘Its
enemies,’ Webster commented, ‘spiced it with whatever they thought would render it distasteful; its
friends took it drugged as it was.” The result was a tariff with duties averaging forty-five cents for every
dollar of imports.
Champions of the tariff were pleased with the protection it offered industries of the North.
American manufacturers, it was reasoned, needed protection for less expensive foreign goods produced
by cheap labor. Infant American industries, like babies in the cradle, needed protection until big enough
to fend for themselves. Those industries and products most in need of protection included cotton textiles,
wool, hemp, and flax.
_;
-
-.-
-
-“-7
—•---
-
Southerners saw two distinct disadvantages to protection First
protection would increase the cost of imports. Since the South exported
its great crops, such as cotton, rice, and tobacco, it had no need of
protection. The tariff, in fact, operated as a tax on the goods bought but
not produced by Southerners. Secondly, the tariff hurt the South by
making it more difficult for foreigners to buy American products.
Without the dollars earned by selling their products in America,
Englishmen would be less able to purchase goods produced in the
South. Thus the tariff hurt the South by increasing the prices of goods
bought while reducing sales to foreign countries.
TIAGT,
roLErrA
1a.
:
.
.
-
1’1U TRiD AW. STATE
.
‘
“1
.
.
-
PEOPLE OF
-
The protectionist argued that the South was not really harmed by
the tariff. They pointed out that the tariff was merely a means of getting
Americans to buy and sell to other Americans. Southerners would be
able to buy the North’s manufactured goods, and similarly develop a market for their agricultural
products in the North. Certainly, there was some truth to this argument. But the tariff also forced
Southerners to pay more for manufactured goods from the North while depriving them of more lucrative
markets abroad. Whatever benefits the tariff might provide for the nation would fall primarily to the
Northern and the middle states; whatever burden the tariff produced was felt most heavily in the South.
.
.
.
.
-‘-:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Southern leaders increasingly viewed the tariff as a tax imposed on the South to support industry in
the North. What made things worse, of course, was that the proceeds of this tax were often invested in
internal improvements; improvements which did not benefit the South. In an anti-tariff meeting in South
Carolina, Thomas Cooper reviewed these arguments and challengingly asked his audience:
Is it worth our while to continue this Union of States, where the North demands to be our masters
and we are required to be their fributaries? 24
In South Carolina, after passage of the Tariff of Abominations, the answer to this question was ever
more inclined to be a resounding, No!
Quoted in Samuel Eliot Morrison and Henry Steele Commager, The Growth of the American Republic,
Oxford University Press, New York, 1956, Vol I., p.476
24 bc. cit.
The South Carolina Exposition and Protest
ing in the
To fully understand why South Carolina began to question the value of remain
Amendment first
Union, one must look beyond the tariff issue. After 1819, when the Talimadge
e increasingly
becam
na
Caroli
challenged the continued expansion of slave territory, South
minded by a
master
sensitive about its peculiar institution. A well-organized slave conspiracy,
insurrection was
free Negro named Denmark Vesey, was uncovered in 1822, shortly before the
coordinated attack
about to start. The plan had been five years in the making and involved the
leave had been
shore
on
sailors
of six separate battle units. Free African-Americans and black
imprisoned for
be
enlisted in the plot and were used legislature demanded that Negro seamen
ted with a treaty
as long as their ships remained in South Carolina ports. This law conflic
America while on
providing for the free and equal treatment of sailors from both England and
e. While this was
suprem
was
the other’s shores. Ruling on this case, courts held that the treaty
exportation of all
being resolved, the Ohio legislature called for the gradual emancipation and
ted this suggestion.
slaves willing to live in Africa. Eight Northern states eventually suppor
nians began to search
Assaulted by what they considered to be hostile forces, South Caroli
The answer was the
for a formula that would protect them from unfriendly national laws.
t. Secretly authored
nullification doctrine embodied in the South Carolina Exposition and Protes
Tariff of Abominations.
by John Calhoun in 1828, the Exposition was a direct response to the
interests.
