Introduction
In its most basic sense, the legal/political history of the United States can fairly be seen as history repeating itself. In the case of the Ordinance of Nullification, issued by the People of South Carolina in 1832, we see an early example of the perennial dispute of states’ rights versus the power of the Federal government to control said states, as seen through the eyes of the two pivotal players in the issue- John Calhoun and Daniel Webster.
An Overview of the Ordinance of Nullification
A key issue, woven into the very fabric of the issue of states’ rights and serving as a catalyst for other pivotal events in US history is the 1833 Ordinance of Nullification. To understand the setting in which the Ordinance emerged is likewise to understand the legal environment of the US up to the time of the Ordinance itself. Earlier Supreme Court rulings, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, had firmly established the supremacy of the federal government as opposed to the individual states themselves[1]. Especially offended and provoked was the state of South Carolina, with the discontent led by native son John Calhoun, then vice president of the US. In this role, Calhoun had the enumerated role of the leader of the senate, which he used to rally opposition to the federal tariffs. It was Calhoun’s belief that states rights extended to the right of the state to leave the union if so chosen and that liberty ultimately meant that states, not the central federal government, held the ultimate power. When president Andrew Jackson learned of Calhoun’s actions and ideas, he pressed Calhoun to resign as vice president which he did not only as a means of avoiding intense political pressure by Jackson but also as a way of allowing Calhoun to return to his native South Carolina to continue his dispute in the company of those who shared his mindset. The culmination of Calhoun’s campaign against the federal tariffs is expressed in the Ordinance of Nullification, which essentially maintains not only that the tariffs were unconstitutional, but also that South Carolina, based on the assertion of unconstitutionality, would refuse to recognize and abide by the conditions of the tariffs [2].
Standing in direct contrast to Calhoun’s mindset and actions was Daniel Webster, a member of the United States Senate from the northern state of Massachusetts. A fierce supporter to the solidarity of the United States and an opponent of the succession of states, Webster was the total political opposite of John Calhoun, and in fact came into direct conflict with Calhoun when he, Webster, supported the tariffs that Calhoun declared as being unconstitutional. Webster’s ideology held that the state had a responsibility to remain loyal to the union and true liberty could only be maintained through a solid, complete United States.[3]
Conclusion
While there is little chance that states will ever attempt another secession from the United States, few can argue that the spirit of nullification begun by John Calhoun and others over two centuries ago is alive and well in the present, not necessarily in the spirit of pure rebellion, but certainly in regard to individual states’ rights. Also alive is Webster’s belief in a solid, united nation.
References
Barnwell, J. (1982). Love of Order: South Carolina’s First Secession Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
Ford, L. K. (1991). Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sutton, R. P. (2002). Federalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
[1] Sutton, R. P. (2002). Federalism. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
[2] Ford, L. K. (1991). Origins of Southern Radicalism: The South Carolina Upcountry, 1800-1860. New York: Oxford University Press.
[3] Barnwell, J. (1982). Love of Order: South Carolina’s First Secession Crisis. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
