Considered to be the sparkplug for the formation of the infamous Civil War, the Nullification Crisis of 1832 was a hostile conflict between the state of South Carolina and the United States government over the controversial concept of Nullification. Although the crisis concluded without a physical war or casualties, the
The period between Reconstruction and World War I was a time of tremendous social, economic, and cultural change in the United States. The end of the Civil War, the shrinking of the frontier, the rise of immigration, and the rapid growth of industry that characterized this time period brought many issues of race, class, and status to the forefront of politics. Many different opinions came to light about what it means to be an American and the dynamic between the American individual and American society. The differing answers to these questions created both divisions and unifications between different races, classes, and political parties. Through careful analysis of historical documents from the period, it is evident that society owes all individuals basic civil rights and the ability to make a living through harnessing their skills in the workplace. Conversely, the individual owes society work that benefits society as a whole and participation in government through suffrage.
The Nullification Crisis, which transpired under Andrew Jackson’s administration created a controversy not only during its time, but also in the years to follow and ultimately was one of the many causes of the Civil War years later. The Nullification crisis soon developed in the early 1830’s when the state of South Carolina began to have issues with the protective tariff (which was designed to protect the industry in the northern United States by taxing imports). At this point in history, many of the leaders of South Carolina were under the idea that a state did not have to follow a federal law and could “nullify” the law. This was a result that many colonists from South Carolina felt that the protective tax was benefiting the
In an essay that incorporates the textbook, lecture and power-point notes compare and contrast the compromises of 1820 and 1850.
As tensions between the North and the South rose on the issues of slavery and states’ rights, numerous compromises were proposed to ease the conflict. Such compromises included the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Crittenden Compromise. These compromises had intentions of defining where slavery was permitted and clarifying states’ rights. They were only temporary fixes to a more pressing issue. Between the Missouri Compromise and the Crittenden Compromise, a series of events changed the political atmosphere of the United States and prevented any more compromises on the institution of slavery from being passed.
The north was becoming increasingly industrialized while the south was still mainly agricultural. Congress passed a tariff that benefitted the producers of cloth, mostly north, however it shrunk the demand for southern raw cotton. The south were infuriated and looked to Vice President, John C. Calhoun, for support against the "tariff of abomination." Calhoun supported the first tariff, however, if he ever wanted a future political career he needed to rethink his position. Calhoun proposed the idea that the power of states should be greater than the federal. South Carolina then believed they had the right to nullify the tariff. Jackson who did not approve of nullification threatened to send troops in. He also forced Calhoun into resigning his position. Meanwhile, South Carolina threatened to secede the union. Jackson was granted a bill from congress to enact and send troops in, however, Henry Clay revised the tariff before armed confrontation was
Between the Age of Exploration to the end of the Civil War, the United States of America has undergone countless events, people, and ideas in which the history of the country was forever altered. However, out of all these moments in history, the American Civil War of 1861-1865, is by far the most important event in the United States. Known as the largest and most destructive conflict in American history, the Civil War brought into question what kind of nation it would become. The importance of the Civil War can be found in the conflicts, deaths, and questions that were created by this brief event in
At the end of the Mexican War, lands were ceded to the Union in the West. People from the North and the South were debating over whether or not these lands should have slavery. The solution was pushed by Clay, Webster, and Douglas from the North that would give the new lands the choice to be slave or free depending on a vote. During the mid-1800's, the North was industrializing and populating at a much higher rate than the South which was becoming dependent on the cotton industry. The Compromise of 1850 created more problems than it solved in regards to the enforcement of slave laws, lands in the West, and popular sovereignty.
