Cut & paste the following on Portfolio p20, 12.3 Grapics -A
* The ‘debate facts’ below are paired off against their respective debate counterparts…
Compact Theory:
Permanent Union:
Constitution created a compact
between states and federal govt.
If the federal govt breaks it, the
states don’t have to obey it.
States voluntarily gave
up their sovereignty when
they entered the Union.
Kentucky Resolution:
Supremacy Clause:
States did not have to
enforce a law that they felt
was unconstitutional or
outside the government’s
expressed powers.
Federal laws are the law of
the land, and state laws may
not contradict federal law.
Doctrine of
Nullification:
States have the right to determine
a law’s constitutionality, and
ignore it if it is ruled unconstitutional
by the state legislature.
Threats of secession:
If necessary, states could
withdraw from the Union.
States’
Rights
Debate
Marbury v. Madison:
The Supreme Court alone
has the authority to
determine constitutionality.
Fears of anarchy:
Nullification by states would
lead to national chaos.
Part of Daniel Webster’s debate reply to Robert Hayne regarding the
“Compact Theory” …in the famous Webster-Hayne Debate of 1830…
(* this is just a sample to give you a taste of the intensity of this famous debate…)
[I]t cannot be shown, that the Constitution is a compact between State
governments. The Constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that idea; it, declares
that it is ordained and established by the people of the United States. So far from
saying that it is established by the governments of the several States, it does not
even say that it is established by the people of the several States; but it pronounces
that it is established by the people of the United States, in the aggregate. . . . When
the gentleman says the Constitution is a compact between the States, he uses
language exactly applicable to the old Confederation. He speaks as if he were in
Congress before 1789. He describes fully that old state of things then existing. The
Confederation was, in strictness, a compact; the States, as States, were parties to it.
We had no other general government. But that was found insufficient, and
inadequate to the public exigencies. The people were not satisfied with it, and
undertook to establish a better. They undertook to form a general government,
which should stand on a new basis; not a confederacy, not a league, not a
compact between States, but a Constitution; a popular government, founded in
popular election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided into
branches with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. They ordained such
a government, they gave it the name of a Constitution, therein they established a
distribution of powers between this, their general government, and their several
State governments. (Webster’s Second Reply to Hayne, Jan 26, 1830)
Robert Hayne argued Thomas Jefferson & James Madison’s argument of the
“Compact Theory” based on the Kentucky & Virginia Resolutions of 1798-1799
that was issued in response to the Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, declaring that the
Federal Government (John Adams was President) had over-stepped it’s authority with
the A&S Acts, and had acted outside the boundaries of the U.S. Constitution.
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America,
are not united on the principles of unlimited submission to their General
Government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution
for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General
Government for special purposes, delegated to that Government certain
definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to
their own self Government; and that whensoever the General Government
assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no
force; that to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integral
party; that the Government created by this compact was not made the
exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since
that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of
its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having
no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of
infractions as of the mode and measure of redress. (Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
& 1700)
Lesson 12.3: Conflict Over
States’ Rights
Today we will analyze the issues
in the debate over states’ rights
during the Nullification Crisis.
Vocabulary
• analyze – understand by separating
into smaller parts
• issues – points being argued over
• debate – formal argument
• states’ rights – powers and privileges
possessed by the states
• nullification – cancelling out or making
something powerless
• crisis – turning point or dangerous
situation
Check for Understanding
•
•
•
•
What are we going to do today?
What does it mean to analyze?
What are states’ rights?
What is a crisis that an 8th grader might
face?
What We Already Know
During the battle for
ratification of the
Constitution, Patrick
Henry was one of many
Americans who were
concerned that too much
power was being taken
from the states and given
to the federal
government.
What We Already Know
In the Kentucky
and Virginia
Resolutions,
Thomas Jefferson
and James Madison
anonymously
declared that states
do not have to
enforce laws that
they believe are
unconstitutional.
What We Already Know
Southerners disliked tariffs
because they increased the cost of
foreign manufactured goods that
Southerners frequently imported.
The ‘Tariff of Abominations’ (1828)
• In 1828, a new high tariff that angered
Southerners was being debated in
Congress.
• Since the tariff hurt the South but
helped the North, Southerners felt the
government was being unfair.
• Southerners hated the Tariff of 1828 so
much they referred to it as the
‘Tariff of Abominations’.
• Some Southerners began to say their
states should leave the Union (i.e.,
secede).
Check for Understanding
• Why did the tariff make Southerners
feel the national government was being
unfair?
• What threat were some Southerners
starting to make?
Get your whiteboards
and markers ready!
9. Why did Southerners call the Tariff of
1828 the Tariff of Abominations?
A. It made European imports too expensive.
B. It lowered the prices they could charge
for cotton.
C. It lowered the tariff to the levels they had
been in 1800.
D. It reduced the amount of cotton foreign
countries could purchase from
Southerners.
John C. Calhoun wanted to keep
South Carolina from seceding.
• Calhoun had to calm
Southerners’ fears about the
tariff and their loss of
influence in the government.
• He also needed to find a
way for the South to avoid
collecting the Tariff of
Abominations.
Calhoun developed the doctrine of
nullification from different sources.
• The first was the compact theory of government.
• Constitution created a compact (or contract)
between the states and the federal government.
• If the federal government breaks that contract,
the states have the right to ignore the
government.
Calhoun developed the doctrine of
nullification from different sources.
• The second was Thomas
Jefferson’s Kentucky
Resolution.
