Talk:Nullification crisis/Archive 1

Archive 1

Primary Sources

hi I'm doing a research paper for my Us history AP class and its about this topic. However, it is mostly about the effects (short and long term) of the nullification crisis and its resolution. I am in desparate need of Primary sources that can be obtained from the internet and not a book (unless said book is in wikipedia or google books). R0cko 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me know if you still need help, Rocko. Dinobrya

More Editing for POV

The addition by PhilLiberty is an oversimplification. While some folks may have looked at the Constitution as merely creating “a free trade and mutual defense agreement among the member states”, quite a few other folks did not – to claim otherwise is POV. It is also not true that the rise of protective tariffs was strictly a sectional issue in the early 1800’s. In fact the whole American System as it evolved, as well as the Second Party System, had advocates throughout the nation. War Hawks such as John Calhoun learned the lesson from the War of 1812 that some protection of American manufacturing was a good idea – they recognized that what strengthened one part of the nation strengthened the entire nation. Talk about “social engineering” and “political coercion” are inappropriate and POV. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, your change from this:

In their view, all the benefits of protection were going to Northern manufacturers, and that such use of taxation was unconstitutional.

to this:

In their view, all the benefits of protection were going to Northern manufacturers. South Carolina's rice industry was indeed in decline, but despite the tariff, its cotton industry flourished as the price of cotton soared, making some of its planters the richest in the country.

is clearly POV. It was, in fact, the view of business and farming interests in South Carolina that the tariff was unconstiututional, and stating that fact is not POV (simply stating that the tariff was unconstitutional would be, but clearly portraying someone else's views isn't); meanwhile, pointing out that South Carolina's cotton industry flourished for reasons unrelated to the tariff, in a discussion of that tariff, is misleading and POV. --Tkynerd 16:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my opinion that this is not a very good article -- do you believe otherwise? I have it on my watchlist because someday I plan to improve it if not totally rewrite it. In the meantime, I don't think it is such a bad idea to keep the article from getting any worse -- all I did was restore the status quo. As for the section you addressed, after looking it up in Freehling's "Prelude to Civil War: The Nullification Controversy in South Carolina 1816-1836" it is not so much POV as inaccurate -- cotton prices dropped faster during the 1820s than the cost of living, which was declining because of currency contraction. I will go now and amend that sentence. Tom (North Shoreman) 17:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence, about South Carolina's cotton producers, was obviously not POV in itself; but in this context, it appears calculated to create a false impression in the mind of the reader, and it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. Deleting it improved the article. However, it should be kept in mind by both sides of the debate (and yes, you're one, as far as I can tell) that this article is not the place to debate the issues related to tariffs and nullification. This article should portray the historical events related to the Nullification Crisis in a neutral fashion, using reliable sources; any debate about how to handle the article should take place here on the talk page, not in edits and/or edit summaries. Right now it's unsourced, which it always has been, but I would agree that recent POV edits from people on both sides of the debate have made it worse than it was. --Tkynerd 18:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously one of the "sides" is quite busy as we speak loading up the article itself with more POV unsourced opinions. Rather than getting in a revert war, when I replace the existing text it will be well documented with quotes and footnotes. I have the necessary resources already and have moved it up to the top of my to do list. I do believe a strong background section is necessary and that is what I'm working on now. In addition to the Freehling book I mentioned earlier, I will probably be using the Ellis and Remini books listed in the article under references, John Niven's biography of Calhoun, and Sean Wilentz's "The Rise of American Democracy". As far as me being a "side", I will let my work speak for itself. Tom (North Shoreman) 19:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to apologize for saying you were a "side." I said it based on that sentence about the cotton producers, which I later realized you didn't add to the article. If you can add NPOV, well-sourced material to the article, I'll be very happy to see it. --Tkynerd 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The consensus founders' view, from Hamiltonians to Jeffersonians, was that the sole function of the central government was in foreign treaties, protecting against foreign invasion, and preventing internal tolls. The American System represented a major change in attitude, and a major increase in central govt power. Citing John Calhoun as a supporter of the American System is disingenious - he was a, many would say the, major supporter of nullification and enemy of the American System. His short-lived support for some minor protection of manufacturing during time of war, in his younger and militarily naive "hawk" days needs to be put into context. He became an arch-opponent of Clay's corporate subsidy "American System", and also a leading dove in subsequent wars and near-wars. (Calhoun almost single-handedly prevented a war with Britain over Oregon.) I'll replace the earlier constitutional info, with an acknowledgement that limited governent was not unanimous. PhilLiberty 18:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The debates over the ratification of the Constitution, the split between Jefferson and Hamilton in Washington's second term, as well as the divisive nature of the 1800 election all argue against your consensus view on the role of the central government. As for Calhoun, much of his change of mind came when he came to believe that national economic policy was being used as a back door attack on slavery -- a major omission from this article to this point. I suggest you provide reliable sources if you attempt to make your consensus argument. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the rather drastic but, in my view, necessary step of restoring the article to an earlier, much more neutral version. Please discuss any proposed changes that may be contentious here on the talk page before putting them into the article. Sources would also obviously be welcome. --Tkynerd 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussed above (and in the edits), but if you have any particular questions or concerns, please exposit. A lot of the former version was "victor's history." E.g. the ridiculous assertion that South Carolina made "threats" implying that Jackson was somehow defending. PhilLiberty 19:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you would care to reword those portions more neutrally, I would not object; however, the version you keep reverting to is strongly POV despite your assertions, as is borne out by your description of the neutrally worded version ("statist," "victor's history"). I am restoring the more neutral version; I won't object to minor changes, but I recommend against restoring the POV material you previously posted. --Tkynerd 19:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

When I restored the previous version just now, I went ahead and made some changes to wording I thought was POV (and a couple of other changes as well, for usage and style reasons). Just FYI. --Tkynerd 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

RfC discussion

I have just submitted this article to WP:RFC. Neutral outside views are badly needed. --Tkynerd 20:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The RFC should state the point in contention. I think anyone trying to say Calhoun was this or that is making a mistake, because his public and private views could swing quickly. Besides he was just a follower that got caught out of step. This article does not even mention the real leaders such as Robert Y. Hayne, George McDuffie, and James Hamilton, Jr. The article hardly mentions the agitation within South Carolina at all. Also, anyone saying that the Framers said this or that is making a mistake. That's precisely what everyone was arguing about. FWIW I thought Houston's A Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina (on Google Books) was pretty good. Hughespj 11:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The RfC did state that comments were needed on what I saw as POV edits by a specific user. Had I detailed those, the RfC would have been a page long. I'm still looking for comments on that issue. --Tkynerd 13:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done my best to help with your request for a neutral viewpoint. I am regretfully unable to sort out pages of discussion and declare a winner. I do agree some terms used above are prima facie evidence of POV.Hughespj 23:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your views about what the article needs, and I encourage you to add appropriate, sourced material to the article to improve it. It would be nice if you could be specific about the terms that you think are prima facie evidence of POV. --Tkynerd 13:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In the interim I have changed the page back to your most recent effort. The bottom line seems to be that the editor who has made the change has shown no signs of wishing to work with other editors. Tom (North Shoreman) 22:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. We'll see how long your revert lasts. *sigh* Thanks. --Tkynerd 23:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is your RfC over? I came here because it is still listed. My comment, if needed, is that the article looks very interesting and thorough and my only quibble is that you should avoid direct quotes from your recent sources. You should summarise their views and if a historian's statement is uncontested then you do not have to give their name in the main text, only refer to their book or paper. If there is a difference of interpretation between historians and you have to contrast their viewpoints, then it would probably be appropriate to refer to them by name. Itsmejudith 21:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we can conclude, with the substitution of a completely new version of the article, that the RfC is no longer needed. Thanks for the nudge. :-) --Tkynerd 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Major Revision of Article

I am about 75% done with a complete rewrite of the article. Almost every paragraph will be footnoted from what at this point is a dozen books. The into will look something like this:

The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson precipitated by the attempt by the state of South Carolina to nullify a federal law passed by the United States Congress. It was precipitated by protective tariffs, specifically the Tariff of 1828 (also called the "Tariff of Abominations"). The lingering effects of an economic downturn, political maneuvering on both the national and the state level, conflicting interpretations of state versus federal powers, threats of secession, and the fears of a sectional conflict over slavery all exacerbated the situation. The debate ultimately led both the United States and South Carolina governments to mobilize for a military confrontation. The final compromise solution helped insure that the subject of protective tariffs, while remaining a political issue, would never have the same sectional volatility as sectional competition focused more and more on slavery and territorial expansion.

The rest of the article is organized as follows:

1. Background (1787- 1816) – This includes a discussion of the differing Federalist and Jeffersonian interpretations of the Constitution, the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the election of 1800 and the issue of states’ rights versus nationalism as it evolved through the Hartford Convention and the War of 1812. About 8 paragraphs

2. Tariffs (1816-1828) – To counter the claims in the existing article, I discuss the significant protective tariff developments in the period – specifically the tariffs of 1816, 1824, and 1828 (Tariff of Abomination). I link these to the depression of 1819 and describe the political machinations by Van Buren that led to the 1828 tariff and the election of Andrew Jackson. About 4 paragraphs but it may need to be expanded.

3. South Carolina Background – Four paragraphs on South Carolina’s economic problems in the 1820s with mention of folks like George McDuffie, William Smith, and Thomas Cooper who were radical leaders while Calhoun was still wrestling with nationalism.