their
to
But it could be used to nullify any law Southerners judged contrary
protective and not a
According to Calhoun the tariff of 1828 was illegal because it was a
and imposts (tax on
revenue tariff. The Constitution gives Congress the right to impose duties
could be to protect
tariff
the
imported goods), but does not specifically state that the purpose of
Calhoun claimed it was
industry. Since this purpose was not directly stated in the Constitution,
the United States, and
beyond the powers given by South Carolina to the government of
therefore the Tariff of 1828 could be declared null and void.
ky Resolution thirty
Using arguments that Thomas Jefferson had employed in the Kentuc
tution. As the authors
years before, Calhoun claimed that the states had written the U.S. Consti
states remained the sole
of that document, and therefore parties to a mutual compact, the
the National government. If
determiners of how much power they had actually surrendered to
powers granted it, the state
the National government, the agent of the states, overstepped the
the Federal actions were
could call a Constitutional Convention. If the convention found that
in that state. Thus an
force
t
indeed illegal, they could declare them null and void and withou
al. The only recourse
individual state, by its own action, could rule a Federal law unconstitution
amend the Constitution
for the Federal government would be to have three-fourths of the states
illegaL* If the state still objected to the law, it would have to
to give it the power declared
succeed from the Union or comply with the unpalatable statute.
would protect South
In writing the Exposition, Calhoun had created a formula which he felt
found answers to balance
Carolina from unwarranted exercises of Federal power. He had sought and
however, whether this
majority rule with the protection of minority rights. It remained to be seen,
formula would be accepted by other states.
President Jacksons Dil
emma
After passing the Exposit
ion and Protest, the nullifie
rs in South
Carolina waited to see Preside
nt Jackson’s reaction. Jackso
n
had
been elected
in 1828 and had not yet com
mitted himself on the tariff.
The President made
no reference to tariff reform
in his inaugural address in
1829. South Carolina
worked hard to obtain the rep
eal of the hated tariff, but mad
e no progress in
either 1830 or 1831. Finally,
in 1832, the tariff was lowered
slightly, but not
enough to suit South Carolin
a. Convinced that she would
always be saddled
with this burdensome tax,
South Carolina took action. In
the hotly contested
1832 state elections, the Sou
th Carolina nullifiers won
an overwhelming
victory and immediately call
ed for a Constitutional Conven
tion. By large
majorities, the convention pas
sed the Ordinance of Nullificatio
n, declaring the
Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 nul
l, void, and of no effect in
South Carolina as of
February 1, 1833. In doing
so, the state presented the Nat
with the strongest threat to
ional government
its authority to date. During
a similar crisis in 1794, George
marched 15,000 Federal troo
Washington had
ps into Pennsylvania. But
the Whiskey Rebellion was
discontented minority wit
only an uprising by a
hin one state. The Nul
lification Ordinance questio
Government’s authority to enf
ned the Federal
orce any law opposed by the
majority of citizens in a state.
President Jackson had several
courses of action open to him
issue, hoping that a reducti
. He could compromise on the
on of tariff schedule would
tariff
be followed by South Carolin
nullification proclamation.
a’s repeal of her
A second alternative was to
follow George Washington’s
Whiskey Rebellion and demons
example in the
trate his willingness to use
Federal troops to enforce the
that the threat of force wou
law in the hopes
ld compel South Carolina
to submit. Finally, Jackson cou
challenge to Federal suprem
ld ignore the
acy and permit South Carolin
a to nullify the tariff, thus assu
that the Federal government
ring all states
would not force them to obe
y all laws they considered unc
decision would be one of the
onstitutional. The
most difficult that Jackson wo
uld have to make.
Andrew Jackson’s strategy in
dealing with the nullification cris
is contained three elements. First, he
avoided a direct clash with Sou
th Carolina officials by moving
the
Cus
toms House out of Charleston to
Federal property on a harbor
island. Second, Jackson affirme
d the principle of Federal suprem
Adopting Webster’s view of the
acy.
