Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Nullification crisis
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Route to nullification in South Carolina (1828–1832)== [[File:JRP-SoW, S.jpg|thumb|220px|Joel Roberts Poinsett, South Carolina Unionist leader]] Historian [[Avery Craven]] argues that, for the most part, the debate from 1828 to 1832 was a local South Carolina affair. The state's leaders were not united and the sides were roughly equal. The western part of the state and a faction in Charleston, led by [[Joel Roberts Poinsett|Joel Poinsett]] and [[Thomas Smith Grimké]], remained loyal to the Union. Only in small part was the conflict between "a National North against a States'-right South".<ref>Craven, p. 65.</ref> After the final vote on the Tariff of 1828, South Carolina's congressional delegation held two caucuses, the second at the home of Senator [[Robert Y. Hayne]]. They were rebuffed in their efforts to coordinate a united Southern response and focused on how their state representatives would react. While many agreed with McDuffie that tariff policy could lead to secession, they all agreed that, as much as possible, the issue should be kept out of [[1828 United States presidential election|the upcoming presidential election]]. Calhoun, while not at this meeting, served as a moderating influence. He felt that the first step in reducing the tariff was to defeat Adams and his supporters in the upcoming election. [[William C. Preston]], on behalf of the South Carolina legislature, asked Calhoun to prepare a report on the tariff situation. Calhoun readily accepted and in a few weeks had a 35,000-word draft of what would become his "[[South Carolina Exposition and Protest|Exposition and Protest]]".<ref>Niven, pp. 135–137. Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', p. 143.</ref> Calhoun's "Exposition" was completed in late 1828. He argued that the tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional because it favored manufacturing over commerce and agriculture. He believed the tariff power could be used only to generate revenue, not to provide protection from foreign competition for American industries, and that the people of a state or several states, acting in a democratically elected convention, had the power to veto any act of the federal government that violated the Constitution. This veto power, the core of the doctrine of nullification, was explained by Calhoun in the Exposition: {{quote|If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments, and that the latter hold their portion by the same tenure as the former, it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. The right of judging, in such cases, is an essential attribute of sovereignty, of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself, and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition. In fact, to divide power, and to give to one of the parties the exclusive right of judging of the portion allotted to each, is, in reality, not to divide it at all; and to reserve such exclusive right to the General Government (it matters not by what department to be exercised), is to convert it, in fact, into a great consolidated government, with unlimited powers, and to divest the States, in reality, of all their rights, It is impossible to understand the force of terms, and to deny so plain a conclusion.<ref>[[s:South Carolina Exposition and Protest|South Carolina Exposition and Protest]]</ref>}} The report also detailed the specific southern grievances over the tariff that led to the current dissatisfaction.<ref>Niven, pp. 158–162.</ref> Fearful that "hotheads" such as McDuffie might force the legislature into taking drastic action against the federal government, historian [[John Niven]] describes Calhoun's political purpose in the document: {{quote|All through that hot and humid summer, emotions among the vociferous planter population had been worked up to a near-frenzy of excitement. The whole tenor of the argument built up in the "Exposition" was aimed to present the case in a cool, considered manner that would dampen any drastic moves yet would set in motion the machinery for repeal of the tariff act. It would also warn other sections of the Union against any future legislation that an increasingly self-conscious South might consider punitive, especially on the subject of slavery.<ref>Niven, p. 161.</ref>}} The report was submitted to the state legislature, which had 5,000 copies printed and distributed. Calhoun, who still had designs on succeeding Jackson as president, was not identified as the author, but word on this soon leaked out. The legislature took no action on the report at that time.<ref>Niven, pp. 163–164.</ref> In the summer of 1828, [[Robert Rhett|Robert Barnwell Rhett]], soon to be considered the most radical of the South Carolinians, entered the fray over the tariff. As a state representative, Rhett called for the governor to convene a special session of the legislature. An outstanding orator, Rhett appealed to his constituents to resist the majority in Congress. He addressed the danger of doing nothing: {{quote|But if you are doubtful of yourselves—if you are not prepared to follow up your principles wherever they may lead, to their very last consequence—if you love life better than honor,—prefer ease to perilous liberty and glory; awake not! Stir not!