Download Newspapers and the Shaping of Public Opinion

Newspapers and the Shaping of Public Opinion:
The Nullifcation Crisis of 1832
by
Michelle Niland
JCM 360 A: Media History
Dr. David Copeland, Instructor
Fall 2002
© 2002, Michelle Niland
It was a battle that began as early as the founding of the Constitution. It was a complex
philosophical argument that escalated to a simple statement: We will not obey. The nullification
crisis asked whether states had the right to ignore federal laws that they found unconstitutional.
Led by John Calhoun, South Carolina announced in 1832 that it would not honor or enforce the
federally backed tariff restrictions that were damaging the state’s economy. This event laid the
groundwork for much of the South’s later succession and established the United States Constitution as a subjective, and controversial, piece of American history.
At it’s simplest view, the nullification crisis can be seen as an assertion of states’ rights.
However, many more characters, policies and motives were involved. The basic argument on
nullification actually began when James Madison and Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia and
Kentucky Resolutions, proposing that the Constitution simply established a compact between the
states.1 This states’ rights view is fundamentally different from the alternative view of a democracy that believes states must surrender some of their individual rights for the benefit of the
whole nation. In Jefferson and Madison’s resolutions, South Carolina lawmakers supposed
themselves to have the right to dismiss laws in their state that they did not endorse.
The more immediate causes of the nullification controversy, however, were the 1828 and
1832 tariff bills passed by the federal government.2 During the early part of the nineteenth
century, the northern states grew more industrial and many residents made their income from a
growing manufacturing trade.3 At the same time, the southern states remained agriculturally
based, and took a hard hit by the high tariffs imposed by their government.4 Encouraged by state
senator and ex-vice president John Calhoun, the lawmakers in South Carolina called for a convention to discuss nullification. There, they decided by a 136 to 26 majority to inform the U.S.
Congress and President that they would not honor the tariffs.5
In response, President Andrew Jackson issued a Proclamation to the People of South
Carolina on December 10, 1832.6 In it, he addressed the people and warned that their elected
officials were not acting on the majority desire of state residents. He also claimed that the
“ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of conduct in direct violation of
their duty as citizens…[and] subversive of its Constitution.”7 Those refusing to abide by the
tariff bills were considered to be committing treason, in President Jackson’s eyes.8 The final
statement regarding the issue of nullification came from the U.S. Congress in 1833, when it
passed a “force bill” that authorized Jackson to use violence as a means to unite the Union.9
The conflict resulted in a peaceful, even if temporary, compromise. First, an agreement
between the state and federal governments on the tariff issue was reached in 1842.10 Backed by
the softer side of Andrew Jackson and written by Senator Henry Clay, the bill gradually reduced
tariff rates to the 1816 level.11 This allowed John Calhoun to save face and the nation to stay
united, at least in theory, until the start of the U.S. Civil War.12
The newspapers during the nullification crisis did their part in influencing public opinion.
For some in favor of nullification, writers painted the issue as a battle between an imposing
northern majority and the trampled-upon rights of the southern minority.13 Others sounded
almost revolutionary in their arguments for nullification. “A law enacted by incompetent authority, is not binding,” wrote a South Carolinian, “Disunion is preferable to a government of unlimited powers.”14 These writers attempted to persuade their fellow citizens of the logical and
constitutional basis for nullification.
Those that were against nullification used newspapers to further their cause just as much.
One of their fundamental concerns was that South Carolina’s nullification ordinance would tear
apart the nation. “We submit. to the government in preference to submission to anarchy,” wrote
a South Carolinian supporter of the Union.15 Anti-nullification writers also suggested that the
issue was a result of individual egos, rather than the public good. William Cullen Bryant claimed
nullification to be the “desperate plans of disappointed and ambitious men.”16
Nullification was not an issue that ended with the compromise bill of 1842. Instead, that
bill only quieted the South’s dissention regarding the direction of the Union. The issue of a
state’s rights to nullify improper laws was later caught up in the momentum of pre-Civil War
arguments. Newspapers, public discussions and stirring speeches by politicians all caused the
nullification issue to escalate and eventually remedy itself. Both sides of the crisis gained
strides. South Carolina’s ability to challenge federal government reminded states of their power
in a republic. The federal government, under the leadership of Andrew Jackson, made use of its
ability to calm dissidents and reach compromise. Although the peace was only temporary, the
nullification crisis served to remind many of the true power of the Constitution, its states’ sovereignty and the ability to change law.
Notes
1. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, s. v. “Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.”
2. “Tariff of Abominations,” retrieved from Internet site www.snowcrest.net on September 19,
2002.
3. Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, s. v. “Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions.”
4. Hubert Bancroft, The Great Republic by the Master Historians, 3 vols. (Retrieved from web
site: www.publicbookshelf.com on September 21, 2002).
5. “Tariff of Abominations.”
6. John McDonough, “Letter, Andrew Jackson to Martin Van Buren discussing the nullification
crisis,” Words and Deeds in American History: Selected Documents Celebrating the Manuscript
Division’s First 100 Years (Retrieved from internet site http://lcweb2.loc.gov on September 21,
2002).
7. “President Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding Nullification, December 10, 1832,” manuscript.
Retrieved from Internet site www.yale.edu.
8. Ibid.
9. Ken Newbold, “Nullification Commentary” (Retrieved from James Madison University’s
Internet site www.jmu.edu on September 20, 2002.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Bancroft, The Great Republic.
13. Henry Pinckney, “Our Union,”Charleston Mercury, 25 April 1830.
14. “Union – Disunion,”Niles’ Weekly Register (Baltimore), 22 May 1830.
15. C.F. Daniels “Submission Men,” Journal (Camden, South Carolina ), 9 April 1831.
16. William Cullen Bryant, “Wreck of the Republic not at Hand,” New York Evening Post, 29
August 1832.