Union, Jackson gave a strong
speech denouncing nullification “as
compatible with the existence
in
of the Union, contradicted exp
ressly by the letter of the Constitu
inconsistent with every principle
tion,
on which it was founded, and des
tructive to the great object for which
was formed.” ‘ Jackson followe
it
d his speech with a recommend
atio
n that Congress pass the Force Bill
authorizing the President to call
,
out the United States Army and
the state militia in this emergency
Finally, Jackson offered an oliv
.
e branch. He asked Congress
to reduce the tariff because “protec
tended to beget in the minds of
tion
a large proportion of our country
men a spirit of discontent and jealous
dangerous to the stability of the
y
Union.” 26
After much posturing and deb
ate and with the help of Henry
Clay of Kentucky a final agreement
was crafted based on Jackson’s pro
posals. The offending tariff was
lowered to an average rate of 20%
the next ten years, with most of
over
the reduction scheduled for the
years 1840-42. A Force Act, authoriz
the Chief Executive to use the US
ing
Army to enforce the law was pas
sed and remained on the books lon
enough for President Lincoln to
g
use it in 1861 when he faced a cris
is even more serious than the one
1828-33. Finally, South Carolina
of
repealed its Ordinance of Nullific
ation, but ever defiant, nullified the
Force Act.
1. Senator Robert Hayne Advocates
Nullification (1830)
Thus it will be seen, Mr. President, that the South Carolina doctrine [of nullifica
tioni is the Ileffersoniani Republican doctrine of 1798; that it was first promulgated
by the Fathers ol the Faith; that it was maintained by Virginia and Kentucky in the
worst of times; that it constituted the very pivot on which the political revolution of
that
that day turned; that it embraces the very principles the triumph of which at
were
statesmen
England
New
which
time saved the Constitution at its last gasp, and
not unwilling to adopt [at Hartford in 18141 when they believed themselves to be
the victims of unconstitutional legislation.
Sir, as to the doctrine that the federal government is the exclusive judge of the
extent as well as the limitations of its powers. it seems to me to be utterly subver
sive of the sovereignty and independence of the states. It makes but little difference
in my estimation whether Congress or the Supreme Court are invested with this
power. If the federal government in all or any of its departments is to prescribe the
limits of its own authority, and the states are hound to submit to the decision and
are not allowed to examine and decide for themselves when the harriers of the Con
stitution shall be overleaped. this is practically “a government without limitation of
powers. The states are at once reduced to mere petty corporations and the people
are entirely at your mercy.
I have but one word more to add. In all the efforts that have been made by
South Carolina to resist the unconstitutional [tariff] laws which Congress has ex
tended over them, she has kept steadily in view the preservation of the Union by
the only means by which she believes it can be long preserved—a firm, manly, and
steady resistance against usurpation.
The [tariff] measures of the federal government have, it is true, prostrated her in
terests, and will soon involve the whole South in irretrievable ruin. But even this
evil, great as it is, is not the chief ground of our complaints. It is the principle
involved in the contest—a principle which, substituting the discretion of Congress
for the limitations ot the Constitution, brings the states and the people to the feet of
the federal government and leaves them nothing they can call their own.
Sir, it the measures of the federal government were less oppressive, we should
still strive against this usurpation. The South is cting on a principle she has always
held sacred—resistance to unauthorized taxation.
These, sir, are the principles which induced the immortal [Johnl Hampden to re
sist the payment F in 16371 of a tax of twenty shillings [to the English governmentl.
Would twenty shillings have ruined his fortune? No! hut the payment of half twenty
shillings on the principle on which it was demanded would have made him a slave.
Sir, if in acting on these high motives, if animated l)y that ardent love of liberty
which has always beeii the most prominent trait in the Southern character, we
should be hurried beyond the bounds of a cold and calculating prudence, who is
there with one noble and generous sentiment in his bosom th’it would not he dis
posed, in the language of lbdmundl Burke, to exclaim, “You must pardon something
to the spirit of liberty!’
(1829—1830) vnl. 6. part 1. p.5% ( fantia 25, 1830)
2. Daniel Webster Pleads for the Union (1830)
If anything be found in the national Constitution, either by
original provision or
subsequent interpretation, which ought not to he in it, the
people know how to get
rid of: it. If any construction be established, unacceptable to
them, so as to become,
practically, a part of the Constitution, they will amend it. at their
sovereign pleasure.