4. Nullification in South Carolina (1828-1832) – Ten paragraphs at present but will be expanded. Describes the state’s reaction to the 1828 tariff and the struggle between radicals and conservatives over the tactics (i.e. nullification) to attempt to get the tariff repealed. SC politicians mentioned include Robert Hayne, James Hamilton, Robert Barnwell Rhett, and John Calhoun.

5. Federal response (1828-1832) -- Backtracking a bit, this section covers Jackson’s first administration, the Jackson Calhoun feud, the Webster-Haynes debate, the famous Jefferson Day toast, the 1832 Tariff, and the leadup to the 1832 election. At this point it appears it will be roughly the same size as the preceding section.

6. Confrontation – Unwritten at this point. Needs to include the Congressional vote, Jackson’s reasoning, Clay’s role in compromise, the Force Act, and the events actually in South Carolina, including the Nullification Convention and the vote.

7. Aftermath – This will contain a brief summary similar to what is already there and will also include the relationship of slavery to the events of the nullification crisis.

Because of the controversy over the article and the total lack of documentation to this point, I make a heavy use of quotes and block quotes. In order to address many of the undocumented POV claims in the present article I also spend more time on background issues than I might normally do. I hope for a final product in a few days. Suggestions are welcome. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You have described a fascinating and informative article. As far as I am concerned the existing article can be dispensed with completely. Thank you for your effort.Hughespj 00:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The revision has now been posted. I generally followed the outline previously mentioned. The footnotes contain narrative information that is important, but not necessarily part of the flow. Every paragraph is footnoted, usually at the end, and where appropriate I have cited more than one source in footnotes for the paragraph rather than attempting to create separate footnotes within the paragraph. Generally I have not found significant disagreement among the sources I used other than the fact that most of the works provided greater detail on different aspects. Because the work touches on the controversial issues of slavery and the causes of the war, I have resorted to direct quotes by either historical figures or historians to eliminate POV charges regarding my paraphrasing. All of the works cited are from books that I own and, at some point, have read completely. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article yet, but from what I can see, you've done a beautiful job. I've taken the liberty of putting the names of works in italics in the individual references for clarity, and also putting the names of a couple of works in italics in the References section that weren't already in italics. I hope this is OK. --Tkynerd 21:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now THAT is an article. Another that might be mentioned is Robert J. Turnbull, who as 'Brutus' wrote the 1827 newspaper articles and pamphlet called The Crisis. This put into words the entire program of action that lead to the ultimate faceoff. Supporting this bloodthirsty cry to arms, Thomas Cooper of great intellectual repute asked South Carolinians to 'calculate the value of the Union'. The overall idea is that the crisis was driven by grass roots popular opinion within the State of South Carolina, and was far more than the Jackson versus Calhoun thing you may find in some simple histories (and the previous version of this article). But, great effort as it is.Hughespj 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Out of context quote

I deleted (and replaced) the following quote:

- While Calhoun’s “Exposition” claimed that nullification was based on the reasoning behind the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, James Madison in an August 28, 1830 letter to Edward Everett, intended for publication, wrote:

“ Can more be necessary to demonstrate the inadmissibility of such a doctrine than that it puts it in the power of the smallest fraction over 1/4 of the U. S. — that is, of 7 States out of 24 — to give the law and even the Constn. to 17 States, each of the 17 having as parties to the Constn. an equal right with each of the 7 to expound it & to insist on the exposition. That the 7 might, in particular instances be right and the 17 wrong, is more than possible. But to establish a positive & permanent rule giving such a power to such a minority over such a majority, would overturn the first principle of free Govt. and in practice necessarily overturn the Govt. itself. ”

-

Why? The implication is that the quote addresses Calhoun's justification, but the quote is actually about "the expedient lately advanced, which claims for a single State a right to appeal agst. an exercise of power by the Govt. of the U. S. decided by the State to be unconstitutional, to the parties of the Const, compact; the decision of the State to have the effect of nullifying the act of the Govt. of the U. S. unless the decision of the State be reversed by three-fourths of the parties." (quoted from Madison's letter to Ellis[1]) The quote refers to the obscure and forgotten expedient, not nullification based on the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions supported by Calhoun. It's pretty obvious the quote is unrelated, since the Jefferson/Calhoun notion of nullification only affects the enforcement in the nullifying state, and would not affect the other states at all. The obscure expedient proposed, would reverse the law in all the other states with a 1/4 minority vote - a very different thing. PhilLiberty 07:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion on whether or not the Madison quote as provide is out of context is really irrelevant. The entire section is footnoted and it is not the opinion of Historian Richard Ellis that Madison was intending to express a right to secede as you are claiming. In fact, this is exactly how Ellis put the issue in context before he added the quote:

"But the nullifiers' attempt to legitimize their controversial doctrine by claiming it was a logical extension of the principles embodied in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions upset him. In a private letter he deliberately wrote for publication, Madison denied many of the assertions of the nullifiers and lashed out in particular at South Carolina's claim that if a state nullified an act of the federal government it could only be overruled by an amendment to the Constitution."

Your opinion on what Madison's intent was is irrelevant to this article when it is directly contradicted by arelaible source. If you feel you have a contribution to make to the article, you should do it using the same level of documentation as the rest of the article and stop reverting fully documented statements. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The most reliable source possible - the letter itself - specifies that the quote is about "the expedient lately advanced," and not Calhoun's nullification. PhilLiberty 19:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section

I have restored the lead section as originally written. Based on Wikipedia: Lead section:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

The three sentence replacement proposed does not meet this criteria. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor précis

I've read the initial summary but I still don't have any idea what the nullification crisis is. It could do with being clearer and more to-the-point.--Santahul 10:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Undocumented reversal of sourced material by PhilLiberty

You continue to attempt to change an article fully supported by references in either footnotes or the text to reliable sources with your own opinions totally unsupported by any sources, reliable or otherwise. Your earlier dismissal of actual documentation as "victor's history" is simply not Wikipedia policy. I am restoring the original text as written for the following reasons:

1. Creation of an overview section – No justification was provided and it makes no sense since there is already a background section. The four paragraph lead that you broke up is well within Wikipedia: Lead section guidelines.

2. Your changes on the Madison quote are in contradiction to the reliable source provided that places the quote in the proper context. You were provided with Historian Richard Ellis’ description of the purpose of the letter and have failed to provide any reliable source to rebut it. Your opinion, unsupported by a reliable source, is not sufficient for changing the text.

3. On nullification, your replacement is inappropriate for the lead. It is your opinion and undocumented. The position of the nullifiers is defined much better, with appropriate sourcing in the body of the article and the current lead serves as an adequate introduction. Nullification is an extreme version of states’ rights that most supporters of states’ rights rejected and your attempt to picture it as mainstream is historically inaccurate.

4. Your opinion on Jackson’s motivation is irrelevant. If you have a reliable source that says the same thing, feel free to discuss it on the article’s talk page. In point of fact, Jacksonian Democrats were strong supporters of states' rights -- they just stopped well short of being nullifiers. It seems that a complete discussion of divisions among states' rights supporters is beyond the scope of this article, but if you want to introduce it, it needs to be done with a proper reliance on reliable sources.Tom (North Shoreman) 20:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting back for these reasons, parallel to those numbered above:

1. As Santahul pointed out above, the old "precis" is confusing an uninformative. It has too much detailed history without explaining what nullification is. The intro should be a brief explanation of the topic. The details should be in the body.
2. Tom doesn't seem to have read the actual letter he quotes from. In the letter, it is clear that Tom's quote is about an obscure "expedient lately advanced," and not Calhoun's well-known nullification as implied by the old version of the article. It is simply misleading to use that quote so out of context. I simply replaced the out of context quote with an in context quote by the same person, Madison.
3. Contrary to Tom's claim, it is both appropriate and good form to define "nullification" in the lead. The nuances of various pro-nullification people should be in the main body. Tom seem to misunderstand the definition. Rather than refusal to enforce/recognize a law, he wants to give it a POV definition - "an extreme version of states' rights."
4. Okay, I added the following citation for Jackson's taking the nullification side when it came to Georgia vs. the Cherokees.

The Hows and Whys of Cherokee Assimilation and Removal (1796-1838) by Vincent Lyman:

Government opinion, evidenced by the split on the Indian Removal Bill, was divided. Democrats supported it, while Whigs were opposed. States' rights proponents supported Jackson's policies. Federalists in want of a strong central government that respected its own treaties were opposed. Concern for Cherokee rights was not paramount. p 20-21

In 1828, Andrew Jackson was elected President. "He was a frontiersman and Indian hater, and the change boded no good for the Cherokee. His position was well-understood…" Jackson would state, in his First Annual Message to Congress in 1829, that "a portion of the Southern tribes, having mingled much with the whites and made some progress in the arts of civilized life, have lately attempted to erect an independent government within the limits of Georgia and Alabama." It was clear which side Jackson was on. Cherokee leaders noted the irony. p 19

The Supreme Court declared that states have no rights that can intrude upon Indian lands. This decision eviscerated the legal right of Georgia to remove the Cherokee from their lands under the Compact of 1802. The Cherokee had won. The decision was discarded by both the Jackson administration and the State of Georgia. Jackson, upon hearing the verdict, uttered the infamous phrase, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." p 23

PhilLiberty 20:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to do a straight restoration immediately, but will work on three of your points. I am immediately restoring the section on Madison’s letter.

