How Did Andrew Jackson Justify The Argument Against The Tariff Of 1832?

592 Words3 Pages

Andrew Jackson believed in asserting the power of the federal government. It became clear in the dispute that arose South Carolina and the issue of nullification in the year of 1832 to 1833. South Carolina acted out against the Tariff of 1828. They campaigned heavily against the tariff, justifying their arguments with the principles set out in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written by Jefferson and Madison to support states’ rights. They supported their case by also arguing that the U.S. constitution allowed the states to individually nullify federal laws for the whole union. The South Carolina legislature published a pamphlet called “The South Carolina Exposition,” which offered persuasive arguments for nullifying the Tariff of 1828, stating that it was unjust and unconstitutional. …show more content…

Calhoun, Vice President of the United States. But it wasn’t until year later in January 1832, when Henry Clay announces his new tariff plan, the Tariff of 1832, which it quickly became battle between Jackson and Calhoun. Jackson, who tried to preserve the power of the federal government, and Calhoun, who wanted only win a form of judicial review for the states. In doing so, Jackson countered Clay’s bill with on that he fully supported of. It became more personal when Calhoun led the fight to block the nomination of Martin Van Buren as minister to England during one of the midst of the tariff debate. The nomination was tied and it fell to Calhoun, who was Vice President at the time, to cast the tie-breaking vote. Calhoun voted against Van Buren, but it backfired when Jackson swore to take avenge of the loss resulting for Van Buren to gains sympathy support around

Open Document