• The Kentucky Resolution
said that states did not
have to enforce a law that
they felt was unconstitutional or outside the
government’s expressed
powers.
Check for Understanding
• According to the compact theory, what
was the relationship between the states
and the federal government based on?
• What did the Kentucky Resolution say
states could do if Congress passed a
law they didn’t agree with?
The Doctrine of Nullification
• State legislatures have the
authority to determine if a
law is constitutional.
• If the legislature declares a
federal law unconstitutional,
then that law is nullified
(i.e., not legal) within that
state’s borders
• Calhoun published his
doctrine anonymously in a
document called “South
Carolina Exposition and
Protest.”
Threats of Secession
Should the need
arise, states have
the right to secede
from the Union
and become
independent.
Check for Understanding
• According to the doctrine of nullification,
who had the authority to determine if a
law is constitutional?
• What was the name of the document in
which Calhoun published his doctrine of
nullification?
Get your whiteboards
and markers ready!
10. How would the doctrine of nullification provide a way for states to
avoid paying the high tariff?
A. State legislatures could nullify their own tax
obligations to federal government.
B. State legislatures could pay the tariffs in
inflated state currency, which is called
nullification.
C. State legislatures could change new federal
tariff laws before they could go into effect.
D. State legislatures could nullify a tariff law,
and not collect the tariff.
Objections to Nullification
• the permanency of the Union
• the ‘supremacy clause’ of the
Constitution
• the Marbury v. Madison decision
• the fears of anarchy
Permanent Union
• Some Americans were
opposed to the ideas of
states’ rights and the
compact theory.
• States voluntarily gave
up their sovereignty
when they entered the
Union.
• They could not secede
from the Union once
they became part of the
United States.
The Supremacy Clause
• Most Northerners believed that
the Kentucky Resolution was in
conflict with the supremacy
clause of the Constitution.
• Federal laws are the law of the
land, and state laws may not
contradict federal law.
The Marbury v. Madison Decision
To many, the
Supreme Court’s
decision in
Marbury v. Madison
made nonsense out
of the doctrine of
nullification.
In 1801, the court had ruled that the authority to
determine the constitutionality of a law belonged
to the Supreme Court alone, not the states.
Fears of Anarchy
• Opponents of the doctrine of nullification
were very concerned about threats of
secession.
• States ruling on constitutionality would
lead to chaos in the nation.
Check for Understanding
• What does the supremacy clause say
about conflicts between federal law
and state law?
• According to Marbury v. Madison, who
has the authority to declare a law
unconstitutional?
1828
• Congress passed the ‘Tariff
of Abominations.’
• Calhoun published “South
Carolina Exposition and
Protest;” explaining the
doctrine of nullification.
• Andrew Jackson was
elected president, partly as
a protest against the tariff.
Check for Understanding
• What did Southerners call the
Tariff of 1828?
• Why did Southerners object
to the Tariff of
Abominations?
1829
• Jackson took
office, with
Calhoun as his
vice-president.
• Public debate over
the tariff and the
Doctrine of
Nullification
continued.
1830
• Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne debated
the issue of states’ rights and nullification
in Congress.
• Jackson learned of Calhoun’s support for
nullification.
Get your whiteboards
and markers ready!
11. What was the Webster-Hayne
debate?
It was a debate
between Senators
Daniel Webster and
Robert Hayne over . . .
A.
B.
C.
D.
President Jackson’s impeachment.
the doctrine of nullification.
internal improvements.
the Tariff of 1832.
1832
• Congress reduced the tariff, but not
enough to make Southerners happy.
• South Carolina nullified both tariffs,
threatens to secede, and began building
an army.
• Jackson was re-elected (without Calhoun);
threatened to use force against South
Carolina to enforce federal laws.
Check for Understanding
• Who debated the nullification issue in
Congress?
• How did Congress try to solve the crisis?
• How did South Carolina respond?
• What threat does Jackson make?
1833
• Henry Clay created
another compromise
tariff, and it was quickly
passed by Congress.
• South Carolina repealed
its bill of nullification,
and the crisis was
averted, ending the
threat of civil war.
Check for Understanding
• Who helped the nation avoid war over
the Tariff of Abominations?
• What did Clay do to help?
• How did South Carolina respond to the
new compromise tariff?
Get your whiteboards
and markers ready!
12. How was the nullification
crisis resolved?
A. President Jackson sent federal troops into
South Carolina to collect the tariff.
B. the Webster-Hayne debate gave everyone a
better understanding of the issues.
C. South Carolina came up with a new tariff
rate that Congress quickly accepted.
D. Henry Clay worked out a compromise tariff
that South Carolina could accept.
1828
-- Congress passed the high tariff over Southerners’ protests
-- Calhoun anonymously publishes “South Carolina Exposition and
Protest” to declare his theory of nullification
-- Jackson elected, in part as a protest of the Tariff of Abominations
1829
-- Jackson takes office w/Calhoun as VP, unaware of his authorship
-- public debate over the Tariff and over nullification continues
1830
-- Webster-Hayne Debates over secession vs. union
-- Jackson becomes aware of Calhoun’s support for nullification
1832
-- Congress reduces the tariff
-- South Carolina nullifies the Tariff, threatens to secede, begins
building army
-- Jackson re-elected (without Calhoun); threatens to use force
1833
-- Henry Clay creates a compromise tariff, quickly passed by
Congress
-- South Carolina backed down without admitting wrong