1. The old “précis” that Santahul found confusing has already been expanded from a single paragraph version. I will incorporate a brief additional clarification of what nullification is when I restore the second paragraph of the lead incorporating your point in a more concise form. What you are attempting to do is to remove from the introduction a main point of the article (supported by numerous reliable sources) that economic conditions in South Carolina were a main reason for the nullification efforts. You are trying to rewrite it, without any sources to back you up, as if it were purely a constitutional issue.
2. The letter issue is not about my interpretation versus your interpretation – it is about Historian Richard Ellis’s interpretation and your interpretation. By Wikipedia standards, the reliable source trumps your original research. I am restoring that part immediately.
3. I will incorporate a brief additional clarification of what nullification is when I restore the second paragraph of the lead incorporating your point in a more concise form.
4. I will include the Jackson reference regarding the Cherokees and your source. However I will edit out your opinion, unsupported by the source, of Jackson’s motivations. I will also eliminate your reference to it as nullification since neither Jackson nor the state of Georgia nor your source equate the actions with the nullification attempted by South Carolina. Tom (North Shoreman) 21:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, Tom, it's not about your or my interpretation, nor about Ellis'. Ellis is irrelevant as far as I can see. You did not quote Ellis, nor give an opinion of Ellis. You quoted Ellis quoting Madison's letter to Everett. It is ridiculous to even mention Ellis in the citation, since you give a link to the complete letter itself. Now read the letter. You'll notice that the quote is not discussing Calhoun's nullification idea at all. Yet the quote misleadingly implies it does, introducing the quote with "While Calhoun’s “Exposition” claimed that nullification was based on the reasoning behind the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, James Madison in an August 28, 1830 letter to Edward Everett, intended for publication, wrote..."

I guess I'll have to get hold of the Thurman Wilkins' Cherokee Tragedy and find a quote by Major Ridge or Davy Crockett or Henry Clay (all heavily involved in the indian removal issue) to convince you that they were well aware of the irony/inconsistency of Jackson's opposition to nullification for S. Carolina but support for it in Georgia's case. Will that do? PhilLiberty 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly quoted Ellis above in the discussion and his specific references to the letter. To refresh your memory:

In fact, this is exactly how Ellis put the issue in context before he added the quote:

"But the nullifiers' attempt to legitimize their controversial doctrine by claiming it was a logical extension of the principles embodied in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions upset him. In a private letter he deliberately wrote for publication, Madison denied many of the assertions of the nullifiers and lashed out in particular at South Carolina's claim that if a state nullified an act of the federal government it could only be overruled by an amendment to the Constitution."

I will add this to the footnote to the quote in the main article.

PS -- Before you make any further reversions you should review WP:AN/3RR since you are approaching a violation of the Wikipedia three-revert rule.

Tom (North Shoreman) 22:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Ellis context makes clear that Madison is not addressing the central nullification question, but rather a tangential issue of how other states may "overrule" nullification. Ellis' use of "overrule" is quite misleading, since it doesn't apply to the nullifying state - it may continue to ignore the disputed federal law.

This time, instead of reverting, I added an explanation to the misleading Constitutional amendment quote, and added the following Madison quote from his Virginia Resolutions:

"The resolutions, having taken this view of the Federal compact, proceed to infer that, in cases of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose to arrest the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them. ...The Constitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that it rests on this solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, as parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition." - John Madison

PhilLiberty 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Your "clarification" is once again your opinion and not the opinion of any cited reliable source. I have already addressed the intent of Madison in a footnote earlier in the article when the text of the Kentucky Resolution was provided. Since you want to expand this discussion, I will move the Madison quote from the Virginia Resolutions back to its chronological place in the narrative and move the discussion of its relation to nullification from the footnotes into the main article. I am also going to rework your additions to the lead to properly reflect the contents of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. (1828-1832)

This section is POV. It gives a quote for only one side of the debate - a pro-nationalist quote (of dubious relevance, but that's another matter.) Pro-nullification quotes have been repeatedly deleted. It needs a quote from e.g. Calhoun’s “Exposition and Protest” for balance.

Here's the gist of Calhoun's Exposition argument:

The powers of the General Government are particularly enumerated and specifically delegated; and all powers not expressly delegated, or which are not necessary and proper to carry into effect those that are so granted, are reserved expressly to the States or the people. The Government is thus positively restricted to the exercise of those general powers that were supposed to act uniformly on all the parts, -leaving the residue to the people of the States, by whom alone, from the very nature of these powers, they can be justly and fairly exercised, as has been stated. ... But, by a strange misconception of the nature of our system, - and, in fact, of the nature of government - it [the Supreme Court] has been regarded as the ultimate power, not only of protecting the General Government against the encroachments of the governments of the States, but also of the encroachments of the former on the latter; and as being, in fact, the only means provided by the Constitution of confining all the powers of the system to their proper constitutional spheres; and, consequently, of determining the limits assigned to each. Such a construction of its powers would, in fact, raise one of the departments of the General Government above the parties who created the constitutional compact, and virtually invest it with the authority to alter, at its pleasure, the relative powers of the General and State Governments, on the distribution of which, as established by the Constitution, our whole system rests; and which, by an express provision of the instrument, can only be altered by three fourths of the States, as has already been shown. It would go farther. Fairly considered, it would, in effect, divest the people of the States of the sovereign authority, and clothe that department with the robe of supreme power. A position more false and fatal cannot be conceived. Fortunately, it has been so ably refuted by Mr. Madison, in his Report to the Virginia Legislature in 1800, on the Alien and Sedition Acts, as to supersede the necessity of further comments on the part of the committee. - Exposition and Protest”, John Calhoun

PhilLiberty 17:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Defining "nullification" in intro

Tom, why do you oppose defining the key term "nullification"? It would seem a necessary and important part of the intro, yet you keep deleting the definition. PhilLiberty 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

More on Intro

I rewrote yet again the intro. You had some good ideas and I incorporated them. I also eliminated this:

"The tariff was opposed in the South since the South was agrarian and depended on imports for manufactured goods. Northern manufacturing states would pay little; the bulk of the tax would be borne by the poorest section of the US. Furthermore, the constitution only allowed tariffs for revenue, and not to favor some interests and states at the expense of others, or for social engineering".

Whether the North or the poorest would pay less is undocumented in the article and social engineering was certainly not an 1830 concept. If you think you can, in a sentence or two, accurately summarize both the agrarian and national positions on the tariff as reflected in the article, give it a shot. The best that can be done, in my opinion, is to identify the two competing interests and let the reader search it out in the main article. I will give this a shot after I finish editing this. I also eliminated this:

The nullification issue, however, was not finally settled until the US Civil War.

The claim is undocumented and not true. To substantiate it, you would need to show that it was a significant issue at any point after 1833 -- in fact even during the crisis of 1832-3 no state other than South Carolina, southern or otherwise, supported nullification. I added your general definition of nullification with a qualification and restored my definition of the specific issues in the instant case. I defined the overall issue on the Constitution to more accurately reflect the circumstances. You continue to ignore that even the majority of strong states' rights people outside of South Carolina (which includes Andrew Jackson), opposed nullification. The nullification crisis was over a specific alleged states' right, not over the entire issue of whether the Constitution was a compact or not. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the well-known facts, undisputed by historians:

"The tariff was opposed in the South since the South was agrarian and depended on imports for manufactured goods. Northern manufacturing states would pay little; the bulk of the tax would be borne by the poorest section of the US. Furthermore, the constitution only allowed tariffs for revenue, and not to favor some interests and states at the expense of others, or for social engineering".

It seems that you don't dispute the truth of it, but simply want a citation. If so, add a citation request. Also, there is no necessity to use 19th century terminology when writing about 19th century events. Nullifiers explicitly protested benifitting regions to promote certain manufacturing interests, what today we would call "social engineering."

Again, Tom, you deleted the definition of nullification.

You are correct that nullification was not settled by the civil war. The issue continues to this day. E.g. The dozen or so states that have nullified federal drug prohibition laws by legalizing medical marijuana. PhilLiberty 16:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

On what planet was the South "the poorest section of the US" at that time? It is now, but before the Civil War, the South was the wealthiest part of the country. --Tkynerd 19:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

August 19 work on the article lead

Phil;

You made numerous deletions with no explanation whatsoever. To remedy this, in the text I am restoring, I am adding additional footnotes so that every statement is supported by a reliable source, just as the rest of the article is. You have continually reverted this first sentence which exactly describes the nature of the confrontation:

“The Nullification Crisis was a sectional crisis during the presidency of Andrew Jackson created by the attempt by the state of South Carolina to nullify a federal law passed by the United States Congress.”

Seems pretty clear – no attempt to nullify, no nullification crisis. You are attempting to place the theoretical issue as more important that the practical issues, yet, as the footnote that you deleted without explanation shows, this is not the case according to historians Craven, Ellis, and Freehling. I have now expanded that footnote in restoring it.

You have repeatedly reverted versions of this sentence with no justification:

“The theoretical issue related to the very nature of the United States Constitution and whether it was a voluntary compact among states (in which case states are the final judges on constitutionality) or a product of the people and not the states (in which the states lost many of the prerogatives enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation).”