—Impotent resistance will add vengeance to your ruin. Live in smiling peace with your insatiable Oppressors, and die with the noble consolation that your submissive patience will survive triumphant your beggary and despair.<ref>Walther, p. 123. Craven, pp. 63–64.</ref>}} Rhett's rhetoric about revolution and war was too radical in the summer of 1828 but, with the election of Jackson assured, [[James Hamilton Jr.]] on October 28 in the [[Colleton County Courthouse]] in [[Walterboro, South Carolina|Walterborough]] "launched the formal nullification campaign."<ref>Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', p. 149.</ref> Renouncing his former nationalism, Hamilton warned the people that "Your task-master must soon become a tyrant, from the very abuses and corruption of the system, without the bowels of compassion, or a jot of human sympathy." He called for implementation of Jefferson's "rightful remedy" of nullification. Hamilton sent a copy of the speech directly to President-elect Jackson. But despite a statewide campaign by Hamilton and McDuffie, a proposal to call a nullification convention in 1829 was defeated by the South Carolina legislature meeting at the end of 1828. State leaders such as Calhoun, Hayne, Smith, and [[William Drayton]] all remained publicly noncommittal or opposed to nullification for the next couple of years.<ref>Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', pp. 152–155, 173–175. A two-thirds vote of each house of the legislature was required to convene a state convention.</ref> The division in the state between radicals and conservatives continued through 1829 and 1830. After the failure of a state project to arrange financing of a railroad within the state to promote internal trade, the state petitioned Congress to invest $250,000 in the company trying to build it. After Congress tabled the measure, debate in South Carolina resumed between those who wanted state investment and those who wanted to work to get Congress's support. The debate demonstrated that a significant minority of the state did have an interest in Clay's [[American System (economic plan)|American System]]. The effect of the [[Webster–Hayne debate]] was to energize the radicals, and some moderates started to move in their direction.<ref>Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', pp. 177–186.</ref> The state election campaign of 1830 focused on the tariff issue and the need for a state convention. On the defensive, radicals underplayed the intent of the convention as pro-nullification. When voters were presented with races where an unpledged convention was the issue, the radicals generally won. When conservatives effectively characterized the race as being about nullification, the radicals lost. The October election was narrowly carried by the radicals, although the blurring of the issues left them without any specific mandate.<ref>Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', pp. 205–213.</ref> In South Carolina, the governor was selected by the legislature, which chose James Hamilton, the leader of the radical movement, and fellow radical [[Henry L. Pinckney]] as speaker of the South Carolina House. For the open Senate seat, the legislature chose the more radical [[Stephen Decatur Miller]] over William Smith.<ref>Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', pp. 213–218.</ref> With radicals in leading positions, in 1831 they began to capture momentum. State politics became sharply divided along [[Nullifier Party|Nullifier]] and Unionist lines. Still, the margin in the legislature fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for a convention. Many of the radicals felt that convincing Calhoun of the futility of his plans for the presidency would lead him into their ranks. Calhoun, meanwhile, had concluded that Van Buren was establishing himself as Jackson's heir apparent. At Hamilton's prompting, McDuffie made a three-hour speech in Charleston demanding nullification of the tariff at any cost. In the state, the success of McDuffie's speech seemed to open up the possibilities of both military confrontation with the federal government and civil war within the state. With silence no longer an acceptable alternative, Calhoun looked for the opportunity to take control of the antitariff faction in the state; by June he was preparing what would be known as his Fort Hill Address.<ref>Peterson, pp. 189–192. Niven, pp. 174–181. Calhoun wrote of McDuffie's speech, "I think it every way imprudent and have so written Hamilton ... I see clearly it brings matters to a crisis, and that I must meet it promptly and manfully." Freehling in his works frequently refers to the radicals as "Calhounites" even before 1831. This is because the radicals, rallying around Calhoun's "Exposition," were linked ideologically, if not yet practically, with Calhoun.