* Create a t-chart in your notebook to make the comparison
* Which event do you think was a more serious matter? Why?
Before you read define:
1. Nullification
2. Secede or Secession
3. States' Rights
4. Tariffs
THE HARTFORD CONVENTION
The War of 1812, described by the editor of the Hartford Courant as one in which the United States had everything to lose and nothing to gain, was very unpopular in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Many people in New England had good reason to be upset. Northeastern shipping had been hurt more than any other industry, and though the war had caused economic hardship throughout the US, it was New England that suffered most. Dissatisfaction in Massachusetts, laboring under severe trade restrictions, was so intense by 1814 that leading Massachusetts Federalists called for a meeting of delegates from all New England states to discuss grievences, means of common defense, and possible changes in the Federal Constitution.
When the delegates assembled in the Old State House in Hartford "to confer," not secede and form a political confederation, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut had official delegates, while Vermont and New Hampshire had unofficial representatives. The convention issued a report which vigorously denounced many of the Madison administration's policies and recommended seven amendments to the Constitution.
The convention was confident that its proposals would strike fear into the hearts of Madisonians. However, news of Jackson's great victory at New Orleans, followed quickly by a peace treaty, completely overshadowed everything else. The Hartford Convention soon became an object of ridicule and disgrace. The general public wanted to think the worst--that it was a treasonable body. Even publication a few years later of the hitherto secret proceedings failed to silence charges of treason. Although usually over-blown, the minority secessionist group at the Hartford convention did help set a precedent for later secessionists.
The Hartford Convention, even while shying away from any real talk or threat of disunion, gave added force to notions of putting the sovereignty of states ahead of that of the federal government and nullification. These ideas gained enough currency in the South by 1861 to help justify secession.
NULLIFICATION CRISIS
Toward the end of his first term in office, Jackson was forced to confront the state of South Carolina on the issue of the protective tariff. Business and farming interests in the state had hoped that Jackson would use his presidential power to modify tariff laws they had long opposed. In their view, all the benefits of protection were going to Northern manufacturers, and while the country as a whole grew richer, South Carolina grew poorer, with its planters bearing the burden of higher prices.
The protective tariff passed by Congress and signed into law by Jackson in 1832 was milder than that of 1828, but it further embittered many in the state. In response, a number of South Carolina citizens endorsed the states' rights principle of "nullification," which was enunciated by John C. Calhoun, Jackson's vice president until 1832, in his South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828). South Carolina dealt with the tariff by adopting the Ordinance of Nullification, which declared both the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within state borders. The legislature also passed laws to enforce the ordinance, including authorization for raising a military force and appropriations for arms.
Nullification was only the most recent in a series of state challenges to the authority of the federal government. There had been a continuing contest between the states and the national government over the power of the latter, and over the loyalty of the citizenry, almost since the founding of the republic. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, for example, had defied the Alien and Sedition Acts, and in the Hartford Convention, New England voiced its opposition to President Madison and the war against the British.
In response to South Carolina's threat, Jackson sent seven small naval vessels and a man-of-war to Charleston in November 1832. On December 10, he issued a resounding proclamation against the nullifiers. South Carolina, the president declared, stood on "the brink of insurrection and treason," and he appealed to the people of the state to reassert their allegiance to that Union for which their ancestors had fought.
When the question of tariff duties again came before Congress, it soon became clear that only one man, Senator Henry Clay, the great advocate of protection (and a political rival of Jackson), could pilot a compromise measure through Congress. Clay's tariff bill -- quickly passed in 1833 -- specified that all duties in excess of 20 percent of the value of the goods imported were to be reduced by easy stages, so that by 1842, the duties on all articles would reach the level of the moderate tariff of 1816.
Nullification leaders in South Carolina had expected the support of other Southern states, but without exception, the rest of the South declared South Carolina's course unwise and unconstitutional. Eventually, South Carolina rescinded its action. Both sides, nevertheless, claimed victory. Jackson had committed the federal government to the principle of Union supremacy. But South Carolina, by its show of resistance, had obtained many of the demands it sought, and had demonstrated that a single state could force its will on Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment