Editing Nullification crisis (section)

==Washington, D.C. (1828–1832)==
[[File:Andrew jackson head.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Official [[White House]] portrait of Andrew Jackson]]

When President Jackson took office in March 1829, he was well aware of the turmoil created by the "Tariff of Abominations". While he may have abandoned some of his earlier beliefs that had allowed him to vote for the Tariff of 1824, he still felt protectionism was justified for products essential to military preparedness and did not believe that the current tariff should be reduced until the [[national debt]] was fully paid off. He addressed the issue in his inaugural address and his first three messages to Congress, but offered no specific relief. In December 1831, with the proponents of nullification in South Carolina gaining momentum, Jackson recommended "the exercise of that spirit of concession and conciliation which has distinguished the friends of our Union in all great emergencies."<ref>Ellis, pp. 41–43.</ref> But on the constitutional issue of nullification, despite his strong beliefs in states' rights, Jackson did not waver.

Calhoun's "Exposition and Protest" started a national debate on the doctrine of nullification. The leading proponents<ref>Ellis, p. 9.</ref> of the nationalistic view included Daniel Webster, Supreme Court Justice [[Joseph Story]], Judge [[William Alexander Duer]], John Quincy Adams, [[Nathaniel Chipman]], and [[Nathan Dane]]. They rejected the [[compact theory]] advanced by Calhoun, claiming that the Constitution was the product of the people, not the states. According to the nationalist position, the Supreme Court had the final say on legislation's constitutionality, and the national union was perpetual and had supreme authority over individual states.<ref>Ellis p. 9.</ref> The nullifiers, on the other hand, asserted that the central government was not the ultimate arbiter of its own power, and that the states, as the contracting entities, could judge for themselves what was constitutional. While Calhoun's "Exposition" claimed that nullification was based on the reasoning behind the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, an aging James Madison in an August 28, 1830, letter to [[Edward Everett]], intended for publication, disagreed. Madison wrote, denying that any individual state could alter the compact:<ref>Brant, p. 627.</ref>

{{quote| Can more be necessary to demonstrate the inadmissibility of such a doctrine than that it puts it in the power of the smallest fraction over 1/4 of the U. S.—that is, of 7 States out of 24—to give the law and even the Constn. to 17 States, each of the 17 having as parties to the Constn. an equal right with each of the 7 to expound it & to insist on the exposition. That the 7 might, in particular instances be right and the 17 wrong, is more than possible. But to establish a positive & permanent rule giving such a power to such a minority over such a majority, would overturn the first principle of free Govt. and in practice necessarily overturn the Govt. itself.<ref>Ellis p. 10. Ellis wrote, "But the nullifiers' attempt to legitimize their controversial doctrine by claiming it was a logical extension of the principles embodied in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions upset him. In a private letter he deliberately wrote for publication, Madison denied many of the assertions of the nullifiers and lashed out in particular at South Carolina's claim that if a state nullified an act of the federal government it could only be overruled by an amendment to the Constitution." Full text of the letter is available at http://www.constitution.org/jm/18300828_everett.htm {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071010052250/http://www.constitution.org/jm/18300828_everett.htm |date=October 10, 2007 }}.</ref>}}

[[File:Webster's Reply to Hayne.jpg|right|thumb|250px|''Webster Replying to Hayne'' by George P.A. Healy]]

Part of the South's strategy to force repeal of the tariff was to arrange an alliance with the West. Under the plan, the South would support the West's demand for free lands in the public domain if the West supported repeal of the tariff. With this purpose, Robert Hayne took the floor on the Senate in early 1830, beginning "the most celebrated debate in the Senate's history." Daniel Webster's response shifted the debate, subsequently styled the Webster-Hayne debates, from the specific issue of western lands to a general debate on the very nature of the United States. Webster's position differed from Madison's: Webster asserted that the people of the United States acted as one aggregate body, while Madison held that the people of the several states acted collectively. [[John Rowan (politician)|John Rowan]] spoke against Webster on that issue, and Madison wrote, congratulating Webster, but explaining his own position.<ref>Brant, pp. 626–627. Webster never asserted the consolidating position again.</ref> The debate presented the fullest articulation of the differences over nullification, and 40,000 copies of Webster's response, which concluded with "liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable", were distributed nationwide.<ref>McDonald, pp. 105–106.</ref>

Many people expected Jackson to side with Hayne, but once the debate shifted to secession and nullification, he sided with Webster. On April 13, 1830, at the traditional Democratic Party celebration honoring Jefferson's birthday, Jackson chose to make his position clear. In a battle of toasts, Hayne proposed, "The Union of the States, and the Sovereignty of the States." Jackson's response, when his turn came, was, "Our Federal Union: It must be preserved." To those attending, the effect was dramatic. Calhoun responded with his own toast, in a play on Webster's closing remarks in the earlier debate, "The Union. Next to our liberty, the most dear." Finally, Van Buren offered, "Mutual forbearance and reciprocal concession. Through their agency the Union was established. The patriotic spirit from which they emanated will forever sustain it."

