Changes

In order to understand how the Nullification Crisis became such an important part of American history, the idea of government spending, tariffs, and how the future of the country was envisioned in the early nineteenth century must be understood. Speaker of the House and one of the leaders of the National Republican Party, Henry Clay of Kentucky, envisioned a grand idea whereby the United States would be modernized through a series of programs and projects, which he termed “The American System.” Most Americans agreed with Clay that America should be brought up to the same standards as Europe in terms of its roads, canals, and railroads, but there was no consensus on how it should be funded. Clay proposed using tariffs to fund his program, which was agreed to by the majority of his party, including President John Q. Adams (in office 1825-1829). After the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in 1826, Clay lost his position as Speaker and it may have seemed like tariffs were dead, but the Democrats had their own ideas. Hoping to build a successful coalition that would thrust Jackson into the White House, the Democrats proposed a tariff that set duties on wool at 50%. <ref> Wilentz, Sean. <i> [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393329216/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0393329216&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=59b7b81793feacabb7c67da67df141a7 The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln.]</i> (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2006), pgs. 243; 299 </ref>

Adams signed the tariff into law in 1828, which not only set a high import charge on wool imports, but also on hemp, pig iron, and rolled linen. The tariff was supported by hemp farmers in the west, as well as some manufacturers in the northeast, where the Democrats were attempting to make inroads and form a coalition. Jackson publicly supported the tariff, arguing that the United States should protect its infant manufacturing base and use the revenue derived from the duties to pay for the national debt. <ref> Ellis, Richard. <i> [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019506187X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=019506187X&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=fb48b18b423c473a9bc54584cb1a2288 Union at Risk: Jacksonian Democracy, State’s Rights, and the Nullification Crisis].</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43 </ref> But not everyone in the new Jackson coalition was happy with the tariff.

Many southerners, whose economic well-being was based on exporting cotton, were so upset with the 1828 tariff that it became known to them as “The Tariff of Abominations” and nowhere was this attitude more prevalent than in South Carolina. The leader of the anti-tariff movement in South Carolina was a former congressman and secretary of state and future vice president and senator, John C. Calhoun. Although Calhoun supported the 1816 tariff for the purpose of national defense, he was against anymore, arguing that tariffs were anti-free trade. <ref> Freehling, William W. <i> [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195076818/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0195076818&linkCode=as2&tag=dailyh0c-20&linkId=5948c6859f2ec8b4f647ea93084c0c7d Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Crisis in South Carolina, 1816-1836].</i> (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 95</ref> An anti-tariff philosophy began to be disseminated throughout South Carolina and in Washington by some of South Carolina’s congressional representatives. They logically argued that the tariffs could start a trade war that would hurt their export based livelihoods, but there were also political and racial components to their anti-tariff stance. Many in South Carolina’s slave-owning planter class saw tariffs as a violation of state’s rights. They supported the “slippery slope” argument by stating that if South Carolina’s economic freedoms could be usurped by tariffs, then it was only a matter of time until the federal government told them they had to free their slaves. <ref> Freehling, pgs. 115-16</ref>