The Nullification Crisis and Presidential Conduct

Key Insight

The Nullification Crisis in the 1830s clearly demonstrated the Union's weakness. South Carolina, purely agricultural, complained that federal tariff laws were unconstitutional and unjust, as they protected northern manufacturing. The state adopted the doctrine of nullification, claiming that states, as sovereign parties to the constitutional 'contract,' had the right to interpret federal laws and suspend their execution within their borders if deemed unconstitutional or unjust.

This doctrine, articulated by Mr. Calhoun, would effectively destroy the federal bond and restore the anarchy from which the Constitution rescued Americans in 1789. In 1832, South Carolina's convention published an 'ordinance' nullifying the federal tariff law, prohibiting duty collection, and banning federal court appeals, arming its militia in preparation for war. Congress, initially deaf to complaints, heeded them once arms were taken up.

Congress responded by passing a law to gradually reduce tariffs over ten years, effectively abandoning the protective principle for a purely fiscal measure and yielding in reality while maintaining an appearance of inflexibility. President Jackson, though defending Union rights in this instance, typically represented the party advocating for limited federal power, being a 'slave of the majority.' While his personal power grew by sweeping aside enemies, the general power of the President and the federal government was shown to be diminishing, with Jackson being 'federal by predilection and republican by calculation.'