Jackson's vice-president, John Calhoun, represented South Carolina, and he called the newly-increased Tariff of 1828 an abomination, giving voice to the belief in the South that they "paid for the wealth of New England." So Calhoun boldly developed a nullification theory. He argued that because the U.S. Constitution was based on a contract with the states, each state had the right to nullify (reject) a federal law that it believed to be unconstitutional.
The theory sparked an intense debate in the Senate, but everyone wanted to know what President Jackson had to say. On April 13, 1830, Jackson gave a telling toast at a dinner party: "Our Union--it must be preserved." Calhoun quietly resigned, and the issue was laid to rest... for a short while.
In 1832, Congress increased the tariff yet again, and this time, South Carolina didn't wait to debate. They claimed that the tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and declared it "null, void, and no law!" Then they threatened to secede (leave) the Union!
Jackson didn't hold back this time. He pushed Congress to pass the Force Bill, which allowed the federal government to use military force against a state that resisted paying proper duties. With violence about to erupt, Congressional leader Henry Clay stepped in and proposed a compromise that would gradually lower the tariff over the next decade.
For now, the storm subsided...
Why do you think Jackson responded the way he did the FIRST time the nullification issue arose? Why do you think he responded differently in 1832? Put yourself in Jackson's shoes: would you have done the same? Why or why not?
I think the Nullification Crisis went to far by allowing to use the army/navy againt south carolina if they didn't pay the taxes.
ReplyDeleteJackson responded the first time by simply saying he wouldn't allow it because the first time it wasn't as big of a problem as it was for the second time. The first time they were just threatening to nullify the tariff and they weren't that willing to cause trouble about it when Jackson said that wouldn't happen so the problem ended. The second time they were more upset and they were threatening to separate from the union. So since it was a bigger problem and they were mad, Jackson decided to respond by sending in the military to calm them down. I would have done the same thing because I think his actions were reasonable for the different situations and they both temporary solved the problems.
ReplyDeleteI think Jackson responded the way he did the first time because he was a little thrown back by how the south thought they were paying higher taxes then the north. Jackson didn't want to have a bunch of states hate him so I believe he pushed the tariff aside and tried to keep it quiet, allowing the south to not revolt against him. I think he responded differently the second time because he knew the south shouldn't feel that way. He understood where they were coming from but they shouldn't of taken it to heart. If I was Jackson I would do the same, I would probably let the tariff lay low for awhile but then if it was brought up again like it was I would enforce harsh matters upon it.
ReplyDeleteIf I were South Carolina I would not want to pay the taxes. I am surprised more states did not follow in SC foots steps. Its not fair that they have to pay for more expensive goods from the north
ReplyDeleteI think that Jackson responded the way that he did the first time because he wanted the bill to be passed and the fact that they voided it angered him. Also the second time he responded worse because they nullified it again and it angered him even more. This is why he decided to use more force and a new bill to make them allow it. If I were in his shoes I would not have done it because it seems like him pressing it was creating more tension for the Civil War to erupt.
ReplyDelete@Erica, to build on what you're saying It is a good idea not to make basically what is your "brother and sister" states pay for something that they need. If we really wanted to build a strong nation we wouldn't treat each other like we were from different countries.
ReplyDeleteI agree I think Jackson's thoughts and actions were appropriate and the nullification crisis was not necessary.
ReplyDeleteI think Jackson responded the way he did in the first nullification issue because he didn't want to change anything about the union. This is because he wanted to preserve the union as it was. I think that he responded differently in the 1832 issue because he was threatened with South Carolina leaving the union. I think that I would have been angered with South Carolina's threat, but I wouldn't have acted so un-presidential. I think that this was not very professional, so that's why I wouldn't have acted the same way.