You composed the first half and the second half comes directly from language provided by Ellis in the body of the article, supported by McDonald in a footnote. I have now added the same references to this statement that were present in the main body of the article .Opponents of nullification included, as I said above, many people who otherwise were strongly states’ rights. The nullifiers were representing an extreme, rather than a mainstream, states’ rights position. In no other state did it constitute anywhere close to a majority opinion. I have now added a sentence showing this division and have supported by numerous sources in the footnote.

You state, “Again, Tom, you deleted the definition of nullification.” This is not true. Here is exactly what I included:

“Nullification, as a general term, refers to a state’s refusal to enforce a law. In this instance, South Carolina’s attempt was based on a constitutional theory articulated by South Carolina’s John C. Calhoun in which any state could unilaterally, or in cooperation with other states, refuse to comply with any federal law which a convention selected by the people of the state ruled was unconstitutional.”

It provides the general definition exactly as you wrote it, except that it clarifies that it is only a general definition. I then follow with the specific definition which is the relevant definition for this article.

As far as “social engineering”, it is inaccurate to use this 21st Century term to describe events in 1830. Social engineering has implications far beyond the tariff issue as debated in the first half of the 19th Century which was primarily about economics, secondarily about constitutional law, and nothing at all about “efforts to influence popular attitudes and social behavior on a large scale” (quote from the Wikipedia article on the subject).

Your attempt to equate the specifics of nullification as attempted in 1830 with medical marijuana is nonsense. These laws were not passed by conventions of the people and federal laws were not declared null and void. All differences about states’ rights are not based on nullification theory. Tom (North Shoreman) 23:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the referenced section about the unequal effect of the tariff and wealth redistribution. I omitted the term "social engineering." I readded the part about medical marijuana (and added a reference to the PATRIOT Act), making it clear that it related to the general idea of nullification rather than the narrow Exposition thesis. PhilLiberty 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

State's Rights not the central issue

Calhoun was a backchainer, meaning that he had the answers already, and would turn any fact on its head to justify those answers. He was ready to argue State's Rights, or phase of the moon if he had to. In other words he argued from a POV. Let us take care that our metaphysical hairsplitting does not become a living history recreation of 1830. Please remember that state's rights was the argument and not the issue. Hughespj 10:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No poisoning the well, please. Nullification was both an argument and an issue. Many/most early "founders" simply didn't foresee sectional interests, or even parties. Jefferson et. al. figured that if the central govt overstepped its bounds, that people would rise up in unison and put it down. Calhoun addressed this unforeseen problem - that certain sections or interests (manufacturers in this case) would try to use the central state to promote its interest at the expense of others - contrary to "the general welfare." The notion of concurrent majorities, that different subgroups should have veto power to prevent this, was Calhoun's contribution to political theory. PhilLiberty 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please respond to the points made in the leading statement. -Calhoun knew the answers and searched for the arguments. -The title of this article is the Nullification Crisis, not the History of State's Rights to the Present Time. Hughespj 11:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Assistance and Today’s (8-20-2007) Edits

Tkynerd, Hughespj, and hitherto silent observers;

I would appreciate it if anyone following this conversation would provide comments on their preferred version of the lead (discussed below). In two cases the issue has come down to two specific versions of the text that I have labeled (1) and (2). We have been going back and forth on these versions, and if you have a suggestion on how tinkering with either version would resolve the matter, that would also be appreciated. The third issue is whether the subject of medical marijuana and alleged 21st century versions of nullification is even appropriate for this article, let alone the lead. The major revision of the article resulted from a previous RFc involving similar issues and I am trying to determine whether we need to go that route again.

Phil;

You created the following sentence which has been worked back and forth many times:

(1) “The theoretical issue related to the very nature of the United States Constitution and whether it was a product of the people qua citizens of states, i.e. a compact of states (in which case states are the final judges on constitutionality), or a product of the people qua citizens of the central government (in which the people as citizens of states lost many of the prerogatives enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation”

I am replacing it with the following more general description of the issue in the words of a reliable source (quote was previously listed in a footnote).

(2) The theoretical issue related to the very nature of the United States Constitution As historian Forest McDonald wrote, “Of all the problems that beset the United States during the century from the Declaration of Independence to the end of Reconstruction, the most pervasive concerned disagreements about the nature of the Union and the line to be drawn between the authority of the general government and that of the several states.”

The next section in question:

Your version of the lead described above is:

(1) “The tariff was opposed in the South since the South was agrarian and depended on imports for manufactured goods. Northern manufacturing states would pay little; thus the bulk of the tax would be borne by the poorer South. This amounted to a vast transfer of wealth from South to North. [5] Furthermore, it was argued, the constitution only allowed tariffs for revenue, and not to favor some interests and states at the expense of others.”

My version is as follows:

(2) “Opponents generally felt that the protective features were harmful to agrarian interests and were unconstitutional because they favored one sector of the economy over another. Proponents found no constitutional restriction on the purposes for which tariffs could be enacted and argued that strengthening the industrial capacity of the nation was in the interest of the entire country.”

Your source mentions the nullification crisis in a single paragraph of a much larger article and does not support such claims as “Northern manufacturing states would pay little”. This would be true only if it were demonstrated that the goods subject to tariff were consumed mostly in the South. Also you claim, “This amounted to a vast transfer of wealth from South to North.” Nothing in your source quantifies “vast”. The article talks about income, not wealth. But more importantly two transfers occur. The first is from all consumers (not just Southern) to government on the amount of tariffs actually charged. The transfer of the actual purchase price transfer income from foreign sources to domestic sources. There is no documentation in your source, nor is it true, that the South was the poorest section. Finally, you make the issue a North-South thing, ignoring the existence of the West which is spelled out in the article itself and the complexity of politically alignments is much more complex than can be included in the lead.

You are trying to start a detailed debate in the lead of the article on tariffs that is not covered in the body of the article. If you want to add it to the body of this article, you will need more reliable sources – I am sure your source is reliable for the main purpose it was written, but that purpose did not include an analysis of the primary and secondary sources related to the Nullification Crisis (the bibliography provided shows nothing related to South Carolina in 1832). I have used fifteen books written by respected historians – all of which I’ve actually read. Bits and pieces of articles snatched off the internet are not adequate to rebut these sources.

As far as medical marijuana and the “general” description of nullification, this is not the subject of the article. This article is about a specific attempt at nullification in the 1830s – discussions of alleged nullification in the 21st Century have no place in the article, let alone in the lead. I reject the notion that your examples are nullification – they are a combination of civil disobedience (when only individuals are involved) and a simple (when state action is involved) “we’ll let the courts decide” who is right – what is missing is the declared determination to prevent enforcement of the law regardless of what the federal government says, an important ingredient of even the general definition of nullification – until you have that all that exists is a difference of opinion over states’ rights. We can always eliminate the “general” description of nullification you insist on including if it confuses the issue – every source I’ve read on nullification works quite nicely without it. Tom (North Shoreman) 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In the first pair of quotes, your (2) fails to state the issue. It merely alludes to "disagreements about the nature of the Union" without telling what these disagreement were. (1) is definitely superior, since it clearly states what the disagreement was.

The disagreements are fully discussed in the body of the text. You attempt to claim that all states rights advocates believe "states are the final judges on constitutionality." As I've shown through numerous sources, most states' rights supporters rejected this nullification claim. Your version creates a false dichotomy of the competing sides in the nullification crisis. The dispute was not between states' rights advocates and nationalists -- it was between nullifiers on one side and nationalists and the majority of states' rights advocates on the other side. Tom (North Shoreman) 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed, Tom, that you seem to want to define "nullification" as narrowly as possible. Even in your "general" definition, you restrict it to US states. This is unsatisfactory and misleading. Nullification is any declared policy of any jurisdiction that some central authority's law will not be enforced or recognized. If the city of San Francisco declares, by its city council and/or the city prosecuting attorney that they will not prosecute cannabis clubs, then that is nullification of the federal law. If Arcata, California forbids its police and city employees from enforcing certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act, this is also a form of nullification.

I am providing definitions, both general and specific, which relate to the article and 19th Century United States. I would guess that you are trying to make a political statement relative to your own 21st Century political views, but I know that you are not attempting to accurately describe the circumstances of 1830. I don't believe anyone looking to find out about medical marijuana would search it out in a book or article about the Nullification Crisis. I think the strongest case for my position is the fact that historians of this era NEVER attempt to carry the discussion beyond the Civil War -- and even this extension shows that nullification per se is a dead issue after 1833. Lest we forget, your original claim was that the Civil War decided nullification and you only brought in the 21st Century stuff when you realized you couldn't find anything to show that it hadn't died in 1833. Tom (North Shoreman) 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

There are certain disputes of fact. You seem not to realize that the southerners were major importers (of manufactured goods) and exporters (of agricultural products), while the North depended more economically on manufacturing and domestic sales. It is a fact that tariff collections and revenue came mainly from the agrarian South, and that the South was the poorer section. If you are so well-read, you can no doubt come up with many references to this effect. But you seem to either not know, or want to hide this fact.

