Difference Between Jackson And Clay Responses To The Nullification Crisis

The Nullification Crisis Jackson and Clay’s different responses to the Nullification Crisis was another major difference between them. One of the protective tariffs that Clay argued for in his American System was the Tariff of Abominations which was designed to protect manufactures from foreign competition. This however created a decrease in cotton prices which hurt the south, particularly South Carolina. South Carolina responded by passing a doctrine known as nullification in which they argued “the Union…was a confederation that yielded some but not all power to the federal government. When Congress overstepped its powers, states had the right to nullify Congress’s acts” . Jackson in return passed the Force Bill due to the fact he saw this as an act of treason. Clay, however, found a way to create a gradual reduction to the way things were in 1816. Jackson signed the bill and the conflict died down.
New Political Parties One of the most apparent differences between the two men was their conflicting political parties. Henry Clay was the leader of the Whig Party. The Whig Party was in favor of a strong federal government and a broad interpretation of the Constitution. The Whig Party was also for the American System, which included subsidies for internal improvements, protective tariffs and the National Bank. The Whigs …show more content…
Through their differing views on the American System, National Bank and the Nullification Crisis the two men “framed an important national debate over democracy and economic development” . Their respective political parties changed the face of politics during their time and the centuries after them. Their continuance of political parties cemented the two party system created by Jefferson and Hamilton. These two men, though in fierce opposition with one another, together set the stage for the American government we have