Chapter 4.0. The Nullification Crisis, Introduction.
Democratic-Republican Discontent. The idea that states have a constitutional right to nullify or veto acts of Congress, which had first been suggested in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, gained ground with many Americans in the 1820s. This idea was popular especially among Democratic-Republicans who were dissatisfied with the persistence of Federalist-inspired policies, such as the Second Bank of the United States (1816-36), high tariffs on imported goods, and a series of decisions by the Marshall court that reinforced or expanded federal power. The nullification “crisis” itself was relatively brief, lasting about four months, from Nov., 1832 to March, 1833.
Growing Sectional Tensions. These debates about economic policy, however, also reflected the much more significant divide in the country between the North and the South. Awareness was growing that the interests of the two regions, or “sections” as they were called, were diverging more and more, as both Northern manufacturing and Southern cotton production boomed. But at the time most political leaders avoided openly discussing this issue because until the eve of the Civil War political parties drew support from all regions of the country. While Federalists and then Whigs had more support in the Northeast, and Democratic-Republicans and then (Jacksonian) Democrats had more support in the South and West, these parties also relied on support elsewhere. Thus nullification was debated largely without reference to slavery.
The Webster-Hayne Debates that took place in the Senate in January, 1830, are revealing as an unusually open discussion of slavery and the resulting divergence of interests between the North and the South (see below). As debate over nullification unfolded, these issues were just below the surface. In fact nullification’s main proponent on the national stage, John Calhoun, developed this idea primarily as a strategy for the South to preserve slavery in the face of the growing Northern majority in Congress.
The Tariff Debate. The immediate trigger of the Nullification Crisis, however, was Democratic-Republican and Southern anger over what they called the “Tariff of Abomination.” This law, passed in May, 1828, under the administration of John Q. Adams (1825-29), but implemented under Andrew Jackson’s first administration (1829-33), raised taxes on most imported goods to an average of 38% (some goods were taxed at an even higher rate). This “protective” tariff was intended to defend the still-fledgling U.S. manufacturing sector against imported European, and especially British manufactured goods.
John Calhoun and the Nullification Debate. While still Vice-President under Adams (1825-29), Calhoun became the most prominent advocate of the idea of nullification by writing a report for the South Carolina legislature that attacked the tariff as unconstitutional and made a case for nullification of such laws and even, if necessary, the state’s secession from the Union. South Carolina published this lengthy report, the “South Carolina Exposition and Protest,” in December, 1828, but it took no further action. Calhoun at first kept his authorship of this report secret, because he had just been elected as Jackson’s Vice President, and he hoped to succeed Jackson as President. It was also hoped that the newly-elected Jackson administration would lower the tariff.
Jackson and Congress moved slowly on this issue, however, and by 1830 Calhoun’s authorship of the above report had become known, creating a permanent rift between him and Jackson. Calhoun made the case for nullification again and more publicly in his Fort Hill Address of July, 1831 (see below).
The Nullification Crisis. Congress finally passed a new tariff law in July, 1832, which lowered the average tax on imported goods only to 35%, though more reductions were planned. Most southern leaders accepted this law, but the reaction in South Carolina was more hostile. In November, 1832, a special state convention in South Carolina issued a “Nullification Ordinance,” which claimed to nullify the federal tariff law (see below). This statement also said that the state planned to use armed force to prevent duty collection in the state after February 1, 1833. In December, 1832, just after Jackson had been re-elected with Martin Van Buren as his new Vice President, Calhoun resigned as Vice President in order to become one of South Carolina’s Senators, an office he held for many years (1832-43, 1845-50).
On December 10, 1832, Jackson responded to South Carolina’s recalcitrance with a Proclamation to South Carolina (see below). Jackson promised to uphold the federal tariff and warned that “disunion by armed force is treason.”
The Compromise of 1833. After Jackson issued his proclamation, Senators Calhoun and Henry Clay led Congress to a compromise that successfully resolved the crisis. This deal consisted of two laws of March 2, 1833. The first was the “Force Act,” which authorized the use of military force against any state that resisted the tariff acts. The second law was the Compromise Tariff, which began a process that slowly lowered tariffs, so that after ten years the average tax on imports would be 20%.
The “Great Compromiser.” Although Henry Clay of Kentucky had begun his career as a Democratic-Republican, he also favored many Federalist-inspired policies, including the Bank of the United States and protective tariffs. Calling his program the “American System,” he led opposition to Jackson, at first in 1832 as a presidential candidate of the short-lived National Republican Party. Shortly thereafter he helped to found the longer-lasting Whig Party (1834-60). He represented Kentucky over a long career, stretching from 1806 to 1850, in both the House and the Senate. He became known as the “Great Compromiser” for his contributions to the Compromise of 1833 and other key political deals of this period, including the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and the Compromise of 1850.
Sources: Teaching American History.org’s section on Andrew Jackson, under Fort Hill Address; and the Library of Congress’s website “Today in History,” for January 13, 2018.