Part A: Plan of Investigation
I will investigate the question of whether the national tariff policy between 1816 and 1832 impacted the development and acceptance of the nullification doctrine in South Carolina? I will evaluate the national tariff policy during the early 1800's and analyze how these tariffs may have impacted the acceptance and support of nullification in South Carolina. I will examine the economic conditions of South Carolina during this period and compare these conditions with the development of nullification as a political tool. I will also review the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions to look at early examples of state sovereignty.
I will conduct internet research, review various books written at different times in history, review periodicals, including the Charleston Mercury, and review letters and speeches written by John C. Calhoun and Andrew Jackson during this period.
Part B: Summary of Evidence
Since the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the states have wrestled with the balance of power between the federal government and the individual states. As early as 1798 and 1799, the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures passed resolutions to oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. While the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions did not use the word “nullification,” the resolutions challenged the power of the federal government.
After the War of 1812, cheaper British manufactured goods poured into American markets. In order to protect American “infant industries” from British competition, Congress passed a protective tariff in 1816. Proponents of the tariff reasoned that, without some protection, American would always be in the position of supplying raw materials (such as cotton) in ret...
... middle of paper ...
...
Part E: Conclusion
The federal tariff policy definitely played a what kind of role in the development and acceptance of nullification in South Carolina. In fact, in “South Carolina’s Exposition and Protest,” John C. Calhoun specifically pointed to the unjust and oppressive nature of the tariffs to justify his nullification theories. Without doubt, South Carolina’s economy clearly suffered during 1816 to 1832 as the price of cotton fell and the prices of imports rose. Whether justified or not, many South Carolinians blamed the federal tariffs in part because of the exaggerated and emotional reports of the press, Hayne, and McDuffie. Because their economic interests were impaired, South Carolinians were looking for something to blame and a way to respond. The federal tariff policy was an easy target, and nullification provided a dramatic way to take action.
John C. Calhoun proposed the states’ right theory and attempted to enact nullification twice, after each of two tariffs that South Carolinians saw as one sided and unconstitutional was passed, first in 1828 and the second in 1832. Calhoun felt that his beloved South Carolina, and the south in general, were being exploited by the tariffs. These pieces of legislature, Calhoun argued, favored the manufacturing interests in New England and protected them from fore...
South Carolina was very concerned about the active tasks of the abolishment of slavery. Also, by 1832 the state of South Carolina had turned to focus on the issue of tariffs. The national tariffs increased the price of goods purchased from the south. These
The Southern slaveholders “inspired by Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, charged that it did and that the constitution
The impact of a state’s right to nullification can ultimately cause a great deal of damage to the country that it resides in. To describe the impacts one would need to take a look back into history when the Nullification Crisis took place. South Carolina had economic hard times after the war of 1812. Cotton prices started to drop and South Carolina was in a state of depression. Southerners however tend to blame their economic woes on the policies of the national government. (Goode 87). The Tariff of Abominations was a series of high taxes that was placed on incoming foreign goods. The South disagreed with this proposal because they thought that the federal government was trying to tax one part of the country to benefit the wealth of another which is the North. Thomas Cooper, the president of the South Carolina College said “Is it worth while to continue in this union of states, where the north demands to be our masters and we are required to be their tributaries.”(Goode 89) John C. Calhoun being Vice President and was from South Carolina strongly disagreed with this Tariff of Abominations. He even wrote “South Carolina Exposition” which used the constitution as an argument against the tariff. Then, there was the Haynes and Webster Debate. They both defended and attacked on the Nullification topic in congress. In 1832 Congress released another tariff that replaced the Tariff of Abominations, but the South Carolinians weren’t still happy. The climax of this nullification swirl happened at Jackson’s birthday dinner where everyone gathered to give speeches. Andrew told everybody in that room what he thought of State Nullification with one simple line: “Our Union, It must be preserved” (Goode 88). The Congress continued with passing a Force Bill that would allow President Jackson to use force to regulate the tariff laws. To clean this mess up and to avoid civil war, both sides decided to compromise due to a plan drawn up by Henry Clay
An article appearing in the Spectator on March 12, 1861, tries to make the argument that states which have succeeded are experiencing huge tax increases. The writer reasons that the raised taxation from the Union is for the “defense of the State”. The author questions “As these things occur in times of peace, what may we expect in times of war?”
The American Civil war lasted from 1861 until 1865 and changed this nation considerably in many ways. We are all aware that the conclusion of this war determined the federal government as the leading force of the nation over the state. However, since the end of this war, there are other ways in which the federal government has also evolved. One of the major factors in how the government has emerged since then is President London B. Johnson’s “Unconditional War on Poverty”.
