#203 Jackson and Nullification

Preparation

• Before class, students will have read Foner 296-301.

Opener

• Discuss with a partner:
  • If a state disagrees with a law made by the national government, do you think the state has a right to refuse it?
  • What if the state felt the law was unjust or oppressive?
• We will then line up on an imaginary line that spans the room with one end representing strongly agree and the other strongly disagree. A handful of students will share reasoning for why they have chosen to stand in their particular spots.

Background

• Andrew Jackson was a populist leader celebrated for military victories over the British at New Orleans and against Creek and Seminole Indians – all during War of 1812.
• Won largest share (38%) of vote in 4-way election of 1824 that featured just one party, but was denied office by House of Representatives, who gave election to John Quincy Adams.
• Won presidency in 1828 by running under banner of the “Democratic Party” with few promises, but plenty of populist rhetoric:
  • Nickname: “Old Hickory”
  • Slogan: “Vote for Andrew Jackson who can fight, not John Quincy Adams who can write.”
• President Jackson would become embroiled in controversies over "nullification," the national bank (the Second Bank of the United States), and Indian Removal.

Election of 1824

Election of 1828

Pair questions

• Briefly define a tariff.
• What did the Tariff of 1828 actually do? (see Foner 299 for a refresher)
• Why might have been controversial in some parts of the country but not in others?

Closer look at the Nullification Crisis

• Class will be divided into three groups.
• Your group will read, discuss, and present on one of the following passages:
  • Group A: South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828)
  • Group B: Excerpt from Daniel Webster’s Second Reply to Hayne (January 26-27, 1830)
  • Group C: Excerpt from Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation (1832)

Group A: South Carolina Exposition and Protest (1828)

• In article 6, the document argues that “the powers to protect manufactures, is no where expressly granted to Congress” and therefore under the tenth amendment to the Constitution should “be expressly reserved to the states.” Can you explain the argument here?
• How do the authors understand the role of the “necessary and proper clause” (Article 1, section 8)? (To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.)
• How do the authors of the document view the power of the national government to regulate commerce?
• What action is being recommended in this document?
• What is the strongest case you could make for defending this point of view?

Group B: Excerpt from Daniel Webster’s Second Reply to Hayne (January 26-27, 1830)

• “Sovereignty” is often understood as the power to govern. How does Webster believe sovereignty works in the United States?
• How might Webster’s view of sovereignty be different from advocates of “states’ rights” like Vice President John C. Calhoun?
• How does Webster propose to deal with “unjust” laws?
• How, for Webster, is constitutionality determined?
• What is the strongest case you could make for defending this point of view?

Group C: Excerpt from Andrew Jackson’s Nullification Proclamation (1832)

• Identify several of the argument against secession. Which of the arguments are most convincing to you?
• Why does President Jackson suggest South Carolina might be guilty of “treason”? What would he do in response?
• If individual states cannot rule on the constitutionality of legislation or actions, what entity do you think President Jackson would look to for an impartial ruling?
• How do you think South Carolina would respond to President Jackson?
• What is the strongest case you could make for defending this point of view?

At the beginning of next class, we will conduct a fishbowl in which one member of each group will report on the document and the rest of us will listen and then respond to the questions below:

Questions to fishbowl audience:

• Which point of view seems most persuasive?
• Was the nullification of the tariffs an appropriate response from those who disagreed with them?
• What can/should people do if they disagree with a law?
• Was President Jackson’s response appropriate?
• What might have happened if South Carolina had not repealed the nullification ordinance?

Homework: #204