</ref> Published on July 26, 1831, the address repeated and expanded the positions Calhoun had made in the "Exposition". While the logic of much of the speech was consistent with the states' rights position of most Jacksonians, and even Daniel Webster remarked that it "was the ablest and most plausible, and therefore the most dangerous vindication of that particular form of Revolution", the speech still placed Calhoun clearly in a nullified camp. Within South Carolina, his gestures at moderation in the speech were drowned out as planters received word of the [[Nat Turner]] insurrection in Virginia. Calhoun was not alone in finding a connection between the [[Abolitionism in the United States|abolition movement]] and the sectional aspects of the tariff issue.<ref>Niven, pp. 181–184.</ref> It confirmed for Calhoun what he had written in a September 11, 1830, letter: <blockquote>I consider the tariff act as the occasion, rather than the real cause of the present unhappy state of things. The truth can no longer be disguised, that the [[Slavery in the United States|peculiar institution]] of the Southern States and the consequent direction which that and her soil have given to her industry, has placed them in regard to taxation and appropriations in opposite relation to the majority of the Union, against the danger of which, if there be no protective power in the reserved rights of the states they must in the end be forced to rebel, or, submit to have their paramount interests sacrificed, their domestic institutions subordinated by Colonization and other schemes, and themselves and children reduced to wretchedness.<ref>Ellis p. 193. Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', p. 257.</ref></blockquote> From this point, the nullifiers accelerated their organization and rhetoric. In July 1831, the States Rights and Free Trade Association was formed in Charleston and expanded throughout the state. Unlike state political organizations in the past, which were led by the South Carolina planter aristocracy, this group appealed to all segments of the population, including non-slaveholder farmers, small slaveholders, and the Charleston non-agricultural class. Governor Hamilton was instrumental in seeing that the association, which was both a political and a social organization, expanded throughout the state. In the winter of 1831 and spring of 1832, Hamilton held conventions and rallies throughout the state to mobilize the nullification movement. The conservatives were unable to match the radicals in organization or leadership.<ref>Freehling, pp. 224–239.</ref> The state elections of 1832 were "charged with tension and bespattered with violence," and "polite debates often degenerated into frontier brawls." Unlike the previous year's election, the choice was clear between nullifiers and unionists. The nullifiers won and on October 20, 1832, Hamilton called the legislature into a special session to consider a convention. The legislative vote was 96–25 in the House and 31–13 in the Senate.<ref>Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', pp. 252–260.</ref> In November 1832, the Nullification Convention met. The convention declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional and unenforceable within the state of South Carolina after February 1, 1833. It was asserted that attempts to use force to collect the taxes would lead to the state's secession. Robert Hayne, who succeeded Hamilton as governor in 1833, established a 2,000-man group of mounted [[minutemen]] and 25,000 infantry who would march to Charleston in the event of a military conflict. These troops were to be armed with $100,000 in arms purchased in the North.<ref>Freehling, ''Prelude to Civil War'', pp. 1–3.</ref> The enabling legislation passed by the legislature was carefully constructed to avoid clashes if at all possible and create an aura of legality in the process. To avoid conflicts with Unionists, it allowed importers to pay the tariff if they desired. Other merchants could pay the tariff by obtaining a paper tariff bond from the customs officer. They would then refuse to pay the bond when due, and if the customs official seized the goods, the merchant would file for a writ of [[replevin]] to recover the goods in state court. Customs officials who refused to return the goods (by placing them under the protection of federal troops) would be civilly liable for twice the value of the goods. To ensure that state officials and judges supported the law, a "test oath" would be required for all new state officials, binding them to support the ordinance of nullification.<ref>Ellis, pp. 97–98.</ref> Governor Hayne in his inaugural address announced South Carolina's position: {{quote|If the sacred soil of Carolina should be polluted by the footsteps of an invader, or be stained with the blood of her citizens, shed in defense, I trust in Almighty God that no son of hers ... who has been nourished at her bosom ... will be found raising a parricidal arm against our common mother. And even should she stand ALONE in this great struggle for constitutional liberty ... that there will not be found, in the wider limits of the state, one recreant son who will not fly to the rescue, and be ready to lay down his life in her defense.<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 3, p. 14.</ref>}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)