Did Andrew Jackson nullify the tariff?

On October 22 1832, the South Carolina legislature declared a convention on November 19, to decide whether the state would, according to Calhoun's formula, Nullify the new tariff. The convention did declare the law null in South Carolina, by a vote of 136 to 26.

Actually, they said the law will become "null", and "no law" after February 1, allowing two months to work out a compromise. The South Carolina legislature also took Robert Y. Hayne out of the Senate and made him governor, replacing a more radical nullifier, while Calhoun resigned the Vice Presidency to replace Hayne in the Senate. This all suggests they were looking for a way out the tight spot they had put themselves in.

On December 11, 1832, Jackson published a proclamation giving strong constitutional arguments, written by the Secretary of State Livingston, "... 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".

It ended in a strong plea and threat which was mostly pure Jackson: "Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent [the execution of the laws] deceived you; they could not have been deceived themselves... Their object is disunion. But be not deceived by names. Disunion by armed force is treason. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences; on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment. On your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the Government of your country... I adjure you ... to retrace your steps."

Most of the nation responded to this with wild enthusiasm. Jackson claimed he could have 100,000 men on the side of the Union in a matter of weeks. Still, the South Carolina legislature authorized its Governor to call a draft, and appropriated $200,000 for arms. Jackson's actual military moves were on a fairly large scale, but careful, and calculated to avoid confrontation while negotiations went on.

Meanwhile a battle went on in Congress. Jackson was skillfully wielding threats and promises. On January 8, the administration submitted a bill, known as the Verplanck bill after one of Van Buren's allies, which cut the tariff in half over two years. On the 16th Jackson also sent to Congress the "Force Bill" (often called the "Bloody Bill"), to get Congressional approval for deploying the military to put down armed rebellion. It was another ringing Jacksonian propaganda document, and made Jackson the "first and only statesman of the early national period to deny publicly the right of succession (Remini, Life... p246)".

The Verplanck Bill was rejected by Nullifiers and Clay's pro-tariff men. Then came a move to save Calhoun's face and take credit away from Jackson. Clay stood up to propose a "Compromise bill", and was seconded by Calhoun. The bill was, in fact, much less of a tariff reduction (at least until nearly 10 years out) than the administration bill. Clay got a friend in the house to deftly swap his bill for the Verplanck bill and it was quickly passed, taking the administration by surprise. The Senate then passed this bill with the nullifiers perversely lending their support.

Meanwhile the Force Bill had passed in the Senate 32-1, with nearly all the nullifiers having walked out to avoid casting any vote. And on March 1, the Senate passed the "Compromise Tariff" and the House passed the Force Bill 149-48.

In South Carolina, with such face saving as the revised tariff gave them, the legislature rescinded the nullification proclamation against the tariff. They also declared the Force Bill to be null - a petty act since Jackson no longer had any need for a Force Bill.

Thirty years before the Civil War broke out, disunion appeared to be on the horizon with the Nullification Crisis. What started as a debate over the Tariff of Abominations soon morphed into debates over state and federal sovereignty and liberty and disunion. These debates transformed into a national crisis when South Carolina threatened secession, an explicit threat of disunion. However, the United States narrowly avoided a civil war through compromise and the reaffirmation of executive authority.

Since 1816, the United States used tariffs to protect American industry against foreign competition. Protective tariffs formed the foundation of Henry Clay’s American System which served as the main economic policy of the United States until President Andrew Jackson’s election. The first tariff passed was relatively low, but it progressively rose each year until 1828, with what became known as the Tariff of Abominations. Representative Silas Wright, an ally of Jackson, first proposed this tariff in 1828 as a ploy to help Old Hickory’s presidential campaign. The tariff raised duties to between 30-50% on certain raw materials, which protected the Mid-Atlantic and western states which produced these raw materials, but left southern states—and its cotton and tobacco industry—unprotected. In retaliation for the high tariff, foreign markets blocked the sale of American cotton, the South’s chief export and the cornerstone of their economy which caused economic issues in the South. Despite the South’s fervent objection to this tariff, Jackson maintained southern support for his campaign and by backing this tariff garnered support from states such as Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Kentucky, and Missouri, which proved to be vital in his campaign and helped him win the presidency. In 1828, Jackson’s soon to be Vice President and ally John C. Calhoun of South Carolina wrote an anonymously published a pamphlet titled “Exposition and Protest” which passionately criticized the tariff and laid the groundwork for nullification theory.