ReplyDelete@Erica, you have to consider that declaring/threatening secession is a HUGE deal... so I can see why other states wouldn't go as far as SC
ReplyDeleteI have to kindly disagree with Dakota because I feel like pressing them with an issue, that obviously do not agree with, once is enough. If they hate t then why do it again? It would obviously only anger them further thus creating more tension between north and south.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dakota. I think that Jackson was not quite sure how to respond so he stayed quite. He pushed the Tariff aside and kind of laid low. I think this is a good example of how the people greatly influenced his time in office and how the people persuaded him. I think i would have done the same thing as Jackson, but if it came up time after time i would have dealt with it.
ReplyDeleteI think Jackson made a terrible decision to pass the Force Bill because it just increased Army strength, but it at the same time it took away a lot of money/taxes which made people in the north mad. That lowered Jackson's reputation.
ReplyDelete@Daniel, I agree with you when you say that Jackson responded to the nullification issue because he didn't want to change anything about the union. I think he did that so he wouldn't create a mess in the country. So I understand where you are coming from when you say that.
ReplyDeleteThe north is getting richer at the expense of the south. Why should the south have to suffer to see the north flourish? EVERYONE IN THE CLASS WHO DISAGREES
ReplyDelete@Nate; Sorry, but I have to side with Dakota on this. Keep in mind that it wasn't Jackson himself who pressed the issue a second time; Jackson's role in the issue was more of a "mediator" who needed to explain the opinions of either side, rather than the "provoker" who sides with one group. In that regard, I feel like Jackson was right in chastising South Carolina when they pushed for nullification.
ReplyDeleteIn 1828, South Carolina only threatened to nullify the tariff. They never mentioned the idea of seceding from the Union at this point. Therefore, Jackson had no real threat and was able to respond calmly. However, the second time, South Carolina threatened to leave the Union. This would be a threat to the Union's power so Jackson had to show his power. I think Jackson's actions with the army was necessary and appropriate. He needed to show his power in order to keep South Carolina in line. This is like the Whiskey Rebellion where Washington sent 12,000 troops just to scare/keep the rebels in line. Without sending the message, South Carolina and maybe other states could have seceded.
ReplyDeleteI think that Jackson responded the way he did the first time, because he was just realizing the problem and it wasn't very big in the beginning. All he did was threaten to march troops into South Carolina, as a warning. In 1832, he reacted differently because South Carolina continued to refused to follow the tariff. Jackson had already warned them, and they ignored the warning so he enforced the Force Bill against South Carolina.
ReplyDelete@Brad M.; yes, I completely agree. Without the show of power on Jackson's part, any threats he had towards South Carolina and its dissenters would've fallen flat. The power of the President is reliant on his willingness to "bear his fangs" and that's exactly what Jackson did. The same idea holds true for the Whiskey Rebellion; were it not for Washington sending in troops, his message wouldn't have been taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteI would have done the same thing in his shoes. I would have reminded them and the country that we need to stay a union, and then the next time use force.
ReplyDelete@Richard: You do have a point. I do understand that he was a mediator. However, the south had the right to nullify the bill.
ReplyDelete@John: I don't agree with what you've said. I think that the government should never use violence on the states' inhabitants, I strongly believe that the use of violence would cause some other violence and would lead the nation into a civil war.
ReplyDelete@Nate; Well, yes, they had the right to nullify the bill. But it wasn't necessarily a very smart thing to do, so Jackson was right for pressuring them into not doing it.
ReplyDelete@Shannon i think that what he did is okay because it was South Carolina's fault for not responding to Jackson's warning so Jackson took matters in his own hands.
ReplyDelete@Richard: Yes, I do agree with that fully. You state a good point.
ReplyDeleteThe first time, South Carolina only argued the tariff, however John Calhoun's arguments did not pose as a threat to the enforcement of Jackson's laws. I think Jackson responded in a peaceful way because he did not feel that drastic measures were necessary at the time. However, once South Carolina declared the tariff as void two years later, I think Jackson passed the Force Bill because he wanted to demonstrate his overall authority when it came to decisions that affected America. He wanted to ensure that South Carolina would accept the laws without conflict. If I had been in his shoes I would have handled the situation similarly, in order to avoid issues between states.
ReplyDelete