Eleanor Finch
The Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 was a confrontation between South Carolina and the federal government over the former's attempt to nullify the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 within the state. The crisis was sparked by the Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, which was passed to protect domestic industrial products from foreign imports. While this tariff was beneficial to the North, it disproportionately harmed the South's agricultural economy by raising the cost of imported goods. Led by John C. Calhoun, South Carolina asserted its right to nullify these federal tariffs, claiming that the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to pass such tariffs. This crisis was a significant test of states' rights versus federal authority and was ultimately resolved through the Force Bill and the Compromise Tariff Act of 1833, which reduced tariffs and restored peace between the state and federal authorities.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Year | 1832-1833 |
| States involved | South Carolina |
| Federal laws | Tariff of 1828, Tariff of 1832, Force Bill, Compromise Tariff Act of 1833 |
| State laws | Ordinance of Nullification |
| Key figures | Andrew Jackson, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster |
| Issue | States' rights vs federal authority, slavery, trade |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The Tariff of Abominations
In contrast, President Andrew Jackson, generally a supporter of states' rights, viewed nullification as a threat to the Union. He believed that federal laws had greater authority than those of individual states and that the federal government derived its power from the people, not the states. In response to South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification, which declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and unenforceable in the state, Jackson threatened war with South Carolina. Congress passed the Force Act, which authorized the use of military force to enforce federal laws.
The crisis was ultimately resolved through the Compromise Tariff of 1833, negotiated by Senators Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun. This tariff gradually lowered tariffs over a ten-year period, allowing both sides to back down from confrontation. South Carolina repealed its Ordinance of Nullification and accepted the compromise, thus restoring peace between state and federal authorities.
Exploring Australia's Constitutional Right to Free Speech
You may want to see also
South Carolina's Ordinance of Nullification
The Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 was centred around the constitutional issue of states' rights versus federal authority. The crisis was sparked by the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832, which were passed in response to lobbying by northern manufacturers who wanted protection from British competition. The tariffs placed high duties on imported goods, benefiting manufacturers in the North but harming the agricultural economy in the South, particularly in South Carolina.
Southerners resented the tariffs because they raised the cost of imported goods and invited retaliatory tariffs that lowered foreign demand for their agricultural exports. They also believed that the Constitution explicitly denied Congress the power to pass tariffs of any kind. Led by John C. Calhoun, South Carolina asserted its right to nullify these federal tariffs, declaring them null and void within the state. This assertion of state power over federal law led to escalating tensions with the federal government.
The Ordinance of Nullification led to a significant confrontation between South Carolina and the federal government, with President Andrew Jackson issuing the Nullification Proclamation on December 10, 1832, threatening to send government troops to enforce the tariffs. In response, former Senator and then-Governor of South Carolina, John C. Calhoun, began to organize an armed resistance to the collection of the tariff. The conflict was eventually resolved through the Force Bill and the Compromise Tariff Act of 1833, which lowered tariffs and restored peace between state and federal authorities. South Carolina repealed its Ordinance of Nullification and accepted the compromise.
Workplace Harassment: Abusive Conduct and the Law
You may want to see also
The Force Bill
To prevent the crisis from escalating further, Senators Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John C. Calhoun negotiated a compromise. The Compromise Tariff of 1833 gradually reduced tariff rates, satisfying South Carolina. On March 15, 1833, the state repealed its Ordinance of Nullification but voted to nullify the Force Bill as a symbolic gesture. The crisis was resolved, and both sides claimed victory.
When is it Right to Call 911 for a Toddler?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Compromise Tariff Act of 1833
The Tariff of 1828, also infamously known as the "'Tariff of Abominations,"' was enacted to protect U.S. industries from foreign competition by imposing high tariffs on imported goods. While it aimed to support domestic manufacturers, it disproportionately harmed the agricultural economy of the South, particularly South Carolina, by raising the cost of imported goods and benefiting the North. As a result, South Carolina asserted its right to nullify these tariffs, claiming that the federal government had overstepped its constitutional authority.
However, it's important to note that the Compromise Tariff Act of 1833 was not a permanent solution. The reductions in tariffs lasted only two months into their final stage before protectionist measures were reinstated with the Black Tariff of 1842. Nonetheless, the Act served as a temporary compromise, easing tensions and providing a brief period of stability in the ongoing debate over states' rights and federal authority.
Getting to Constitution Hall: Metro Guide
You may want to see also
States' rights vs federal authority
The Nullification Crisis of 1832-1833 was a confrontation between the state of South Carolina and the federal government. The crisis was ostensibly about South Carolina's refusal to collect federal tariffs, but it was rooted in growing Southern fears over the movement in the North for the abolition of slavery. The Southern states believed that the tariffs disproportionately harmed their economy by raising the cost of imported goods and benefiting the Northern economy. This led them to claim the right to nullify such laws within their state borders.
Nullification is the authority for individual states to nullify federal laws they find unconstitutional within their borders. The doctrine of nullification had been advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798-99. Jefferson asserted that the union was a compact of sovereign states and that the federal government was their agent with certain specified, delegated powers. The states retained the authority to determine when the federal government exceeded its powers, and they could declare acts to be "void and of no force" in their jurisdictions.
The Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, was passed at the instigation of Northern manufacturers, but it distressed many Southern planters who depended on foreign trade for their livelihoods. The Tariff of 1832, which only slightly modified its predecessor. In response, the South Carolina legislature decided to put Calhoun's nullification theory into practice. They called for a special state convention, which adopted the Ordinance of Nullification on November 24, 1832. The ordinance declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 "null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens."
The federal government, under President Andrew Jackson, responded by passing the Force Bill, which allowed the use of military force to ensure federal laws were enforced. Jackson, generally in favor of states' rights, saw nullification as a threat to the Union. In his view, the federal government derived its power from the people, not the states, and federal laws had greater authority than those of the individual states. He commented on the crisis as follows:
> I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed…Disunion by armed force is TREASON.
The conflict was eventually resolved through the Force Bill and the Compromise Tariff Act of 1833, which reduced tariffs and restored peace between state and federal authorities.
The 1851 Ohio Constitution: Addressing the State's Issues
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The constitutional issue that led to the Nullification Crisis was South Carolina's assertion that the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional. This belief was based on the interpretation that the federal government was formed through a compact of the states, giving individual states the authority to nullify laws deemed unconstitutional.
The Tariff of 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, was a tax on imports designed to protect domestic industrial products from foreign competition. The Tariff of 1832 made only slight modifications to the Tariff of 1828.
South Carolina, led by John C. Calhoun, believed that the tariffs disproportionately harmed their economy by raising the cost of imported goods, benefiting the North at the expense of the South. This belief was outlined in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which was secretly drafted by Calhoun.
