Essay Available:
Pages:
2 pages/≈550 words
Sources:
1
Style:
APA
Subject:
History
Type:
Essay
Language:
English (U.S.)
Document:
MS Word
Date:
Total cost:
$ 7.2
Topic:
Tariff of Abominations and Nullification Crisis: Background, Reasons, and Solutions
Essay Instructions:
Instructions
Several decades before the Civil War, the Tariff of Abominations and the Nullification Crisis served somewhat as a prelude to that conflict. In a two page essay, please address the background and reasons for the Crisis as well as the eventual solution. Please be sure to address the following points in your paper:
What were the positions of Jackson and Calhoun?
Which one was more national in approach and which had more of a states' rights perspective?
What were some of the reasons for the controversy surrounding the issue?
How does this issue fit into the larger picture regarding the eventual Civil War?
Essay Sample Content Preview:
Nullification Crisis
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Course Code and Name
Instructor’s Name
Date Submitted
Nullification Crisis
The Tariff of Abominations and Nullification crisis in the early 19th century was vital because it was the stepping stone toward larger conflicts. The conflict later would become the American Civil War. It started in 1828 when Congress managed to pass a protective tariff, referred to as the Tariff of Abominations. The rationale for having the tariff was to protect American industries (Regele, 2023). However, many Southern states in America perceived the tariff negatively impacting their agricultural economy. One of the states against the tariff was South Carolina, and its vice president, John Calhoun, led a movement to challenge the tariff through the local government. The then-American president, Andrew Jackson, also was the nullification of the tariff, which created a conflict in America.
Position of Jackson and Calhoun
Jackson and Calhoun all took different positions against the tariff. For Jackson, he strongly supported the federal government and wanted a united nation. Jackson's position was that he needed a strong government, which led to him believing in the supremacy of the federal laws. Hence, he held the position that it was unconstitutional to nullify the tariff, strongly stating that states had no power legally to nullify any federal law.
Calhoun, on the other hand, was a supporter and an advocate of independent state rights. He believed in having the sovereignty of individual states. In his argument, he stated that states were independent and had a right to nullify created federal laws that the states considered unconstitutional. Calhoun emphasized the compact theory in the Constitution (Regele, 2023). Due to his position, Calhoun resigned as a vice president and vied for a seat in the Senate to lead the nullification movement. He wanted to defend the state's rights and ensure states' interests were protected.
Analysis regarding national vs. states' right perspectives
Jackson, in the conflict, focused more on...
Get the Whole Paper!
Not exactly what you need?
Do you need a custom essay? Order right now: