The enormous significance of the nullification controversy and its ramifications on the United States politics in the first half of the nineteenth century is no secret. The conflict emerged between the American federal government and South California when the latter attempted to declare Tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 null and void within its borders. While primarily manifesting itself through protests, the crisis illustrated a deep divide in interests, attitudes, and values between the South and the North of the country.
Tariff law of 1828 was deemed controversial from the beginning; hence, its common alias is “Tariff of Abominations.” This law, which raised nullification rates for manufactured goods to 50 percent, was not sufficiently revised in 1832 to satisfy Southern lawmakers and the public. At the time, the crisis exposed the underlying disagreements concerning the limits of power of the federal government and conflicting readings of the Constitution (Park 509). Even Andrew Jackson and his vice-president John Calhoun could not agree on the matter, with Calhoun believing that a state should be allowed to overrun the federal law’s authority.
After failing to address Southern Californians’ concerns, Jackson utilized the “carrot and stick” approach to resolve the crisis. Alternating between promises of tariff reform and threats of military force, he combined conciliation and coercion to suppress the protests. As a result of the nullification crisis, it became apparent that the American governmental structure, for better or for worse, could function without a unified national culture (Park 508). The social and economic interests of the different parts of the country contradicted each other too strongly for the expanding empire to avoid serious internal conflicts from 1830s onwards.
Work Cited
Park, Benjamin. “The Angel of Nullification: Imagining Disunion in an Era Before Secession.” Journal of the Early Republic, vol. 37, no. 3, 2017, pp. 507–536. Web.