Yes, the South had less industry and mainly exported agricultural products -- yet the Tariff of 1828, as the article shows, also had adverse impact on New England and the West and supported Louisiana sugar. Your generalization does not hold. It is not true about tariff collections coming mainly from the South -- tariffs act primarily as a tax on consumers and southerners did not consume the products subject to tariffs at any greater rate than the rest of the country. If the section were poorer, they would actually spend less, wouldn't they? In fact, despite the hard times, the class of Southerners opposing the tariff were led by the planter class -- among the richest folks in America. In any event the case needs to be made first in the body of the article, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS RELEVANT TO THE EVENTS LEADING TO NULLIFICATION, relying on reliable sources before finding its way to the lead. Tom (North Shoreman) 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PS As far as relative sectional wealth, James Huston in "Calculating the Value of the Union" (page 26) has the following values of total wealth in 1860:

New England 1,862,000

Middle Atlantic 3,728,880

Great Lakes 3,268,661

Deep South 3,336,000

Border South 3,454,000

The slave states clearly "out-wealth" the industrial states in wealth in 1860 with the Great Lakes region, which expanded greatly between 1830 and 1860, reflecting a third force that had interests different from both the other two sections. To support your thesis, you would need to come up with statistics for 1830 in which the above was totally reversed. Huston notes (page 53)that Calhoun was not crying Southern poverty in the 1830s, claiming that the North was threatening southern assets in slaves "that involve not lest than $900,000,000 of property."Tom (North Shoreman) 22:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PPS The following is from the 1840 Census as to the regional breakdown of occupations:

Free States (NE) people involved in manufacturing 493,430

Free States (NE) people involved in agriculture 1,136,709

Free States (NW) people involved in manufacturing 103,483

Free States (NW) people involved in agriculture 544,238

Slave States people involved in manufacturing 192,446

Slave States people involved in agriculture 2,038,808

As you can see, your simple dichotomy of agricultural South versus industrial North doesn't tell the story, does it? Agricultural workers significantly outnumber industrial workers in all sections, don't they?Tom (North Shoreman) 23:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In your second pair of article quotes, (1) tells the facts and explains the consititional issue, while (2) gives an opinion of unspecified "opponents" and evades what the constitutional issue was. (1) is definitely better, and if anything it should be more specific, i.e. mentioning the "general welfare" clause and its alternate interpretations. (Nullifiers saw "general welfare" as basically benefitting everyone, what today might be called Pareto optimality, while nationalists saw "general welfare" as allowing some sections to lose for the "good" of the nation.)

Once again, the article fully explains the issues. My version properly identifies that agrarian and industrial interests were at odds and that a constitutional issue was involved. Remembering that the primary issue is nullification, not tariff philosophy, further detail is not warranted. And besides, your summary is both undocumented (I discussed the significance of ther single out of context paragraph in your source)paragraph, inaccurate, and not reflective of the major concerns of the parties in 1828-1833 (i.e. it was more than North versus South, there were political consideration as reflected by the section describing Van Buren's wheeling and dealing). I raised these points and you have failed to address them. Tom (North Shoreman) 21:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

PhilLiberty 20:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom> "I am providing definitions, both general and specific, which relate to the article and 19th Century United States." Right, and that is too narrow for an unbiased article. It is relevant that nullification is and was a common occurance. The colonial revolutionaries had nullified the Stamp Act. Virginia and Kentucky had nullified the Alien and Sedition Act. Abolitionists in some areas had effectively nullified the Fugitive Slave Act. Georgia nullified the Hopewell Treaty with the Cherokees. To portray nullification as relating only to the 1830s tariff thing is totally misleading. Claiming that nullification ended with the Civil War is simply wrong.

You are trying to broaden the definition beyond that of the dictionary and well beyond the usage of nullification by historians. I have restored to the article the general dictionary definition most applicable to this article. Virginia and Kentucky did not nullify anything -- this is basic American history. They expressed their opposition to the Alien and Sedition Acts but took no action whatsoever to resist enforcement of the law. All resistance to power as well as all difference of opinion on the extent of state power versus federal power is not nullification. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

My claim: "Southerners were major importers (of manufactured goods) and exporters (of agricultural products), while the North depended more economically on manufacturing and domestic sales." Your data confirms and supports my claim. Your data gives for occupations: NE 30% manufacturing, NW 16% manufacturing, South 8.6% manufacturing. Clearly the North depended more on manufacturing. (The west, which I didn't address, less so.) My "simple dichotomy" that the North depended more on manufacturing than the south holds. Your data on wealth - even counting slaves as property - shows the per capita wealth in the NE as greater than the south. Thus my claim that the south was poorer holds.

No -- the data shows that folks not directly involved in manufacturing (and this receiving a DIRECT benefit from the tariffs in the form of increased wages, employment, and profit) made up the majority in ALL sections of the country. Your simplistic theory that it was strictly North versus South does not hold. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PS As far as wealth on a per capita basis, the Deep South actually has a higher per capita wealth than New England. However the poorest people were obviously the slaves. When you limit the per capita calculations to total free population, the South has a very big advantage in per capita wealth. Tom (North Shoreman) 12:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: The wealth transfer went from south to northeast. Tom, can you find tariff collection figures by state or region? Can you find out where the corporate subsidies ("internal improvements") were being spent? Those are the relevant figures for the wealth transfer claim. I think (from what I've read) that, even though the south was poorer (per capita) than the northeast, the south paid more tariff. Much more.

Actually you are the one making the claim so you bear the burden of proof. However the following is a quote from James McPherson published in "North & South" several years ago that is right on point:

"The idea that the South would pay a disproportionate share of import duties defies common sense as well as facts. The majority of imports from abroad entered ports in the Northeastern US, principally New York City. The importers paid duties at the customs houses in those cities. The free states had sixty-two percent of the US population in the 1850s and seventy-two percent of the free population. The standard of living was higher in the free states and the people of those states consumed more than their proportionate share of dutiable products, so a high proportion of tariff revenue (on both consumer and capital goods) was paid ultimately by the people of those states -- a fair guess would be that the North paid about seventy percent of tariff duties. There is no way to measure this precisely; for once the duties were paid no statistics were kept on the final destination of dutiable products. But consider a few examples. There was a tariff on sugar, which benefited only sugar planters in Louisiana, but seventy percent of the sugar was consumed in the free states. There was a tariff on hemp, which benefited only the growers in Kentucky and Missouri, but the shipbuilding industry was almost entirely in the North, so Northern users of hemp paid a disproportionate amount of that tariff. There were duties on both raw wool and finished wool cloth, which of course benefited sheep farmers who were mostly in the North and woolen textile manufacturers who were almost entirely in the North, but it was Northern consumers who ultimately paid probably eighty percent of that tariff (woolen clothes were worn more in the North than the South, for obvious reasons). Or take the tariff on iron -- it benefited mainly Northern manufacturers (though there was an iron industry in the South as well), but sixty-five percent of the railroad mileage and seventy-five percent of the railroad rolling stock were in the North, which meant that Northern railroads (and their customers, indirectly) paid those proportions of the duties on iron for their rails, locomotives, and wheels. One can come up with many more examples." Tom (North Shoreman) 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course most people were still agri workers - it was still early in the industrial revolution. But my claim was that the north (what you call northeast) had most of the manufacturing, and your figures support that.

Tom> "My version properly identifies that agrarian and industrial interests were at odds and that a constitutional issue was involved. Remembering that the primary issue is nullification, not tariff philosophy, further detail is not warranted." The constitutional issue directly relates to the nullification issue. The justification for nullification was that it violated the general welfare clause. Since presidents had vetoed federal funding of roads and other things benefitting only a region (rather than the whole nation), it seems odd that you want to ignore this important consideration. You seem to want to engage in historicism, catering to the modern all-inclusive statist view of "general welfare," thus hiding the main issue in the 1830s. Back then, central govt funding of a road was vetoed, outlawing an agricultural crop like hemp unthinkable, federal gun laws unthinkable, even federal direct (e.g. income) taxes unthinkable. We need to make clear the federalism attitude of the time.

Again, you ignore the fact that the article is about nullification -- not states' rights. I believe you will find it impossible to support your claim that nullifiers argued their position based on the "general welfare" clause. And once again you ignore the fact that the majority of states' rights supporters rejected nullification. The main economic issues of Jackson's term were the nullification of the tariffs, his veto of some national improvement bills, and the Bank of the United States -- the article points this out but only the nullification issue is the main subject of this article and only the nullification issue almost led to open warfare. Rather than personally taking any position on the "general welfare" clause as you allege, I am simply including in the article what the historians say about the era -- that is after all the purpose of Wikipedia. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PhilLiberty 02:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This article should not be a "disquisition" on State's Rights. Make that a separate article if you want. I don't remember anything about marijuana in Freehling's book and cannot fathom what it has to do with South Carolina in 1830. Hughespj 10:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom> "When you limit the per capita calculations to total free population, the South has a very big advantage in per capita wealth."

If you "forget" the poor propertyless slave, then you have rigged the results.

Tom> "the data shows that folks not directly involved in manufacturing (and thus receiving a DIRECT benefit from the tariffs in the form of increased wages, employment, and profit) made up the majority in ALL sections of the country."

You have it backwards. Those involved in manufacturing were the main beneficiaries of the tariff, since tariffs eliminated competition from foreign (mainly European) manufacturers. It was the manufacturing workers, due to this trade barrier, which got higher wages on the backs of the agricultural workers. The tariff benefitted manufacturing interests (including workers) at the expense of agricultural interests.

