Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Here goes...Congress passed the Tariff Act of 1828 which favored the Industrial North (these are not my words my friends, I am merely the messenger). In 1832, the Tariff was eased somewhat, but still FAVORED THE INDUSTRIAL NORTH.
South Carolina declared the tariffs "null and void". The state threatened to secede, or leave the Union if the government tried to collect duties.
"Congress had raised duties in 1816 and again in 1824. The tariff of 1824 included high duties on imported agricultural goods such as hemp, wheat and liquor to protect western farmers; imported textiles to protect New England interests; and iron to protect mining and forging industries of Pennsylvania. South Carolina had been particularly hard hit by the depression of 1819. The tariffs increased the prices of their imported goods by as much as 50 percent. South Carolina asserted that the tariffs were unfair as a tax on Southern agriculture for the benefit of Northern industry."
This is called the Nullification Crisis by revisionist historians. ARticle 1, Section IX of the Constitution of the United States says, "No tax or duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State"
Andrew Jackson passed (rammed down the throat) in Congress a bill allowing him to use Federal troops to make South Carolina KowTow to the tariffs. The Compromise Tariff of 1832 (a third tariff law) was the result. In passing the "Force Act", Jackson had Congress affirm that that "the Constitution and the laws are supreme and the Union indissoluble." This is the first issue of whether a state had the right to nullify a Federal law or SECEDE...Note that Jackson had to get the Congress to vote on this issue!
So, as this is a forerunner of the War for Southern Independence, Was the Tariff Acts of 1828/1832 Constitutional? Did the Congress of the United States have the right to pass the Force Act? (Remember in one of my previous postings I had asked if the Federal government had (has) the rights to maintain troops in a state in times of peace?
I'm not a Constitutional lawyer or anything, but I'm pretty sure exports and imports are two different animals.
Article I, Section IX may prohibit taxes or duties on articles exported from a state, but it sounds to me like it leaves the door wide open to levy taxes or duties on articles imported to a state.
Unless there's another section of the Constitution that specifically talks about imports, I would have to believe that the tariffs were not unconstitutional.
First will say that I believe the Tariff Acts of 1828/32 were legal.
Several questions to start:
Does anyone have a source for the complete text of the Force Act. If online would be a great help.
Do you consider William Freehling a revisionist historian? and if so, why, please.
Didn't the tariff cover charges on specific goods imported Into the US?
"Article 1, Section IX of the Constitution of the United States says, "No tax or duty shall be laid
on Articles exported from any State"." Are they talking about exported products going to another state, or out of the country, or both?
Chuck in Il. (back later)
Charles, I do not have the text, but here is an explanation of what happened, including some some small explanation of the Force Act and the reason for its passing.
a doctrine expounded by the advocates of extreme states’ rights. It held that states have the right to declare null and void any federal law that they deem unconstitutional. The doctrine was based on the theory that the Union is a voluntary compact of states and that the federal government has no right to exercise powers not specifically assigned to it by the U.S. Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions declared (1799) nullification to be the rightful remedy by the states for all unauthorized acts done under the pretext of the Constitution. A closely reasoned reinforcement to the doctrine of nullification was set forth—in response to the tariff of 1828, which favored Northern interests at the expense of the South—by John C. Calhoun in his South Carolina Exposition (1828). The strong pro-Union stand of President Jackson brought forth further remonstrances from Southern leaders. After enactment of the tariff act of 1832 South Carolina called a state convention, which passed (1832) the ordinance of nullification. This ordinance declared the tariff laws null and void, and a series of enactments in South Carolina put the state in a position to resist by force any attempt of the federal government to carry the tariff act into operation. President Jackson in reply dramatically issued a strong proclamation against the nullifiers, and a force bill was introduced into the U.S. Senate to give the President authority to use the armed forces if necessary to execute the laws. Jackson, however, felt that the South had a real grievance and, behind his show of force, encouraged friends of compromise, led by Henry Clay, to prepare a bill that the South would accept. This compromise tariff was rushed through Congress, and after its passage (1833) the South Carolina state convention reassembled and formally rescinded the ordinance nullifying the tariff acts. To preserve its prerogative it adopted a new ordinance nullifying the force bill. But the issue was not pressed further until the election of Abraham Lincoln, when the doctrine of secession was brought to the foreground.