The United States is trying to move toward a new cultural change in the government where the ideals of North states are overarching the needs of the Southern states. This trend is not favorable for South Carolina because the North does not have the knowledge of what the South needs to succeed. The North is doing whatever it needs to improve its situation without considering the implications of excluding the South from the plans of the future. The South cannot compete with the North trying to unconstitutional take advantage of the South due to their governmental size. The South cannot compete with the Northern supremacy in the government because they are trying to oppress Southern ideas. South Carolina does not have to keep taking the changes that the government is implementing because the North is not helping the South. South Carolina can seced...
Andrew Jackson passed the Tariff of 1832 to balance out the effects of favoring one side of the country than another. The Tariff of 1828 was severely hurting the South's economy because of the tax about 50% of the goods. Andrew Jackson hoped by reducing the taxes down by 15% it'll favor the South and the North. The North benefited because the Northern states are composed with factories and industries. However, the South didn't fancy the tariff, instead, it led to the nullification crisis of South Carolina's warning to leave the Union if the government doesn't repeal the tariffs. However, the nullification crisis wasn't the only thing that causes states to wrangle with it other, it was also
This tariff was the first real protectionist measure that the United States had taken, raising the taxes to 20-25% on all foreign goods. After the war of 1812 the United States had taken a hard hit. In 1824, the federal government passed another protectionist tariff, whose purpose was to protect American industry from cheap British products like wool, iron, and agriculture goods. From the beginning of the United States of America frequent tariffs were passed in order to regulate and control the taxation of products being both imported an exported over seas with other countries. Many of the taxes, like the Tariff of 1824 were used in order to protect the American economy. By regulating the taxes of traded goods, the United States was able to keep the import and export of products balanced most of the
The Tariff of 1828, more commonly known as the Tariff of Abominations, aimed to protect northern and western agricultural products from foreign competition via a protective tariff. Up until 1830, Jackson had yet to take an official stance on the idea of nullification, the idea that states can declare Supreme Court rulings as unconstitutional. Calhoun supported nullification before and after Jackson made a speech that emphasized the preservation of the union of all else. Jackson even went so far as cutting off Calhoun and removing his allies from the cabinet after Jackson found out about documents written by Calhoun against him. The social tensions in addition to the major conflict between the two over nullification grew to be too much for Calhoun to handle. He resigned from Jackson’s cabinet in 1832, and took his seat in the Senate where was able to repeatedly defend South Carolina’s pro-nullification
John C. Calhoun began with the extended Nullification Crisis by proclaiming the constitutional right of states to national laws that were harmful to their interests, in 1828 (Text pg. 336) causing a major impact on the United States. With help from Congress, there was a tariff passed to help protect the northern manufactures and businessmen. Sadly, the southerners thought that the industrialization of the north would lead to the downfall of the southern economy, the name being “tariff of abominations” (Text pg. 336)
At the root of the Declaration of Independence, which disbands the United States away from the control of Britain, holds a firm belief that a revolution must arise when the rights of a group or territory of people have unfair treatment in comparison to the rights of their fellow citizens. Ironically, that country would condemn the actions of their own when their liberties by law have become ignored, as seen in the secession of South Carolina, and the other states that followed. In the Union’s defense, South Carolina’s abandoned the country when they had lost favor in their exercising of slavery, which few people today can condone. However, if the subject matter has no purpose, South Carolina acted upon the same motivations of the founding
The tariff is tax added to the cost of goods imported from another country. Duties are also levied in order to raise government revenue or to contract an unwanted activity in tax. Tariffs helped them compete with British factories. The rate of tariff varies by industry. Protective tariff is a responsibility levied on imports to raise their price, making them less attractive to consumers and thus protecting domestic industries from foreign competition. The tariffs were popular in areas like Pennsylvania and New York due to the speedy development of manufacturing industry. Today, many countries have high taxes and duties, and some have low taxes and duties. If your product is primarily made in the U.S. originating components may qualify for duty
When America's cotton is sent to China, it is made into T-shirts in the sweatshops of China by laborers working 12-hour days and being paid subsistence wages. When the finished T-shirts re-enter the U.S., they are protected by the government through subsidies, tariffs, taxes, and protectionist policies that ensure that these foreign products will not provide too much competition to American-made shirts. Government regulations control how many T-shirt can be imported from various countrie...
History has witnessed tariffs to have varied affects on the events that are associated with conflicts and wars. Tariffs are designed to “protect domestically made products and for the state that uses them to collect specific commodities” 4. M.J Daunton, in a The English Historical Review article5, points to the conflict amongst the European alliances and the reasons for the First World War being indirectly based on tariffs. The pre-First World War alliances were based on both security and industrial purposes. When the alliance that was set up amongst the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, it was largely because of the resources of production and the agreements that were arranged between corporations and industries in the countries. Germany, for example, had a highly advanced steel industry and used many resources that came from the Austrian-Hungarian Empire as well as the Asian-Mediterranean Ottoman Empire. Rivaled by the British and the France to their west, these countries saw “open-trade” with these competing countries as being harmful to their domestic economies and industries.