Regarding the McPherson quote: McPherson doesn't address tariff collections, only gross imports. He makes the faulty inference that, since New York had more imports than e.g. Charleston, it paid more money in tariffs. But New York imported mainly low or no-tariff items, e.g. raw materials, rather than high tariff manufactured goods. And since New England had ready access to domestic wool and iron, tariffs on those items were cosmetic. BTW, here's the tariff bill.

Tom> "I believe you will find it impossible to support your claim that nullifiers argued their position based on the "general welfare" clause."

You're kidding, right? The article already indirectly admits it: "He argued that the tariff of 1828 was unconstitutional because it favored manufacturing over commerce and agriculture. The tariff power, he felt, could only be used to generate revenue, not to provide protection from foreign competition for American industries." Let's look at other, more direct, references:

"when South Carolina nullified a protective tariff in 1832 (its argument being that the Constitution authorized the tariff power for the purpose of revenue only, not to encourage manufactures or to profit one section of the country at the expense of another-a violation of the general-welfare clause), it held just such a nullification convention." - Nullification: The Jeffersonian Brake on Government, Thomas E. Woods Jr.[2]

Also see "Virtue Besieged: Virtue, Equality, and the General Welfare in the Tariff Debates of the 1820s", James L. Huston[3]

"No one member of this Confederacy could have contemplated joining a union in which 'the common defence and general welfare' meant a sacrifice of any part of it under fanciful and arbitrary considerations of 'good of the whole.' We are not a consolidated empire, and we have no right partially to oppress an portion... - Senator Robert Y. Hayne, 1824 speech

Calhouns speeches and writings (and Webster's and others' replies) are filled with references to the general welfare clause and its application. Typical, from "Disquisition on Government," is: "It is a bold and an unauthorized assumption, that Congress has the power to pronounce what objects belong, and what do not belong to the general welfare; and to appropriate money, at its discretion, to such as it may deem to belong to it. No such power is delegated to it — nor is any such necessary and proper to carry into execution those which are delegated. On the contrary, to pronounce on the general welfare of the States is a high constitutional power, appertaining not to Congress, but to the people of the several States, acting in their sovereign capacity."

William Lloyd Garrison wrote in the Liberator about "the fanatics and madmen of the North who were waging war against the domestic institutions of the South under the plea of promoting the general welfare."

Tom, I see you still want to hide the general meaning of "nullification." You deleted my dictionary cited definitions (both general and narrow) and reinserted your narrow cherry-picked one. You seem to want to define away earlier and later instances of nullification, and pretend its a dead issue.

Hughespj, this is not a review of Freehling's book. Since nullification is relevant to the nullification crisis, it should be defined and discussed. PhilLiberty 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me very much, but in accordance with Wikipedia policy, this IS a review of Freehling's book - and any other of the most reputable secondary sources. Even newspaper articles and Calhoun's collected writings are not secondary sources. Wikipedia is NOT a forum for privately held views. Please read and abide by the Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View and No Original Research . Hughespj 18:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits of 8-22-2007 relative to Wikipedia policy

Phil;

Your recent edits have violated several Wikipedia policies so I have restored the original text. The most frequent violation is to Lead Section Guidelines – Relative Emphasis which provides:

“In general, the relative emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject according to reliable sources. Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, although specific facts, such as birthdates, titles, or scientific designations will often appear in the lead only. This should not be taken to exclude information from the lead, but to include it in both the lead and body: in a well-constructed article, the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text.

You are providing new information in your edits while ignoring the actual contents of the article. Further, you are adding material that overemphasizes issues properly belonging to the Background section to the exclusion of actual material on the subject of the article, the Nullification Crisis in 1833. The article is currently 77 kilobytes and expanding it further to include expand background would be contrary to Article Size – Splitting an article (rule of thumb). Since the article is over 60 KB, it is already considered oversized and expanding it with material NOT DIRECTLY RELATED to the actual subject makes no sense. There are already Wikipedia articles on each individual tariff as well as a general article Tariff in American history where your material, to the extent it is documented and accurate, could be applied. There is also an article concerning States’ Rights where a general discussion of states’ rights is in order – as the sources relied on show, the Nullification Crisis was not over states’ rights in general but over an extreme version of states’ rights that supporters of states’ rights in general rejected.

You are also violating Lead Section Guidelines – Provide an accessible overview which states, “In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked.” The key word is “context” – the only appropriate definition for “nullification” is the specific one that applies directly to the subject of the article, the Nullification Crisis in 1833.

You are further violating No Original Research – What is excluded? which identifies something as original research if “It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms.” You are doing this as you try to take the specific definition of nullification applicable to this article to other situations that historians do not recognize as comparable. This article is about the historians’ analysis of nullification within the bounds of a political crisis coming to a head in 1832-33. The article is not about, nor should it be, a general concept of nullification unrecognized by historians.

You are violating Reliable Sources – What is a reliable source? Specifically, “In general, an article should use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.” You are ignoring the numerous works already cited in the article and replacing them with either no sources,sources not comparable to the ones you are replacing, or sources that do not support the claim you are making.

The overall effect of your edits is to violate WP:NPOV. By including exaggerated emphasis on tariffs and states’ rights in general you move the article away from its actual subject – the Nullification Crisis. By attempting to expand the concept of nullification beyond the historical context of the article, you are creating an impression of nullification totally unsupported by the historians and authors cited in the main body of the work. The POV that you are promoting (i.e. that nullification always was and continues to be part of the mainstream political landscape in the United States) is not supported by the documentation of the article which shows that South Carolina was isolated from the rest of the country on the issue and nullification ended as a practical matter in 1833. Attempting to add the Patriot Act and the medical use of marijuana to the article (let alone the lead) injects a POV linked to current politics rather than 19th Century history.

Further specifics of all of the above have been discussed in the very lengthy exchanges on this talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) 10:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Content of the Lead Section

The issue is whether the additions to the Lead are reflective of the actual article, whether it is appropriate to discuss medical marijuana and the Patriot Act in an article about events in 1832, whether an interpretation of nullification beyond the scope of the article constitutes original research, and whether further details on background issues of tariffs and states’ rights are warranted and a violation of NPOV. The section immediately above this one describes the issues in more detail. Tom (North Shoreman) 11:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this article should be about the 1832 Nullification Crisis in South Carolina. That is its title. I want to read about economic desperation and lurking fear for the peculiar institution, the consequent local agitation, the decision to blame the Tariff and attack it by radical means, and the firm and unifying federal response. This article is NOT a suitable forum for wide ranging discussion and justification of states rights / nullification / interposition to the present day. In particular, I have never seen and never expect to see in a book the statement that South Carolina Nullifiers smoked marijuana for medical purposes. It is not proper to impose unsourced opinions in Wikipedia, as asserted by WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I vote to stick to the point and keep the article somewhere in the 19th Century. Hughespj 13:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The main points of disagreement on the intro are:

1. whether to disclose the general meaning of nullification, or keep it a secret
2. whether to disclose the constitutional issues, or keep it a secret (i.e. only a vague reference to "disagreements about the nature of the Union")
3. whether to disclose the probable effects of the tariff, based on experience from earlier tariffs, or to keep such effects a secret
4. whether to disclose that nullification is an ongoing issue to this day (occuring in issues such as the PATRIOT Act and drug prohibition)

Hughespj opines that the article should not relate the nullification issue to ongoing concerns (but should diverge to long discussions about abolitionist politics!) I disagree. Just as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 article may legimately touch on ongoing civil rights issues, and the National Prohibition Act article can touch on prohibition in general, the Nullification Crisis article may legitimately touch on ongoing nullification issues. It's even more important in the Nullification Crisis article, since (unlike "civil rights" and "prohibition") many readers are unfamiliar with the concept of "nullification." It must be explained to have a coherant article.

Tom seems to want to restrict the definition of "nullification" to the narrowest possible meaning. Now, I can understand how an author of a book on the Nullification Crisis, after stipulating a definition in early chapters, may refer to the Exposition and Protest instance of nullification as simply "nullification." But in this article, we must beware of this shorthand. The characterization in Exposition was narrow even for Calhoun - in Disquistion on Government and various other writings, "nullification" was used in a much more general sense. e.g.

The necessary consequence of taking the sense of the community by the concurrent majority is, as has been explained, to give to each interest or portion of the community a negative on the others. It is this mutual negative among its various conflicting interests, which invests each with the power of protecting itself — and places the rights and safety of each, where only they can be securely placed, under its own guardianship. Without this there can be no systematic, peaceful, or effective resistance to the natural tendency of each to come into conflict with the others: and without this there can be no constitution. It is this negative power — the power of preventing or arresting the action of the government — be it called by what term it may — veto, interposition, nullification, check, or balance of power — which, in fact, forms the constitution. They are all but different names for the negative power. - Disquisition on Government, John C. Calhoun

In my opinion, the intro should be just the current 1st paragraph which briefly explains the subject, with the rest of the current intro put into an Overview section. PhilLiberty 16:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the second RFC on this article involving the same editor, PhilLiberty who was reverting existing text with undocumented original research. The results of that RFC were that the article was entirely rewritten and thoroughly documented. Every paragraph has at least one-footnote and direct quotes in both the article and the footnotes are frequent. PhilLiberty has returned and is following the same pattern, concentrating on eliminating the NPOV of the Lead, the most visible part of the article. Cutting through all of the details, the bottom line is that Phil's edits do not present an accurate summary of the actual article.