But while the people choose to maintain it as it is—while they
are satisfied with it,
and refuse to change it—who has given, or who can give, to
the state legislatures a
right to alter it, either by interference. constmction, or otherwise?
I profess, sir, in my career, hitherto, to have kept steadily in view
the prosperity
and honor of: the whole country, and the preservation of our
Federal IJnion. It is to
that Union we owe our safety at home and our consideration
and dignity abroad. It
is to that Union that we are chiefly indebted Ir whatever makes us most proud of
our country.
That Union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe
school of adversity. It had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance. pros
trate commerce, and ruined credit. tinder its benign influence, these great interests
immediately awoke us from the dead and sprang forth with newness of life, Everv
year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; and
although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread
farther and farther. they have not outrun its protection or its benefits. It has been to
us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness.
I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the Union to see what might lie
hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not coolly weighed the chances of preserv
ing liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not
accustomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion to see whether, with my
short sight. I can fathom the depth of the abyss below. Nor could I regard him as a
safe counselor in the affairs of this government whose thoughts should he mainly
bent on considering not how the Union should be best preserved, but how tolerable
might he the condition of the people when it shall be broken up and destroyed.
While the Union lasts we have high. exciting, gratifying prospects spread out
before us—for us and our children. Beyond that, I seek not to penetrate the veil.
God grant that in my day, at least, that curtain may not rise! God grant that, on my
vision, never may be opened what lies behind!
When my eyes shall be turned to behold, for the last time, the sun in heaven.
may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once gb
rious Union; on states dissevered. discordant, belligerent: on a land rent with civil
feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! Let their last feeble and lingering
glance rather behold the gorgeous ensign of the Republic. now known and honored
throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in
their original luster, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bear
ing for its motto no such miserable interrogatorv as “What is all this worth?” nor
those other words of delusion and folly, “Liberty first and Union afterward”; hut
everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample
folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the
whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to everv true American heart—Liberty
and nion. now and forever, one and inseparable!
‘ihe Workc (f I)a,,tel 1tt’h’r 0th d. ( Boston: itrtk’.
Brown nd Company, 18)0),
January 2. 1830).
VO
.
pp. 3iO—4i2
South Carolina Threatens Secession (1832)
II’ South Carolina should be driven out of the I Inkm, all the other planting states,
and Sc me of the Vestern states. W )uld follow by an almost alsc ilute necessity. Can it
be believed that Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and even Kentucky. would ci )ntinue
to pay a tribute of ii) percent upon their consumption to the Northern states. Ibr the
privilege of l’eing united to them, when they coLIld receive all their supplies throLigh
the ports of SoLith Carolina without paying a single cent for tribute?
Ilie separation of south Can lina woukl inevitably pnxluce a general dissc ‘lii—
Hon of the t nion, and, as a necessary conseqLtence, the protecting system, with all
its pecuniary bounties to the Northern states, and its pecuniary burdens upon the
Sc utlwrn states, w n ild be utterly overtlirs wn and demolished, inn )lving the ruin of
thousands and hundreds of thousands In the manufacturing states....
With them, it is a question merely of pecuniary interest, connected with no
shadow of right, and involving no principle of liberty. With us, it is a qLtestion in
volving our most sacred rights—those very rights which our common ancestors left
to us as a c numon inheritance, ptin’hased by their common toils, and c )nsecrated
by their bkxxi. It is a question of liberty on the one hand, and slavery on the other.
If we sLibmit to this system of unconstitutional oppression: we shall voluntarily
sink into slavery, and transmit that ignominious inheritance to our children. We will
not, we cannot, we dare not submit to this degradation: and our resolve is fixed and
unalterable that a protecting tariff shall be no longer enforced within the limits of
South Carolina. We stand upon the principles of everlasting justice, and no hunun
power shall drive us from our position.
