South Carolina Declares “Tariff of Abominations” Null and Void
On Nov. 24, 1832, a South Carolina state convention passed an Ordinance of Nullification, declaring the tariffs of 1828 of 1832 “null and void” within the state borders. While conventional history teaches that the nullifiers were quickly stopped by federal power, the truth is actually much different.
Congress passed the tariff of 1828 in an effort to protect domestic industries. It raised the cost of imported goods by as much as 50 percent. Northern industrial states with a large manufacturing base generally supported the tariff, but it was widely opposed in the South.
Southern states were far more dependent on imported goods than the North. Southern farmers also worried that the British would retaliate by raising tariffs on cotton. The tariff also indirectly hurt the southern agrarian economy by reducing the amount of cash available for the English to purchase southern cotton. Opposition proved particularly fierce in South Carolina. Many Southerners dubbed it the “Tariff of Abominations.”
Southern leaders came to believe the tariff was unconstitutional because it benefited only certain sections of the country to the detriment of others in violation of the general welfare clause of the Constitution. Based on this clause, any tax collected by the general government must benefit the United States as a whole and not only partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests.
In 1828, North Carolina passed a “solemn protest” addressing this issue, declaring, “Manufactures in the United States, are not an object of general interest, but of local interest…”
Vice President John C. Calhoun, a South Carolinian, vehemently opposed the tariff. In December 1828, he secretly wrote a pamphlet entitled the South Carolina Exposition and Protest. He laid out the case against the tariff, arguing tariff power was only rightly used to raise revenue.
“The General Government is one of specific powers, and it can rightfully exercise only the powers expressly granted, and those that may be necessary and proper to carry them into effect, all others being reserved expressly to the States or the people. It results, necessarily, that those who claim to exercise power under the Constitution, are bound to show that it is expressly granted, or that it is necessary and proper as a means of the granted powers. The advocates of the Tariff have offered no such proof. It is true that the third section of the first article of the Constitution authorizes Congress to lay and collect an impost duty, but it is granted as a tax power for the sole purpose of revenue, a power in its nature essentially different from that of imposing protective or prohibitory duties. Their objects are incompatible. The prohibitory system must end in destroying the revenue from imports.”
And he argued South Carolina possessed the right and power to step in and nullify the tariff.
“If it be conceded, as it must be by every one who is the least conversant with our institutions, that the sovereign powers delegated are divided between the General and State Governments, and that the latter hold their portion by the same tenure as the former, it would seem impossible to deny to the States the right of deciding on the infractions of their powers, and the proper remedy to be applied for their correction. The right of judging, in such cases, is an essential attribute of sovereignty, of which the States cannot be divested without losing their sovereignty itself, and being reduced to a subordinate corporate condition.”
He concluded the pamphlet with a forceful call for the state to step in.
“With these views the committee are solemnly of the impression, if the present usurpations and the professed doctrines of the existing system be persevered in, after due forebearance on the part of the State, that it will be her sacred duty to interpose her veto; duty to herself, to the Union, to the present, and to future generations, arid to the cause of liberty over the world, to arrest the progress of a usurpation which, if not arrested, must, in its consequences, corrupt the public morals and destroy the liberty of the country.”
The tariff’s effect on the Southern economy proved disastrous. England predictably reduced its cotton imports, and Southern states were forced to purchase manufactured goods at higher prices from northern U.S. manufacturers.
The relationship between Pres. Andrew Jackson and Calhoun deteriorated as the president refused to address southern grievances. In 1832, Calhoun resigned from the vice presidency and filled an open seat in the Senate.
That same year, Congress passed the Tariff of 1832, but it did little to relieve the burden on southern states. In response, South Carolina elected delegates to a special convention to address the issue.
The Ordinance of Nullification was based on the principles of laid out by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798. In the Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force,” and “Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits.”
The Ordinance of Nullification used similar language.
An act entitled “An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports,” approved on the nineteenth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and twenty-eight and also an act entitled “An act to alter and amend the several acts imposing duties on imports,” approved on the fourteenth day of July, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, are unauthorized by the constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof and are null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens; and all promises, contracts, and obligations, made or entered into, or to be made or entered into, with purpose to secure the duties imposed by said acts, and all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance thereof, are and shall be held utterly null and void. [Emphasis added]
The ordinance also declared that “it shall not be lawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of this State or of the United States, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the said acts within the limits of this State.”
The delegates set Feb. 1, 1833, as the effective date of the ordinance.
Jackson issued a strong response, forcefully challenging the legality of nullification and threatening to use force should South Carolina go forward and refuse to collect the tariff. In his address to Congress on Dec. 3, Jackson said:
“It is my painful duty to state that in one quarter of the United States opposition to the revenue laws has arisen to a height which threatens to thwart their execution, if not to endanger the integrity of the Union. What ever obstructions may be thrown in the way of the judicial authorities of the General Government, it is hoped they will be able peaceably to overcome them by the prudence of their own officers and the patriotism of the people. But should this reasonable reliance on the moderation and good sense of all portions of our fellow citizens be disappointed, it is believed that the laws themselves are fully adequate to the suppression of such attempts as may be immediately made. Should the exigency arise rendering the execution of the existing laws impracticable from any cause what ever, prompt notice of it will be given to Congress, with a suggestion of such views and measures as may be deemed necessary to meet it.”
Eight days later, Jackson issued the Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, condemning nullification, writing, “The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution.”
South Carolina refused to back down. The legislature responded with a resolution of its own, declaring, “The state will repel force by force, and relying on the blessings of God, will maintain its liberty at all hazards.”
Ultimately, Kentucky Senator Henry Clay diffused the situation, brokering a compromise that lowered the tariff over the next 10 years. At the same time, Congress passed the “Force Bill,” authorizing Jackson to use military force to collect tariffs.
South Carolina responded by repealing the Ordinance of Nullification, but at the same time declared the Force Act null and void.
From a practical standpoint, South Carolina did not nullify the tariff. It remained in effect until the passage of the 1833 Tariff Act and the subsequent repeal of the ordinance. Its declaration did not alter federal law, despite Calhoun’s arguments to the contrary. However, South Carolina did make preparations to resist enforcement of the tariff. Had it come to that, it would have certainly hindered the collection of the tariff and possibly nullified it in practice and effect.
Conventional wisdom holds South Carolina’s decision to nullify the tariffs was a disaster and a failure. But was it? While proponents of nullification certainly can’t claim total victory – the tariff did remain in place after all – South Carolina’s efforts led to a shift in policy. The tariff was lowered. The state did what Madison suggested and created “serious impediments,” winning at least a partial victory.
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)