The following are comments on Phil’s identification of “The main points of disagreement on the intro”. Considering the size of the article (60 paragraphs), the extent of the documentation (over 80 footnotes), the wide-range of the bibliography (every book read and relied on in the article), and the detailed coverage of all aspects of the Nullification Crisis, Phil's constant references to "keeping secrets" is strange, to say the least.:

Phil’s claim 1: Whether to disclose the general meaning of nullification, or keep it a secret

Response: Lead Section Guidelines – Provide an accessible overview states “In general, specialized terminology should be avoided in an introduction. Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked.” The key word is “context” – the only appropriate definition for “nullification” is the specific one that applies directly to the subject of the article, the Nullification Crisis in 1833.

Phil’s preference is

“Nullification, most generally, means "to make legally null and void,"[2] and can refer to a US state’s refusal to enforce a law.”

The “in context” definition that meets Wikipedia standards is

“The dictionary definition of “nullification” is “the action of a state impeding or attempting to prevent the operation and enforcement within its territory of a law of the United States.”

None of the sources referenced in the bibliography use the general description and all use some version of the “in context” version.

Phil’s claim 2: Whether to disclose the constitutional issues, or keep it a secret (i.e. only a vague reference to "disagreements about the nature of the Union")

Response: Phil’s preferred text is, “The theoretical issue related to the very nature of the United States Constitution and whether it was a product of the people qua citizens of states, i.e. a compact of states (in which case states are the final judges on constitutionality), or a product of the people qua citizens of the central government (in which the people as citizens of states lost many of the prerogatives enjoyed under the Articles of Confederation).”

My preferred text is, The theoretical issue related to the very nature of the United States Constitution. As historian Forest McDonald wrote, “Of all the problems that beset the United States during the century from the Declaration of Independence to the end of Reconstruction, the most pervasive concerned disagreements about the nature of the Union and the line to be drawn between the authority of the general government and that of the several states.”

The second version is preferable because (1) it cites a reliable source as opposed to Phil’s opinion, (2) Phil’s text addresses only one part of the theoretical issues behind states’ rights while mine presents the description that characterizes all such disputes, “the line to be drawn between the authority of the general government and that of the several states”, and (3) my text is a more accurate summary of the portion of the article “Background (1787- 1816)”.

Phil’s claim 3: Whether to disclose the probable effects of the tariff, based on experience from earlier tariffs, or to keep such effects a secret.

Response: Rather than keeping it a secret, the article has a great deal of detail on the tariff – a couple dozen paragraphs and an equal number of paragraphs. A few are background but most relate specifically to the tariff events from 1828-1833 as the Nullification Crisis played out. It would be impossible to repeat the detail in the lead reflected in the article.

Phil’s text is “The tariff was opposed in the South since the South was agrarian and depended on imports for manufactured goods. Northern manufacturing states would pay little but benefit most from "internal improvement" expenditures, and the tax would excessively burden the poorer South. The tariff amounted to a vast transfer of wealth from South to Northeast, just as the earlier 1816 tariff had done.” The later two sentences contain allegations that are inaccurate, in whole or in part and unsupported by any reliable documentation in the article. But, in any event, Phil’s account is in no way an accurate summation of the contents of the article.

My preferred text is “The tariff was opposed in the South and parts of New England. Opponents generally felt that the protective features were harmful to agrarian interests and were unconstitutional because they favored one sector of the economy over another. Proponents found no constitutional restriction on the purposes for which tariffs could be enacted and argued that strengthening the industrial capacity of the nation was in the interest of the entire country.”

My version is preferable because (1) it accurately states that parts of New England opposed the tariff, (2) it provides as accurate and concise a summary of the general arguments being made that is possible in a four paragraph lead of a 60 paragraph article, and (3) it explains the rationale of the proponents of the tariff – something Phil has deliberately deleted numerous times.

Phil’s claim 4 Whether to disclose that nullification is an ongoing issue to this day (occuring in issues such as the PATRIOT Act and drug prohibition).

Response: The concept of nullification, as described in the article, is based on very specific language, procedures, and constitutional theories related to the writings of Jefferson, Madison, and Calhoun. The documentation in the article clearly demonstrates that as a viable political option nullification died in 1833.

Phil has drawn the conclusion, unsupported by ANY documentation, that nullification is still alive and well. He has concluded that virtually any circumstances in which individuals, local government, or a state contest the interpretation of the Constitution favored by Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court that this is in fact nullification. He has further concluded that this discovery is relevant to an encyclopedia article about events in 1833. His attempt to include this in the article is clearly a violation of WP:NOR in general and most specifically No Original Research – What is excluded?.

Phil’s Final Point Phil has suggested, and unilaterally implemented, a reorganization of the Lead. He wrote, “In my opinion, the intro should be just the current 1st paragraph which briefly explains the subject, with the rest of the current intro put into an Overview section.”

Of course, the article already has a background section that provides nine paragraphs describing the general conditions leading up to 1828. Phil is ignoring the clear guidelines in WP:LS. The Overview of the article belongs in the Lead – in fact there is even a subsection in the guidelines to writing a proper Lead titled Provide an accessible overview. Tom (North Shoreman) 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The RFC History List entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:RFChist_list) mentions references to the Patriot Act and medical marijuana as items of contention. It appears that those references have already been removed from the article. Should the RFC list entry be updated accordingly? VisitorTalk 15:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is only one editor that is pushing for the inclusion of the Patriot Act and medical marijuana in the article. Since that editor's future actions (i.e. more efforts to include it) are unpredictable I think there is still value in expressing support or opposition to that position in this RFC discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

40 Bale Theory

"McDuffie argued that the 40% tariff of cotton finished goods meant that “the manufacturer actually invades your barns, and plunders you of 40 out of every 100 bales that you produce.” Mathematically incorrect, this argument still struck a nerve with his constituency."

I guess the guy who wrote this "mathematically incorrect" non-sense perform simple mathematical operations like division. 67.187.16.35 23:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

it's a surcharge, not a discount. Even if we ignore the purely economic questions, and assume all the 40% increase in cost is paid by the cotton farmer, that's still equivalent to taking 40/140 of his barnful, or less than 30 %, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Van Buren and the Tariff

The original section that was changed is fully supported by the source which happens to be the same historian (Robert Remini) that the editor who changed it quoted, only the article is written a decade or so before the biography of Jackson. If the two are in conflict, which I don't think is the case, then obviously the more recently written product would be considered more reliable. The fact that the tariff was partly a political ploy by Van Buren to secure more votes for Jackson is not in dispute. I agree that the claim that Van Buren expected it to fail is in dispute, which is why I only listed it in the footnote as another theory. It appears that the other editor assumed that this was the ploy I referred to but the following sentences make it clear that this was not the case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Mergefrom Nullification Convention article

NO action has been taken on this mergerfrom the Nullification Convention article requested in October most likely because the mirror {{mergefrom}} doesn't look like it was placed on the Nullification Crisis article. I recommend that article be mined for anything useful and a redirect be placed there pointing to Nullification Crisis.-----Adimovk5 (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

            I will commence work immediately, sire.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.252.106.140 (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC) 

Merge: this page's such a mess anyway, and the topics are so related, that it really makes no sense for it to remain independent. User:RideABicycle/Signature 03:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Featured Yet?

I'm surprised by the number of pictures (despite the topic), list of sources, minimal confrontation in changes and discussion, and good size of the article that this isn't featured. Nobody seemed to take too hard of work on it since January. Colonel Marksman (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationalists

The leading proponents of the nationalistic view included Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Judge William Alexander Duer, John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel Chipman, and Nathan Dane.

Really? Who are half these people (not Story or Adams, of course)? Who says they (and not, say, Webster) are the leading proponents? (I am led to additional scepticism because until today the Duer mentioned was William Duer (1805-1879), a young man who was elected to Congress some years later.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Nathan Dane was an alumnus of the Hartford Convention, octogenarian and probably dying in 1832; when did he express nationalism? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I told you in the edit summary the EXACT place where the material was from -- page 9 of Richard Ellis' "The Union at Risk". The exact quote which I paraphrased was, " The leading spokesman for this point of view included Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Judge William Alexander Duer, John Quincy Adams, Nathaniel Chipman, and Nathan Dane, and it was this point of view that Daniel Webster articulated in his famous debate ... ."

The chronology of when this happened should be clear -- the section head specifies the time period (1828-1832). While Webster's prominent role is taken up a few paragraphs later, I will add it to the list as I remove your tag and add an additional footnote.

As far as the Everett letter, there is a link to an online version of the letter in the appropriate footnote -- this should help you find what you are referring to. I looked and couldn't find it. Ae you suggesting that Madison supported some sort of Nullification by a majority that is different from the amendment process? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Ellis' footnote to his paragraph refers to Dane's 9 volume "General Abridgement and Digest of American Law" published between 1823 and 1829. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And another thing -- as far as your comment about the incorrect wikilink to Duer, that was not my work and reflects absolutely nothing about the major content additions to the article that I made. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All I can judge is what I see; but I'm glad to hear it.