‘Xe have not the slightest apprehension that the General Government will at
tempt to force this system upon us by military power. We have warned our brethren
of the c rnsequences of such an attempt. BLIt if, notwithstanding, such a course of
madness should be pursued, we here solemnly declare that this system of oppres
sion shall never prevail in South Carolina, until none but slaves are left to submit to
it. We would infinitely prefer that the territory of the state should be the cemetery of
freemen than the habitation of slaves. Actuated by these principles, and animated by
these sentiments, we will cling to the pillars of the temple of our liberties, and, if it
must fall, we will perish amidst the wins.
D.C.. l)aenther
—.
(1432.
I
Andrew Jackson Denounces Nullification (1832)
For what would you exhange your share in the advantages and honor of the
l*nion? For the dream of a separate independence—a dream interrupted h bloody
conflicts with your neighbors and a vile dependence on a foreign power.
If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation. what would be your
situation? Are you united at home? Are you free from the apprehension of civil (us
cord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring [Latin American] republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new
insurrection, do they excite your envy?
But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce that you cannot
succeed. The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary
power on the subject; my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution.
Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution deceived
you: they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible op
position could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such
opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion.
But he not deceived by names. Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you
really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act he
the dreadful consequences; on their heads he the dishonor, but on yours may fall
the punishment. On your unhappy state will inevitably fall all the evils of the con
The consequence must be
flict you force upon the government of your country.
to the friends of good
and
here
fearful for you, distressing to your fellow citizens
government throughout the world.
Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal.
It was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our dis
cord with the triumph of malignant joy. it is yet in your power to disappoint them.
There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pincknevs. the Surnters. the
Rutledges. and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your Revolu
tionary history will not abandon that Union to support which so many of them
fought and bled and died.
I adjure you, as ‘ou honor their memory, as you love the cause of freedom, to
which they dedicated their lives, as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of
its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the
archives of you r state the disorganizing edict of its convention: bid its members to
reassemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the
path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity, and honor.
.
), kILhjr(1s(
fl
.kcicc
Lilid
Ptqkrs / the 1’r-’.idt’,,t,c
I5)w.
.
1. 2. P1
Jackson Fumes in Private (1832)
Washington. December
1.32.
Mv lYr Sir, Your letters were this moment reed, from the hands of Col. Drayton,
read and duly considered, and in haste I reply. The true spirit of patriotism that they
breath tills me with pleasure. If the Union party unite with you, heart and hand in
the text you have laid down, you will not only preserve the union. but save our na
tive state, from that ruin and disgrace into which her treasonable leaders have at
tempted to plunge her. All the means in my power, I will employ to enable her own
citizens, those faithful patriots, who cling to the Union to put it down.
The proclamation I have this day Issued, and which I inclose you, will give you
my views, of the treasonable conduct of the convention and the Governors recom
mendation to the assembly—it is not merely rebellion, but the act of raising troops,
( )sitive treason, and I am assured by all the members of congress with whom
I
have conversed that I will he sustained by congress. If so, I will meet it at the thresh
old. and have the leaders arrested and arraigned for treason—I am only waiting to
he furnished with the acts of your Legislature, to make a communication to Con
gress, ask the means necessary to carry my proclamation into compleat affect, and
by an exemplary punishment of those leaders for treason so unprovoked, put down
this rebellion, and strengthen our happy government both at home and abroad.
Mv former letter and the communication from the Dept. of War, will have in
brmed you of the arms and equipments having been laid in Deposit subject to your
requisition. to aid the civil authority in the clue execution of the law. uheneter
ca/led on as the po.sse corn itatus, etc. etc.
The vain threats of resistance by those who have raised the standard of rebel
lion shew their madness and folly. You may assure those patriots who cling to their
country, and this union, which alone secures our liberty prosperity and happiness,
that in forty clays, I can have within the limits of So. Carolina fifty thousand men, and
in forty days more another fifty thousand—However potant the threat of resistance
with only a population of 250,00() whites and nearly that double in blacks with our
ships in the port to aid in the execution of our laws?—The wickedness, madness
Iesett. ed.. (rrpwutei cc v/:1tic1reuJacIenz Washington. I).C.: The C,trnegie InstitUtion, W2)),
I ) ( \I iv () 1H2)) Reprlnft.d by permission ot the ( arnegie Institution of Washington