The people of South Carolina felt that the Tariff of Abominations placed upon them favored northern manufacturers, and wanted to invalidate, or nullify it. This movement was led by Jackson’s Vice President, John C. Calhoun, who was known to be the “Voice of the South.” However, Jackson claimed that nullification is “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State” (Primary). In other words, Jackson decided to stand against nullification of laws because they were a violation of the constitution and a sectionalism action by the South Carolinians. Jackson’s effort to fight for the rights of the union imprinted an idea that future presidents would follow. Sixteenth president Abraham Lincoln fought for the nationalist mentality his forefathers had worked to build. He attempted to abolish slavery in the South, because he believed that “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (Jackson 2001). Because Jackson fearlessly stood up for the rights of the union, he set a precedent of nationalist notions and actions that has carried throughout
THE COMPROMISE OF 1850 A little after the Manifest Destiny, the U.S. faced a series of troubles of sectional balances over whether or not the land acquired should be free or slavery states. The Compromise of 1850, proposed by Senator Henry Clay, included measures that dealt with the land acquired specifically from the Mexican War.
Douglas Okwu 12-1-2012 Period: 7th Analyze the effects of political compromise in reducing sectional tension in the period 1820-1861. During the period of 1820-1861 the north and south debated on issues that dealt with slavery and unbalance power, in order to reduce sectional tension between these two states, the Missouri Compromise, Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were proposed.
He pleaded Henry Clay, an old friend, to draft a solution with him. Clay developed a compromise proposal, which lowered the high tariffs by ten percent over eight years. The Compromise Tariff of 1833 barely passed through Congress, but it significantly changed the tariff. These new rates were not nearly as low as the Southerners had hoped they would be, but it was a better compromise than the Force Bill had offered. South Carolina’s legislature voted to recede their efforts to nullify the tariff acts, but they did attempt to nullify the Force Bill. Even though their nullification of the Force Bill was insignificant, it allowed South Carolina to feel slightly victorious.
South Carolina had resorted to the nullification of the tariff controversy of the early 1830s because tariffs increased the prices that southern agriculturists had to pay for manufactured goods.This made it difficult for farmers to buy equipment to harvest their farms and make a profit from it. South Carolina (and the South as a whole) was afraid of federal encroachment on the states rights because they did not want to end slavery. The nullification created tension between Jackson and Calhoun. Jackson thought Calhoun was going against the constitution because Calhoun thought that a state should be able to nullify a law. Jackson saw that nullification was a threat to the survival of the union. The nullification crisis showed that the people
In the Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina (1835), it states, “…earnestly requests that the state governments of these states will promptly and effectually suppress all those associations within their respective limits…” (Document F). This quote is significant because with South Carolina refusing to comply with the federal tariff, it highlights how the Jacksonians are ineffective at enforcing the Constitution at the state level, demonstrating a negative influence on political democracy that would occur for several more decades, leading up to the American Civil War. Although Andrew Jackson and the Jacksonian Democrats were advocates of state rights, they also believed in affirming the authority of the federal government, something he failed to do in this crisis. As a result, the Jacksonians failed to defend the political democracy and Constitution of the United States because of allowing the states to nullify laws, which would later become a negative influence on the United States because the nullification of laws would be a pivotal issue in addressing
In efforts to better understand the Civil War most historians examine the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850 in the decades leading up to the worst years in American History. Some historians prefer to focus on the underlying theme of the war, others tightly examine individual leaders, events, and political parties, connecting them all together like puzzle pieces to define the years prior to the war. Despite the contrasting views, it is clear to realize the constant prevailing issues of the Antebellum Period, the Sectional Crisis and the Compromise of 1850. In particular, the Compromise of 1850 is deceivingly taught as only establishing 3 pivotal elements: the status of slavery in future territories (popular sovereignty), California statehood, and the fugitive slave law. Granted these elements of the compromise provide a great amount of controversy long after their birth, but one element of the compromise perceives to fail in obtaining recognition. The Texas-New Mexico boundary resolution seems to find itself fading away from its relevancy to the civil war, shadowed by more prominent issues regarding the stability of the Union. Abandoning the traditional teaching of the compromise, the Texas-New Mexico border decision figuratively and literally changed the identity of Texas. This was the long awaited result caused by deep rooted social and political issues dating back to the Texas Revolution.