Van Buren wrote in his autobiography of Jackson's toast, "The veil was rent—the incantations of the night were exposed to the light of day." Senator [[Thomas Hart Benton (senator)|Thomas Hart Benton]], in his memoirs, wrote that the toast "electrified the country."<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 2, pp. 233–235.</ref> Jackson had the final word a few days later, when a visitor from South Carolina asked if Jackson had any message he wanted relayed to his friends back in the state. Jackson's reply was:

{{quote|Yes I have; please give my compliments to my friends in your State and say to them, that if a single drop of blood shall be shed there in opposition to the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man I can lay my hand on engaged in such treasonable conduct, upon the first tree I can reach.<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 2, pp. 233–237.</ref>}}

Other issues than the tariff were still being decided. In May 1830, Jackson vetoed the [[Maysville Road veto|Maysville Road Bill]], an important internal-improvements program (especially to Kentucky and Henry Clay), and then followed this with additional vetoes of other such projects shortly before Congress adjourned at the end of May. Clay used these vetoes to launch his presidential campaign.<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 2, pp. 255–256. Peterson, pp. 196–197.</ref> In 1831, the rechartering of the Bank of the United States, with Clay and Jackson on opposite sides, reopened a long-simmering problem. This issue was featured at the December 1831 National Republican convention in [[Baltimore]], which nominated Clay for president, and the proposal to recharter was formally introduced into Congress on January 6, 1832.<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 2, pp. 343–348.</ref> The Calhoun-Jackson split entered the center stage when Calhoun, as vice president presiding over the Senate, cast the tie-breaking vote to deny Van Buren the post of minister to [[England]]. Van Buren was subsequently selected as Jackson's running mate at the [[1832 Democratic National Convention]] held in May.<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 2 pp. 347–355.</ref>

[[File:Henry Clay.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Portrait of Henry Clay]]

In February 1832, Clay, back in the Senate after a two-decade absence, made a three-day speech calling for a new tariff schedule and an expansion of his American System. In an effort to reach out to Calhoun and other Southerners, Clay's proposal provided for a $10 million revenue reduction based on the budget surplus he anticipated for the coming year. Significant protection was still part of the plan, as the reduction primarily came on imports not in competition with domestic producers. Jackson proposed an alternative that reduced overall tariffs to 28%. John Quincy Adams, now in the House of Representatives, used his Committee of Manufacturers to produce a compromise bill that, in its final form, reduced revenues by $5 million, lowered duties on noncompetitive products, and retained high tariffs on woolens, iron, and cotton products. During the political maneuvering, McDuffie's [[Ways and Means Committee]], the normal originator of such bills, prepared a bill with drastic reduction across the board, but it went nowhere. Jackson signed the Tariff of 1832 on July 14, 1832, a few days after vetoing the Bank of the United States recharter bill. Congress adjourned after failing to override Jackson's veto.<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 2 pp. 358–373. Peterson, pp. 203–212.</ref>

With Congress adjourned, Jackson anxiously watched events in South Carolina. The nullifiers found no significant compromise in the Tariff of 1832 and acted accordingly. Jackson heard rumors of efforts to subvert members of the army and navy in Charleston and ordered the secretaries of the army and navy to begin rotating troops and officers based on their loyalty. He ordered General [[Winfield Scott]] to prepare for military operations and ordered a naval squadron in [[Norfolk, Virginia|Norfolk]] to prepare to go to Charleston. Jackson kept lines of communication open with unionists such as [[Joel Roberts Poinsett|Joel Poinsett]], [[William Drayton]], and [[James L. Petigru]] and sent George Breathitt, brother of [[John Breathitt|the Kentucky governor]], to independently obtain political and military intelligence. After their defeat at the polls in October, Petigru advised Jackson to "Be prepared to hear very shortly of a State Convention and an act of Nullification."

On October 29, 1832, Jackson wrote to his [[Secretary of War]], [[Lewis Cass]]:

{{quote|The attempt will be made to surprise the Forts & garrisons by the militia, and must be guarded against with vestal vigilance and any attempt by force repelled with prompt and exemplary punishment.}}

By mid-November, Jackson's reelection was assured.<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 2, pp. 382–389.</ref> On December 3, 1832, Jackson sent his fourth annual message to Congress. The message "was stridently states' rights and agrarian in its tone and thrust" and disavowed protection as anything other than a temporary expedient.<ref>Ellis p. 82.</ref> His intent regarding nullification, as communicated to Van Buren, was "to pass it barely in review, as a mere buble {{sic}}, view the existing laws as competent to check and put it down." He hoped to create a "moral force" that would transcend political parties and sections. The paragraph in the message that addressed nullification was:

{{quote|It is my painful duty to state that in one quarter of the United States opposition to the revenue laws has arisen to a height which threatens to thwart their execution, if not to endanger the integrity of the Union. What ever obstructions may be thrown in the way of the judicial authorities of the General Government, it is hoped they will be able peaceably to overcome them by the prudence of their own officers and the patriotism of the people. But should this reasonable reliance on the moderation and good sense of all portions of our fellow citizens be disappointed, it is believed that the laws themselves are fully adequate to the suppression of such attempts as may be immediately made. Should the exigency arise rendering the execution of the existing laws impracticable from any cause what ever, prompt notice of it will be given to Congress, with a suggestion of such views and measures as may be deemed necessary to meet it.<ref>Remini, ''Andrew Jackson'', v. 3 pp. 9–11. Full text of his message available at http://www.thisnation.com/library/sotu/1832aj.html {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070713054535/http://www.thisnation.com/library/sotu/1832aj.html |date=July 13, 2007 }}</ref>}}

On December 10, Jackson issued the [[Proclamation to the People of South Carolina]], in which he characterized the positions of the nullifiers as "impractical absurdity" and "a metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impractical theory." He provided this concise statement of his belief:

{{quote|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.<ref>Ellis pg 83–84. Full document available at: {{cite web |url=http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01.htm |title=The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832 |access-date=2006-08-10 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060824095525/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/proclamations/jack01.htm |archive-date=August 24, 2006 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>}}

The language Jackson used, combined with the reports out of South Carolina, raised the spectre of military confrontation for many on both sides of the issue. A group of Democrats, led by Van Buren and Thomas Hart Benton, among others, saw the only solution to the crisis in a substantial reduction of the tariff.