Mr. John Tyler spoke to congress on the issue of the Force Bill. I would call your attention to the final paragraph which I present first, then the full text:
"Sir, there is a great difference between preserving union and preserving government; the Union may be annihilated, yet government preserved; but, under such a government, no man ought to desire to live"
There is no ambiguity about this measure. The prophecy has already gone forth; the President has said that the laws will be obstructed. The President has not only foretold the coming difficulties, but he has also assembled an army. The city of Charleston, if report spoke true, is now a beleagured city; the cannon of Fort Pinckney are pointing at it; and, although they are now quietly sleeping, they are ready to open their thunders whenever the voice of authority shall give the command.
And shall these terrors be let loose because some one man may refuse to pay some small modicum of revenue, which Congress, the day after it came into the treasury might vote in satisfaction of some unfounded claim? Shall we set so small a value upon the lives of the people? Let us at least wait to see the course of measures. We can never be too tardy in commencing the work of blood.
If the majority shall pass this bill they must do it on their own responsibility; I will have no part in it. When gentlemen recount the blessings of union; when they dwell upon the past, and sketch out, in bright perspective, the future, they awaken in my breast all the pride of an American; my pulse beats responsive to theirs and I regard union, next to freedom, as the greatest of blessings.
Yes, sir, "the Federal Union must be preserved." But how? Will you seek to preserve it by force? Will you appease the angry spirit of discord by an oblation of blood? Suppose that the proud and haughty spirit of South Carolina shall not bend to your high edicts in token of fealty; that you make war upon her, hang her governor, her legislators, and judges, as traitors, and reduce her to the condition of a conquered province - have you preserved the Union?
This Union consists of twenty-four States; would you have preserved the Union by striking out one of the States - one of the old thirteen? Gentlemen had boasted of the flag of our country, with its thirteen stars. When the light of one of these stars shall have been extinguished will the flag wave over us, under which our fathers fought? If we are to go on striking out star after star, what will finally remain but a central and a burning sun, blighting and destroying every germ of liberty? The flag which I wish to wave over me is that which floated in triumph at Saratoga and Yorktown. It bore upon it thirteen States, of which South Carolina was one.
Sir, there is a great difference between preserving union and preserving government; the Union may be annihilated, yet government preserved; but, under such a government, no man ought to desire to live.
However, because it is not that long a bill, I am taking the liberty of posting it in its entirety on this post:
An Act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That whenever, by reason of unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages of persons, it shall become impracticable, in the judgment of the President, to execute the revenue laws, and collect the duties on imports in the ordinary way, in any collection district, it shall and may be lawful for the President to direct that the custom-house for such district be established and kept in any secure place within some port or harbour of such district, either upon land or on board any vessel; and, in that case, it shall be the duty of the collector to reside at such place, and there to detain all vessels and cargoes arriving within the said district until the duties imposed on said cargoes, by law, be paid in cash, deducting interest according to existing laws; and in such cases it shall be unlawful to take the vessel or cargo from the custody of the proper officer of the customs, unless by process from some court of the United States; and in case of any attempt otherwise to take such vessel or cargo by any force, or combination, or assemblage of persons too great to be overcome by the officers of the customs, it shall and may be lawful for the President of the United States, or such person or persons as he shall have empowered for that purpose, to employ such part of the land or naval forces, or militia of the United States, as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of preventing the removal of such vessel or cargo, and protecting the officers of the customs in retaining the custody thereof.
SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of the United States shall extend to all cases, in law or equity, arising under the revenue laws of the United States, for which other provisions are not already made by law; and if any person shall receive any injury to his person or property for or on account of any act by him done, under any law of the United States, for the protection of the revenue or the collection of duties on imports, he shall be entitled to maintain suit for damage therefor in the circuit court of the United States in the district wherein the party doing the injury may reside, or shall be found. And all property taken or detained by any officer or other person under authority of any revenue law of the United States, shall be irrepleviable, and shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law, and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof. And if any person shall dispossess or rescue, or attempt to dispossess or rescue, any property so taken or detained as aforesaid, or shall aid or assist therein, such person shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour . . .
SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That whenever the President of the United States shall be officially informed, by the authorities of any state, or by a judge of any circuit or district court of the United States, in the state, that, within the limits of such state, any law or laws of the United States, or the execution thereof, or of any process from the courts of the United States, is obstructed by the employment of military force, or by any other unlawful means, too great to be overcome by the ordinary course of judicial proceeding, or by the powers vested in the marshal by existing laws, it shall be lawful for him, the President of the United States, forthwith to issue his proclamation, declaring such fact or information, and requiring all such military and other force forthwith to disperse; and if at any time after issuing such proclamation, any such opposition or obstruction shall be made, in the manner or by the means aforesaid, the President shall be, and hereby is, authorized, promptly to employ such means to suppress the same, and to cause the said laws or process to be duly executed . . .
SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That in any state where the jails are not allowed to be used for the imprisonment of persons arrested or committed under the laws of the United States, or where houses are not allowed to be so used, it shall and may be lawful for any marshal, under the direction of the judge of the United States for the proper district, to use other convenient places, within the limits of said state, and to make such other provision as he may deem expedient and necessary for that purpose.
SEC. 8. And be it further enacted, That the several provisions contained in the first and fifth sections of this act, shall be in force until the end of the next session of Congress, and no longer.
Ron, thanks a heap for the material. Backtracked on the site you gave to find the book used. Will examine that site more closely later. Looks interesting.
Reason I asked for a copy of the Force Bill is I've almost finished reading Prelude to Civil War-The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina,1816-1836 by Freehling. I usually push off books like this but, considering tariffs usually come up as a reason for secession, decided to read what I could on Nullification Crisis. Most fascinating era I've found.
I also found the Haynes-Webster debates online and will study those during the 4th of July wk, along with the Force Bill. Also looking for more on Calhouns speeches during this period.
Freehling also presents a very good case that the Nullification Crisis was over more than just tariffs.
"The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions declared (1799) nullification to be the rightful remedy by the states for all unauthorized acts done under the pretext of the Constitution. A closely reasoned reinforcement to the doctrine of nullification was set forth—in response to the tariff of 1828, which favored Northern interests at the expense of the South—by John C. Calhoun in his South Carolina Exposition (1828)."
The Kentucky and Virginia resolutions were written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts which were unavoidably in direct violation of the First Amendment. John C. Calhoun later used these documents as the basis for his "nullification" theory but the documents themselves DO NOT imply that any one state could take it upon herself to nullify a law of Congress. The word nullify is not even mentioned in the Virginia Resolution and is suggested in the Kentucky Resolution as a remedy by the "several states" in concert. If further goes on to assure the sister states that although Kentucky considers the Alien and Sedition acts to be unconstitutional it will bow to the opinion of a majority of its sister states. This is plainly a far different remedy than Calhoun suggests and South Carolina attempts by singularly deciding the tariff was unconstitutional and issuing a singular act nullifying it. The Virginia Resolution does not even contain the word "nullify" and only attempts to call on her sister states in protesting the Alien and Sedition acts which were plainly unconstitutional.
As to Calhoun's appropriation of the Resolutions for his own in justifying his own singular brand of Nullification whereby one state may nullify the rule of the majority, Madison himself seems to have been disagreement with Calhoun. Note the following two excerpts from letters that Madison himself wrote on the subject:
"In comparing the doctrine of Virginia in '98-'99 [concerning alien and sedition acts] with that of the present day in S. Carolina [Nullification], will it not be found that Virginia asserted that the States, as parties to the constitutional compact, had a right and were bound, in extreme cases only, and after a failure of all efforts for redress under the forms of the constitution, to interpose in their sovereign capacity for the purpose of arresting the evil of usurpation and preserving the Constitution and the Union whereas the doctrine of the present day [Nullification] in S[outh]. Carolina asserts, that in a case of not greater magnitude than the degree of inequality in a operation of a tariff in favor of manufactures, she may of herself finally decide, by virtue of her sovereignty, that the Constitution has been violated, and that if not yielded to by the Federal Government, though supported by all the other States, she may rightfully resist it and withdraw herself from the Union." [Madison to Joseph C. Cabell, 16 Aug 1829]
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful Speech in the Senate of the United S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy." [Madison to Daniel Webster, 15 Mar 1833]
For interpretation of the Virginia Resolution I think we can safely assume that it's author, James Madison, is a better source than John C. Calhoun.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