For Madison, see his Report on the Resolutions of 1798, which affirmed that the States, collectively, were the parties to and ultimate guardians of the Constitution. Virginia's resolution was a statement of opinion, not a judicial act; but the States could together enforce their opinion in a number of ways, from stirring public opinion to calling a convention to amend the Constitution. (The Kentucky Resolutions are a different matter.) You may also want Madison's letter to Hamilton affirming that Virginia ratified an indissoluble compact, and his Testament cursing those who would dissolve the Union. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will take the above response to indicate that you have no info. linking the material which you added and the Madison letter to Everett so I will remove it. The topic in this section is zeroed in on the specific issue of nullification and it could be confusing to allude to a broader theme that Madison, in his letter intended for publication, did not see fit to reiterate. Madison' position on the states and interposition is in fact mentioned earlier in the "Background (1787-1816)" section. You may wish to add your material there, although I think, for purposes of this artcle, that the current content covers what is relevant. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for making clear that you own this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You refer to me as a "revert warrior" yet how many times have you been blocked for 3RR and edit warring? I have again reverted your UNSOURCED allegation. I had placed a citation tag on it, and your response clearly indicated that you had no source that Madison made the claim in the letter to Everett. It doesn't indicate "ownership" to remove unsourced claims. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I gave the primary source; rather than page through it, I shall supply another; I admit that my patience with those who dispute consensus statements, and revert continually, is limited. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as I had to dig up a biography of Madison, I added somewhat more. I trust there will be refinement rather than reversion hereafter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Historian X

Is this mannerism really necessary? Outside of the early life of Time Magazine and a handful of historians (Brant is one), idiomatic English is "X the historian". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

Has any one else noticed that it seems that this article uses too many quotes, I would try and fix it but I'm not an expert of the subject so I couldn't say if it could do without them.
Just a thought. hda3ku (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article. At the time there was an edit war going on (see the discussions above) and the best way to make the necessary points was to provide direct quotes. Since this is still a controversial topic, I think reducing the quotes to shorter paraphrasing would invite further warring. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Lede

I have restored the previous language to the lede. The size of the lede has been a topic of discussion and the material added was not appropriate. With respect to constitionality, this issue was added to the second paragraph despite the fact that it was already in the third paragraph where it was more relevant. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions certainly are related to the topic, as the body of the article indicates, but nullification in South Carolina, as it developed, was considerably different from the earlier proposals. The lede is not the place to get into the nuances of either issue. In any event, based on the history of this article, changes should be discussed here first and a consensus arrived at. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have again removed extraneous language from the lede. It seems clear in the first paragraph that when the tariff is classified as "highly protective" and then southern opposition is mentioned what the reason for opposition was. As far as claiming there was a planned "invasion", it is not clear exactly how you invade your own country -- the military action planned by Jackson was the result of a specific congresional act that did not mention "invasion" (nor did the source used to footnote the sentence). There is no need to expand the lede in order to introduce details about southern objections in general to the lede since in the end this issue was about South Carolina's unique situation which is addressed in the second paragraph. The details are appropriately addressed in the bdy of the article. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Changes to External Link

I altered the external link to the article on "Nullification Revisited" to correct a spelling issue and to change the link to a location where the article is featured in one part; previously, there were two links.Phoenix1861 (talk) 19:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems wrong

Discussion by a single-purpose editor with multiple IPs blocked for disruption and personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The current article summary states that The tariff rates were reduced, but the states’ rights doctrine of nullification had been rejected by the nation. From reading the summary, the state and not the Federal Government caved. How can someone conclude that the state lost, when it got what it wanted? Looks like someones POV push.71.174.142.108 (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) The end of the Negotiation and Confrontation section might have some of that. Absolutely, the state did succeed in getting the tariff repealed, but they didn't do it through nullification. It was a bill through Congress that replaced the old tariff bill, but Congress also passed the Force bill at the same time. The state then repealed their nullification bill (and nullified the Force bill too?). The tariff was gone, but the country had, through the passing of the Force Bill, said that it rejected the concept of state nullification. It seems a case of winning the battle, but losing the war. And, of course, the entire matter was one big step down the road towards Civil War. Call it a lesson regional politics that applies today. When one region passes laws to benefit only that region at the direct expense of another, intensely rival region, only bad things will happen. Ravensfire (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Yeh! Right! Why don't you read this http://www.statehousecall.org/?s=tenth+amendment As reported in a front page story in the New York Times last week, there is a growing movement of state legislators who are taking action to protect individual health care and health insurance choices. There are now three more states, Alaska, Mississippi, and Missouri, where legislators have taken up the cause if defending individual free choice when it comes to health insurance. They join legislators in the 10 states that have already filed or pre-filed legislation (AZ, FL, IN, MN, ND, NM, MI, OH, WV, WY) and the four states (GA, KS, LA, and UT) that have already publicly announced their intention to file the legislation. FYI: Now I have TWO shadows - you and 4wajzkd02. What are you doing here, aside from looking for anything I add so you can delete it under one excuse or another in order to get your jollies? Why don't you do something constructive an educational like looking up the first legal tender paper money issued under the Constitution and what the excuse was for it. Got any Gold and silver coins in your pocket? If not then why? Here's a hint - The Federal Reserve went BANKRUPT, not once but twice and was saved from itself by first revoking it contractual obligation for gold demand notes in the 30's and then revoking its obligations for silver demand notes in the 60's. You can also educate yourself by looking up pictures of Federal reserve notes - check when they started having the words "Legal Tender" on them.71.174.142.108 (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Exactly what does the above have to do with this article? If the intent is to bring current events and a fringe POV into an article about an historical even that occurred over 170 years ago, then, absent the showing of some nexus by reliable sources, there will be a problem. The earlier claim that somehow SC won the standoff and Jackson lost it is totally unsupported by reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to lede

I restored the language changed by USER:Str1977. Part of the change was to delete "...by the 1850s the intertwined issues of slavery and territorial expansion would become the most significant and sectionally divisive issue in the nation." This is fully supported by both the footnote immediately after it and the sourced body of the article. The removal of the material suggests that the editor either believes that the tariff issue was still the main sectional issue in the 1850s or else slavery was not the major issue -- neither of these positions are supported by reliable sources. The body of the article maes the clear link between slavery and the tariff issue in the nullification crisis -- perhaps this should be brought out in the lede.

The second change was to the phrase "but the states’ rights doctrine of nullification had been rejected by the nation." This also is supported by the sourced body of the article -- SC at the end of the crisis had been forced to stand alone and no state would ever again declare it had the constitutional right to nullify a federal law and act on it. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

South Carolina Background (1819-1828)

State leaders, ... "an even more extreme version of the states' rights doctrine" in order to maintain politically significant within

Suggestions: remain politically significant or maintain political significanceGeo8rge (talk) 03:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln

I noticed that the article has no reference to how Jackson's response to the crisis influenced Lincoln when he became President in regard to secession. I think that it is pretty important. Soyseñorsnibbles^Dígame 19:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing for POV

A previous version of this article implied that "states' rights" threatened the primacy of the federal government under the supremacy clause. In fact, the supremacy clause ensures that the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. The position of South Carolina was that the tariffs were unconstitutional. A South Carolinian states' righter would consider the tariffs themselves to be a threat to the supremacy clause, by allowing the lawless will of Congress to subvert the true meaning of the Constitution. The position of proponents of states' rights is not that a state may overrule the Constitution or the federal government, but that a state possesses the authority, incidental to its intrinsic sovereignty which had not been surrendered under the Constitution, to judge constitutional infractions and measures of redress within its own borders. Whether or not that is a legally valid argument is beside the point; let's not write articles that imply or simply assume that one view or the other is absolutely correct.

VindiciaeContraTyrannos — Preceding unsigned comment added by VindiciaeContraTyrannos (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Redirect

"Tariff of Abominations" should redirect to this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.174.43 (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Calhoun resignation

The third paragraph opens "On July 14, 1832, after Calhoun had resigned his office...," but Calhoun didn't resign until December. Alexbook (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Factual Conflict

The wiki page on the Tariff of 1828, says that the tariff was on goods -- in other words, raw materials AFTER they have been converted to something for sale to consumers. But this page describes the tariff as covering "raw materials". This is a direct conflict and is very confusing. I believe that the page about the tariff itself is more correct. It certainly makes more logical sense, considering that New England's manufacturing economy was in support of the tariff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreslough (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the paragraph in question:

The Tariff of 1828 was largely the work of Martin Van Buren (although Silas Wright Jr. of New York prepared the main provisions) and was partly a political ploy to elect Andrew Jackson president. Van Buren calculated that the South would vote for Jackson regardless of the issues so he ignored their interests in drafting the bill. New England, he thought, was just as likely to support the incumbent John Quincy Adams, so the bill levied heavy taxes on raw materials consumed by New England such as hemp, flax, molasses, iron and sail duck. With an additional tariff on iron to satisfy Pennsylvania interests, Van Buren expected the tariff to help deliver Pennsylvania, New York, Missouri, Ohio, and Kentucky to Jackson. Over opposition from the South and some from New England, the tariff was passed with the full support of many Jackson supporters in Congress and signed by President Adams in early 1828.

The paragraph is supported by two reliable sources in the footnote at the end of the paragraph. In the context of the article, the purpose of this section is not to provide a complete description of the Tariff of 1828 but to provide the political context of its drafting and passage.

Contrary to your claim, the Tariff of 1828 article also mentions these circumstances when it says:

"In an elaborate scheme to prevent passage of still higher tariffs while at the same time appealing to Andrew Jackson’s supporters in the North, John C. Calhoun and other southerners joined them in crafting a tariff bill that would also weigh heavily on materials imported by the New England states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by North Shoreman (talk • contribs) 09:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)