How did south carolina respond to the tariff?

What was the nullification crisis?

How was the nullification crisis resolved?

What were the roots of John C. Calhoun’s states’ rights argument?

How did the nullification crisis foreshadow the American Civil War?

nullification crisis, in U.S. history, confrontation between the state of South Carolina and the federal government in 1832–33 over the former’s attempt to declare null and void within the state the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. The resolution of the nullification crisis in favour of the federal government helped to undermine the nullification doctrine, the constitutional theory that upheld the right of states to nullify federal acts within their boundaries.

Doctrine of nullification and the “Tariff of Abominations”

The doctrine of nullification had been advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798–99. The union was a compact of sovereign states, Jefferson asserted, and 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 so-called Tariff of Abominations of 1828 was passed at the instigation of Northern manufacturers, but it distressed many Southern planters who depended on foreign trade for their livelihoods. Agriculture in South Carolina was undergoing grave difficulties owing to soil exhaustion, and many believed that the extraordinarily high tariffs would damage the state’s economy irreparably. During 1828, protests were voiced through Southern newspapers and town meetings, and finally, on December 19, the state legislature issued South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which declared the tariff unconstitutional. Secretly drafted by Vice Pres. John C. Calhoun (whose name did not appear on it), the paper outlined the state’s grievances and furthered the nullification doctrine.

Calhoun took the position that state “interposition” could block enforcement of a federal law. The state would be obliged to obey only if the law were made an amendment to the Constitution by three-fourths of the states. The “concurrent majority”—i.e., the people of a state having veto power over federal actions—would protect minority rights from the possible tyranny of the numerical majority.

Ordinance of Nullification

When the Tariff of 1832 only slightly modified the Tariff of 1828, the South Carolina legislature decided to put Calhoun’s nullification theory to a practical test. The legislature called for a special state convention, and on November 24, 1832, the convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification. The ordinance declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 “null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens.” It also forbade appeal of any ordinance measure to the federal courts, required all state officeholders (except members of the legislature) to take an oath of support for the ordinance, and threatened secession if the federal government tried to collect tariff duties by force. In the meantime, Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to speak for his state in the Senate. In the address that he wrote to accompany the Ordinance of Nullification, he further elucidated his states’ rights theory of the Constitution, stating in part that

the Constitution of the United States is a compact between the people of the several states, constituting free, independent, and sovereign communities…the government it created was formed and appointed to execute, according to the provisions of the instrument, the powers therein granted as the joint agent of the several states…all its acts, transcending these powers, are simply and of themselves null and void, and…in case of such infractions, it is the right of the states, in their sovereign capacity, each acting for itself and its citizens, in like manner as they adopted the Constitution to judge thereof in the last resort and to adopt such measures—not inconsistent with the compact—as may be deemed fit to arrest the execution of the act within their respective limits. Such we hold to be the right of the states in reference to an unconstitutional act of the government; nor do we deem their duty to exercise it on proper occasions less certain and imperative than the right itself is clear.

The Governor of South Carolina bought buttons like this one as a symbol of defiance to the U.S. government.

By the late 1820's, the north was becoming increasingly industrialized, and the south was remaining predominately agricultural.

In 1828, Congress passed a high protective tariff that infuriated the southern states because they felt it only benefited the industrialized north. For example, a high tariff on imports increased the cost of British textiles. This tariff benefited American producers of cloth — mostly in the north. But it shrunk English demand for southern raw cotton and increased the final cost of finished goods to American buyers. The southerners looked to Vice President John C. Calhoun from South Carolina for leadership against what they labeled the "Tariff of Abominations."

The Ordinance of Nullification issued by South Carolina in 1832 foreshadowed the state's announcement of secession nearly 30 years later.

Calhoun had supported the Tariff of 1816, but he realized that if he were to have a political future in South Carolina, he would need to rethink his position. Some felt that this issue was reason enough for dissolution of the Union. Calhoun argued for a less drastic solution — the doctrine of "nullification." According to Calhoun, the federal government only existed at the will of the states. Therefore, if a state found a federal law unconstitutional and detrimental to its sovereign interests, it would have the right to "nullify" that law within its borders. Calhoun advanced the position that a state could declare a national law void.

The members of the South Carolina legislature defended the rights of the states against the federal government.

In 1832, Henry Clay pushed through Congress a new tariff bill, with lower rates than the Tariff of Abominations, but still too high for the southerners. A majority of states-rights proponents had won the South Carolina State House in the recent 1832 election and their reaction was swift. The South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification was enacted into law on November 24, 1832. As far as South Carolina was concerned, there was no tariff. A line had been drawn. Would President Jackson dare to cross it?

Jackson rightly regarded this states-rights challenge as so serious that he asked Congress to enact legislation permitting him to use federal troops to enforce federal laws in the face of nullification. Fortunately, an armed confrontation was avoided when Congress, led by the efforts of Henry Clay, revised the tariff with a compromise bill. This permitted the South Carolinians to back down without "losing face."

In retrospect, Jackson's strong, decisive support for the Union was one of the great moments of his Presidency. If nullification had been successful, could secession have been far behind?

How did the South respond to the Tariff of 1828?

Many people in Southern states, especially South Carolina, opposed the tariff. They opposed protective tariffs on the grounds that hurt their state financially. Instead, they supported the free-trade of goods and threatened to nullify the Tariff of 1828 in a major challenge to national authority.

Did South Carolina support tariffs?

Southern states such as South Carolina contended that the tariff was unconstitutional and were opposed to the newer protectionist tariffs, as they would have to pay, but Northern states favored them because they helped strengthen their industrial-based economy.

Why did South Carolina oppose tariffs?

How did South Carolina respond to the Tariff of 1828 quizlet?

What did SC do in response to the Tariff of Abominations? Inspired by Calhoun, the South Carolina legislature adopted an ordinance of nullification repudiating the Tariff of Abominations.