Pros And Cons Of The Civil War

The growing support for nullification was quite obvious during the days of the Jackson Administration, as events such as the Webster-Hayne Debate, Tariff of 1832, Order of Nullification, and Worcester v. Georgia all made the tension grow between the North and the South. To understand this conflict and tension one must first know what made the North and South so different. The North was an industrial powerhouse, full of bustling cities, and all kinds of cultures and peoples, on the other hand was the South. The South was seen as unadvanced and prehistoric to the Northerners, as the South relied heavily on the growth of cotton to fuel their economy, giving them their name , “King Cotton”. The main difference between the two were their economies.

Alan Martinez November 11, 2017 History 1301 President Jackson's Nullification Proclamation (1832). Pdf. In this proclamation, Jackson opposes the constitution and responds by saying that whoever does not listen will be punished. Also, he said if anyone tries to bring in goods then will close the ports.

In order to calm things down, they made the Force Bill which forced them to pay the taxes. If they did not, then President Jackson had the right to harshly make South Carolina do it, by using the army. Jackson did not agree in letting a state nullify Federal

however, the tax on foreign goods would significantly raise the cost of living in the South as the its main economy was based on the production of cotton and did not make anything else. John c calhoun the senator of south carolina deemed the tariff as void and unconstitutional and nullified it. Jackson became furious and argued that a state did not have the authority to nullify a federal law and threatened to send troops in to enforce the law. However henry clay the vice president at that time resolved the issue by decreasing the tariff to the point it became reasonable. Jackson did not think about the states that would have a problem because of the tariff.

I would think using the word “racist” when discussing the events from the 1860s and the Civil War would be appropriate. Quite frankly, there is almost no way not to use it, It was a major contradicting issue back then. How could someone state, “God himself has made them usefulness as slaves, and requires us to employ them as such,” and “Our Heavenly Father has made us to rule, and the Negroes to serve,” (Pictures of Slavery and Anti-Slavery: Advantages of Negro Slavery and the Benefits of Negro Freedom Morally, Socially, and Politically by John Bell Robinson) and it not be considered racist. This is a prime example of someone judging and stereotyping a human being just because their skin is a different color.

This also was a critical event to the coming of the Civil War as it separated the north and south even greater by physically dividing them into two

Most of the other Southern States were fully convinced that Andrew Jackson was ready and capable of making good on his threats. Fortunately for the nation as a whole, the U. S. Congress was already working on a compromise bill in an attempt to settle the issue and soon passed the Compromise Tariff of 1833. On March 13, 1833, the South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed the original Ordinance of Nullification but as a symbolic gesture, nullified the Force Bill. The United States had seemingly avoided the crisis but over next few years, most would realize that the crisis had merely been delayed. There has been a popular contingency among American historians and authors that tariffs were only a pretense and that South Carolina’s true motive was the defense of slavery.

The Nullification Crisis was an event that happened between the years of 1828 and 1832. There were many reasons that this crisis occurred. Many of these reasons could have been avoided from happening. The event that really started it all was the Tariff of 1828. One of the tariffs done during the presidency of Andrew Jackson, it was tax on goods that were imported and sold.

In the early 1830’s, South Carolina had the idea that they could nullify the law. This meant that the states could disregard some of the federal laws. A man named John C. Calhoun Promoted the idea. In 1828, there was a tariff passed that put a tax on all imports. Calhoun and a lot of Southern states were outraged.

constitution that allows “to protect domestic producers from foreign competitors” (Hummel 15). The South in general did not like the idea of federal government denying state rights and South Carolina backed by John C. Calhoun nullified this tariff by calling it unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust (Hummel 15). State rights go hand and hand with slavery and new territories into the Union at the time. Slavery increasingly divided the nation after the war of 1812. This made it very hard for states entering the union to decide to be either a free state or a slave state.

The South wanted to secede from the Union, but Mr. Jackson would force the military on them if they decided to do so. Congress then passed the Force Bill and the Compromise Tariff to help settle down the South; Jackson ended up preventing the South from leaving the Union. When Andrew Jackson

The Nullification Crisis was sectional crisis that occurred in 1832 to 1833 during the presidency of Andrew Jackson that involved a confrontation between South Carolina and the federal government. The crisis occurred when the Tariff of 1832 and the Tariffs of Abominations were opposed by the south, mostly led by South Carolina who deemed the protective tariffs unconstitutional. In response South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification and threatened to succeed if the federal government didn’t pull back the Tariffs. Andrew Jackson later got congress to pass the Force Bill which gave him the power to use military power to collect duties of on the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. South Carolina repealed its nullification, but were still against

When Congress issued tariffs on foreign goods, Southerners believed that Congress favored the North since this tariff would benefit them. John Randolph spoke of this issue, arguing that Congress was being unfair since the South was not benefiting from the actions of Congress at all while the North benefited (Doc A). As for political conflict, there was a clear case of factionalism and political rivalry in 1824 (Doc I). With these conflicts amongst the varying factions and political parties, the political tension and sectionalism within America continued to grow. Accusations and anger from the South further separated them from the North, which did not contribute “good feelings” to the country at

Some states had other grievances like Texas who said they were dissatisfied buy the federal military protection or Georgia who accused northern factories of exploiting the south and dominating the federal

However, these differences show that the North and South were actually two distinct countries held together by one constitution. The North felt that decisions regarding slavery and its legality were entrenched in the central government while the South felt that such decision belonged to the individual states. In the times preceding the war, both sides could not reach a compromise. Bonner mentions, “Because secession and war were permitted to come, warned Russel, "We are not entitled to lay the flattering unction to our souls that the Civil War was an inevitable conflict (Bonner, 195).” Hence, these differences could only be addressed through war.