Cut & paste the following on Portfolio p20, 12.3 Grapics -A States’ Rights Debate Compact Theory: Kentucky Resolution: Doctrine of Nullification: Threats of secession: Permanent Union: Supremacy Clause: Marbury v. Madison: Fears of anarchy: Constitution created a compact States voluntarily gave between states and federal govt. up their sovereignty when If the federal govt breaks it, the they entered the Union. states don’t have to obey it. 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. States have the right to determine a law’s constitutionality, and ignore it if it is ruled unconstitutional by the state legislature. The Supreme Court alone has the authority to determine constitutionality. If necessary, states could withdraw from the Union. Nullification by states would lead to national chaos. Cut & paste the following on Portfolio p20, 12.3 Grapics -A * The ‘debate facts’ below are paired off against their respective debate counterparts…

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? It made European imports too expensive. It lowered the prices they could charge for cotton. It lowered the tariff to the levels they had been in 1800. 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 unconsti-tutional 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 nullifi-cation provide a way for states to avoid paying the high tariff? State legislatures could nullify their own tax obligations to federal government. State legislatures could pay the tariffs in inflated state currency, which is called nullification. State legislatures could change new federal tariff laws before they could go into effect. 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 . . . 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? President Jackson sent federal troops into South Carolina to collect the tariff. the Webster-Hayne debate gave everyone a better understanding of the issues. South Carolina came up with a new tariff rate that Congress quickly accepted. 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