Andrew Jackson’s presidency was fraught with political and constitutional controversy. His victory in the 1828 election was embroiled in political party divisions and policy compromises that divided voters' opinions but won him the presidency. Early in his administration, a constitutional crisis arose in South Carolina on the issue of federalism. What was the nullification crisis of 1832? What caused the nullification crisis? How was it resolved? And what was its lasting impact?
Andrew Jackson and Nullification Crisis Summary
Almost all of the political issues facing Jackson’s administration are interconnected, with one causing or influencing the other. In addition, there are Jackson’s personal views of the presidency and the federal government's role. Jackson felt that the president should be the sole executive power and that Congress and the judiciary should have few checks and balances on presidential authority, especially if that authority had a majority mandate.
Fig. 1 - A Portrait of President Andrew Jackson
He also felt that even though the president should have more power and influence, the president should use that power to limit the scope of the federal government. At times, these views conflicted with one another. The nullification crisis is one of those times. To understand the crisis, you need to understand the cause, which begins before the election of 1828. Nullification Crisis: Cause
The cause of the nullification crisis was tariffs. The use of tariffs as a protective measure for the American economy became a political weapon in the early years of the American Republic. Jackson’s nullification crisis in 1832 it begins during the Presidency of John Quincy Adams in 1824:
Fig. 2 - A Portrait of President John Quincy Adams
- John Quincy Adams ran as a Democratic-Republican in the presidential election.
- Core to his campaign is the American System.
- This economic policy promotes increased federal revenue for infrastructure projects, a solid national bank, and high tariffs to protect the emerging industrial economy of the northern and northwestern states.
- Jackson, at the time also a Democratic-Republican, ran against Adams
- he viewed the American system-especially the national banking system, as a gross overreach of federal power over the states.
- Though he lost, Jackson used the Adams administration to rally support around his new Democratic Party
- Adams passed the tariff of 1824, which increased the tax on imported textiles established in 1816.
- This tariff angers the southern states
- The tariff of 1824 is an economic blow to the southern economy while protecting the interests of the northern states.
- Adams's support of the tariff further divides the Democratic-Republican party.
- Entering the election of 1828, Jackson continued campaigning against Adams and the American System. Still, he saw a political opportunity to gain support in the north by supporting the reauthorization of the tariff of 1828.
- Jackson won the election but lost southern supporters.
Nullification Crisis of 1832
The Tariff of 1828 helped Jackson win the presidency, but it saddled him with a significant political crisis. There was fierce opposition to high tariffs throughout the south, especially in South Carolina.
Connections with Slavery?
South Carolina was the only state with an African American majority and its slave owners, like other regions with large slave populations, feared slave rebellion. They also worried about the legal abolition of slavery. During this time, the British parliament was moving to end slavery in the Caribbean; South Carolina planters, remembering the attempts to limit slavery in Missouri through the Missouri Compromise of 1820, worried Congress may do the same. This created a political mindset in the state to protest and attack any attempts to increase federal power over the states, including the Tariff of 1828 and the Jackson administration.
The crisis began in 1832 when members of Congress who supported higher tariffs ignored the complaints of the southern states and reenacted the tariff. In response, the political elite of South Carolina called a state convention that adopted the Ordinance of Nullification. The ordinance declared the tariff of 1828 and 1832 to be null and void, prohibited the collection of any duties, and even threatened secession in 1833 if any attempt to collect the tax from the federal government was made. The tariff and Jackson’s enforcement triggered a debate over the power of the Constitution over the states.
The Nullification Debate |
For Nullification | Against Nullification |
 Fig. 3 - John C. Calhoun was in favor of nullification
Championed by John C. Calhoun (Vice President and former Congressmen from South Carolina): Focused on a “localist” interpretation of federalism. Because each geographic region had a distinct interest, localists argued that protective tariffs and other national legislation that operated unequally on various states were not fair or legitimate. They argued that this made the laws unconstitutional. In addition, many localists felt that since the states ratified the Constitution through conventions, the states had the right to nullify national laws through conventions, protecting the sovereignty of the states.
|  Fig. 4- Daniel Webster was against nullification.
Championed by Daniel Webster (Congressman from New Hampshire): Focused on nationalists' interpretation of federalism. The state’s ratified the Constitution to join the United States. Because they ratified the Constitution knowing it held the Supremacy Clause and the General Welfare Clauses, which gave Congress the authority to pass, legislation such as the tariffs of 1828 and 1832, states gave up the power to nullify national laws.
|
Nullification Crisis: Solution & Impact
Jackson worked to find a middle ground between the localists and the nationalists. The Constitution gave the federal government the authority to establish tariffs, and Jackson would enforce them at any cost. Jackson declared that South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification violated the Constitution and that the threat of secession was treasonous.
Jackson urged Congress to pass the Force Bill of 1833, which authorized the president to use military force to compel South Carolina’s obedience to federal laws. At the same time, Jackson pushed an act through Congress that would lower the tariff to the levels of 1816 by 1842.
This solution enforced the Constitutional principle that the federal government had the legislative authority over the states while also alleviating tensions in South Carolina by lowering the import tariff. Both Jackson and South Carolina were satisfied with the results.
Nullification Crisis: Significance
The short-term influence of the nullification crisis was political. The issue further divided the political parties of the time and made Jackson a divisive figure.
Jackson split the Democratic-Republicans in 1824, creating the Democratic Party to run in 1828. He was opposed by the National Republicans, who slowly saw their party dissolve during Jackson’s presidency. However, his views and actions towards South Carolina and other political issues created an opposition party: The Whig Party, which used his administration to rally the support of nationalists, angry southern Democrats, former National Republicans, and others who were “anti-Jackson.” The political conflict between the Democrats and the Whigs would shape and divide American politics through the late 1850s.
The long-term significance, though minor at the time, would have a far more significant impact. With the passage of the Force Bill, Jackson’s threat to use military action, South Carolina’s threat to secession, and eventual concession of that action, created a political foundation and legal principle that Abraham Lincoln would embrace to defend the Union during the secession crisis of 1861, and the outbreak of the American Civil War.
Nullification Crisis: Timeline
Below is a brief timeline of the events of the nullification crisis:
May 22, 1824: The Tariff of 1824 passes
May 19, 1828: The Tariff of 1828 passes
December 1828: South Carolina calls for a state convention
July 1832: The Tariff of 1832 is reauthorized
December 1832: South Carolina’s state convention passes the Ordinance of Nullification
March 1833: The Force Bill passes
March 11, 1833: South Carolina repeals the Ordinance of Nullification
Nullification controversy - Key takeaways
- The cause of the nullification crisis was tariffs.
- Jackson’s nullification crisis in 1832 begins during the Presidency of John Quincy Adams in 1824.
- Adams passed the tariff of 1824, which increased the tax on imported textiles established in 1816.
- Entering the election of 1828, Jackson continued campaigning against Adams and the American System.
- The Tariff of 1828 helped Jackson win the presidency, but it saddled him with a significant political crisis. There was fierce opposition to high tariffs throughout the south, especially in South Carolina.
- The crisis began in 1832 when members of Congress who supported higher tariffs ignored the complaints of the southern states and reenacted the tariff.
- In response, the political elite of South Carolina called a state convention that adopted the Ordinance of Nullification.
- Jackson's solution enforced the Constitutional principle that the federal government had the legislative authority over the states while also alleviating tensions in South Carolina by lowering the import tariff. Both Jackson and South Carolina were satisfied with the results.
Explanations 
Exams 
Magazine 
