In 1832, President Andrew Jackson put in place a new tariff on ports in South Carolina. This caused uproar in the southern state of South Carolina. The Governor of South Carolina at the time was Robert Y. Hayne. He stood in strong opposition against the tariff imposed on his state. Hayne saw the tariff to be unconstitutional because the national government was interfering with South Carolina’s rights as a state in the Union. Hayne threatened secession and was ready to start a civil war if the tariff was not lifted; thus restoring the liberties of South Carolina. Andrew Jackson’s job as the president of the Union was to uphold the laws stated in the Constitution and he believed he was doing so accordingly by placing a tariff on South Carolina’s
…show more content…
Hayne believed one of the most important things in the still newly founded Union was the sovereignty of the states. He states, “In the great struggle in which we engaged, for the preservation of our rights and liberties, it is my fixed determination to assert and uphold the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, and to enforce by all the means that may be entrusted to my hands, her SOVEREIGN WILL” (Hayne, 1). Hayne argues that the tariff put in place violated this concept. He believes that the tariff is null and he refuses to let it continue because it infringes on the people of South Carolina liberties. Hayne is worried that the National Government is gaining too much power and he feels that they are acting in a way that contradicts what is said in the Constitution. Hayne sees this tariff as an attack on South Carolina’s freedom to act in their best interests. He defends this by saying, “A confederacy of sovereign states, formed by the free consent of all, cannot possibly be held together, by any other tie than mutual sympathies and common interest” (Hayne, 3). What he really means is that the Government should not act in its’ best interest, but rather the interests of all the states as a whole. Especially South Carolina since they are the ones being most impacted by the tariff. He even threatens to secede from the Union and even start a civil war if the tariff is not found to be void. The reader can hear it in the tone of the article that Hayne is extremely worried …show more content…
He understood where he was coming from, but did not agree with the reasoning. Jackson states, “I consider then the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNION, CONTRADICTED EXPRESSLY BY THE LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNAUTHORIZED BY ITS SPIRIT, INCONSISTENT WITH EVERY PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GREAT OBJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS FORMED....” (Jackson, 5). This is a powerful statement made by Jackson because he explains that just because a law might seem unfair to one state, it is not unconstitutional and therefore is not void on that basis alone. Jackson believes that if a state wants to nullify one law set in place that was not favorable, then all states would follow in doing the same. He claims that his power to put in place such tariffs is directly stated in the Constitution. He decides that the tariff is in the best interest of all the states in the Union because it is helping the Government operate the way it needs to. Jackson claims, “We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the votes shall be given.... The people, then, and not the States, are represented in the Executive branch....” (Jackson, 9). The people of the Union voted on who they want to represent the country and since that was Jackson, he believes that he has the
Hayne believed one of the most important things in the still newly founded Union was the sovereignty of the states. He states, “In the great struggle in which we engaged, for the preservation of our rights and liberties, it is my fixed determination to assert and uphold the SOVEREIGN AUTHORITY OF THE STATE, and to enforce by all the means that may be entrusted to my hands, her SOVEREIGN WILL” (Hayne, 1). Hayne argues that the tariff put in place violated this concept. He believes that the tariff is null and he refuses to let it continue because it infringes on the people of South Carolina liberties. Hayne is worried that the National Government is gaining too much power and he feels that they are acting in a way that contradicts what is said in the Constitution. Hayne sees this tariff as an attack on South Carolina’s freedom to act in their best interests. He defends this by saying, “A confederacy of sovereign states, formed by the free consent of all, cannot possibly be held together, by any other tie than mutual sympathies and common interest” (Hayne, 3). What he really means is that the Government should not act in its’ best interest, but rather the interests of all the states as a whole. Especially South Carolina since they are the ones being most impacted by the tariff. He even threatens to secede from the Union and even start a civil war if the tariff is not found to be void. The reader can hear it in the tone of the article that Hayne is extremely worried …show more content…
He understood where he was coming from, but did not agree with the reasoning. Jackson states, “I consider then the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNION, CONTRADICTED EXPRESSLY BY THE LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNAUTHORIZED BY ITS SPIRIT, INCONSISTENT WITH EVERY PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GREAT OBJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS FORMED....” (Jackson, 5). This is a powerful statement made by Jackson because he explains that just because a law might seem unfair to one state, it is not unconstitutional and therefore is not void on that basis alone. Jackson believes that if a state wants to nullify one law set in place that was not favorable, then all states would follow in doing the same. He claims that his power to put in place such tariffs is directly stated in the Constitution. He decides that the tariff is in the best interest of all the states in the Union because it is helping the Government operate the way it needs to. Jackson claims, “We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the votes shall be given.... The people, then, and not the States, are represented in the Executive branch....” (Jackson, 9). The people of the Union voted on who they want to represent the country and since that was Jackson, he believes that he has the