Despite southern objections, the tariff passed and went largely forgotten in American consciousness until an exchange on the Senate floor between South Carolinian Senator Robert Hayne and Massachusetts Senator Daniel Webster in January 1830 which reopened the debate. Hayne argued that state sovereignty permitted the nullification of federal rulings when those rulings infringed on states’ rights, going so far as to argue for secession in order to preserve state and personal liberty. Webster famously responded with “liberty and union, now and forever, one and inseparable,” to Webster and many other unionists, people, not states comprised the union. Nullification propagated secession which in turn would destroy the union: the sole protector of liberty. Thus, to preserve liberty, one must preserve the union. Nullifiers did not believe in this link between union and liberty but rather argued that it was the states alone which protected individual freedoms from an overreaching federal government.

The issue of nullification divided the White House as Vice President Calhoun staunchly supported states’ rights and served as a spokesman for nullification by revealing he wrote “Exposition and Protest.” Jackson, on the other hand, supported states’ rights, but not at the expense of the Union and once stated he “would rather die in the last ditch than see the union dismantled.” The Nullification Crisis was one in a series of issues that destroyed Jackson and Calhoun’s relationship.

In 1832 Congress replaced the Tariff of Abominations with a lower tariff; however, that was not enough to satisfy the South Carolinians who had made faint threats of nullification since 1828. Almost immediately following Jackson’s re-election in 1832, South Carolina, fortified by the recent election of many state nullifiers, formed a convention that denounced the Tariff of Abominations and its 1832 revision and formally adopted an Ordinance of Nullification. This ordinance declared those tariffs null and void and forbade the collection of duties within the boundary of the state following February 1, 1833. Finally, the ordinance declared that any act of force by Congress against South Carolina would lead to its immediate secession from the union.

In the past Jackson simply acknowledged the supremacy of union over state sovereignty without taking any direct action; however, this explicit threat of secession forced him to act against these nullifiers. Jackson advised his Secretary of War Lewis Cass to prepare for war, and over the course of a few months, Cass complied arms and enlisted a militia in preparation to enter South Carolina to enforce the tariff and prevent secession. During his war preparations, Jackson engaged in a national public relations campaign to discredit nullification in the mind of the American public. Jackson gave speeches against nullification that vehemently denounced South Carolina and promoted unionism. Jackson also gave a special speech to Congress asking them to reaffirm his authority to use force to ensure the execution of United States laws, which Congress complied with in a bill aptly known as Jackson’s force bill.

Despite his preparations, Jackson did not desire a civil war, but rather hoped the nullifiers would back down against his threats. In response to Jackson’s vigorous actions, South Carolinians delayed the enactment of their ordinance. Jackson, in turn, discretely supported Speaker of the House Henry Clay’s efforts to lower the tariff that caused this crisis. On March 2, 1833, Congress passed both Jackson’s and Clay’s tariff reduction. In response, South Carolinians rescinded their Ordinance of Nullification and the crisis passed. Many parties claimed to be the victor of this crisis, Calhoun and his nullifiers for receiving a tariff reduction, Clay for his compromise that prevailed; however, Jackson remained the true victor as he reaffirmed his executive authority and prevented a potential civil war days before his second inauguration.

Although not the first crisis that dealt with state authority over perceived unconstitutional infringements on its sovereignty, the Nullification Crisis represented a pivotal moment in American history as this is the first time tensions between state and federal authority almost led to a civil war. Ultimately, the spirit of union prevailed, and Americans reached a compromise which avoided war. However, this crisis laid the groundwork for the secession theory that reemerged in the 1850s at a time of heightened sectional tensions. By then the United States would not be so lucky, and debates over slavery and the legitimacy of secession would plunge Americans into a horrific civil war.

How did Andrew Jackson View tariffs?

Jackson supported states' rights but viewed nullification as a prelude to secession, and he vehemently opposed any measure that could potentially break up the Union. In July 1832, in an effort to compromise, he signed a new tariff bill that lowered most import duties to their 1816 levels.

Was Jackson against the tariff?

The Nullification Crisis Despite Calhoun's hopes, Andrew Jackson seemed reluctant to deal with the tariff issue when he took office. The issue might have died away but for a Senate debate between Daniel Webster of Massachusetts and Robert Hayne of South Carolina over the Tariff of 1828 in January 1830.

Who pushed to nullify the 1828 tariff?

Calhoun readily accepted and in a few weeks had a 35,000-word draft of what would become his "Exposition and Protest". Calhoun's "Exposition" was completed late in 1828. He argued that the tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional because it favored manufacturing over commerce and agriculture.

Was Andrew Jackson for or against the nullification crisis?

Andrew 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 from the states, and the federal laws had greater authority than those of the individual states.

Toplist

Última postagem

Tag