sectional issues

Sectional Issues

Cheap Public Land

Internal Improvements

Higher Tariffs

NorthFavored or

opposed and why

Favored or opposed and why

Favored or opposed and

why

SouthFavored or

opposed and why



why

WestFavored or

opposed and why



why

Copy the following on NB p. 65.

Lesson 12.3: Conflict Over States’ Rights

Today’s Essential Question: How did a sectional argument over a tariff law almost

lead to a civil war in 1832?

Vocabulary• sectional – referring to one region or

area instead of the whole nation• tariff – a tax on imported goods• states’ rights – powers and privileges

possessed by the states• nullification – cancelling out or making

something powerless• crisis – turning point or dangerous

situation

Check for Understanding• What is today’s Essential Question?• Why doesn’t the U.S. government

charge a tariff on wine grapes grown in Temecula?

• What is a crisis that an 8th grader might face?

What We Already KnowDuring the battle for

ratification of the Constitution, many

Americans were concerned that too much power was being taken

from the states and given to the federal government.

What We Already Know

In the Kentucky and Virginia

Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson

and James Madison anonymously

declared that states do not have to

enforce laws that they believe are unconstitutional.

What We Already KnowSoutherners disliked tariffs because they increased the

cost of foreign manufactured goods that Southerners

frequently imported.

When President Jackson took office in 1829, three economic issues were

pulling the nation apart:

• the sale of public lands,• internal improvements,• and tariffs.

Check for Understanding

A ask B: What three issues were pulling the nation apart along sectional lines in the late 1820s?

The three issues that were pulling the nation apart along sectional lines in the late 1820s the sale of public lands, internal improvements, and tariffs.

Be sure to re-state the question in your response!

The Sale of Public Lands• Northeasterners did not want the lands in the

West to be sold at low prices.• They were concerned that the cheap land

would attract workers who were needed in the Northeastern factories.

Westerners wanted low prices for public land.

• Cheap land would attract more settlers.• More people meant more political

power for the West.

Southerners had no strong opinion about the issue.

Because they owned slaves,

Southerners did not need to fear the loss of their

labor force to the West.

Internal Improvements

• Internal improvements is a term that usually refers to roads, canals, bridges, and other structures that aid transportation.

• The Northeast and West wanted the government to spend money on transportation to help move agricultural products and manufactured goods.

Southerners opposed internal improvements.

• The new roads and canals would connect the West and the Northeast, and would not help the Southern economy at all.

• Also, Southerners knew the money to pay for the improvements would come from tariffs, and Southerners did not want an increase in tariffs.


B ask A: What are internal improvements?

Internal improvements are roads, canals, bridges, and other structures that aid transportation.



A ask B: Which two sections wanted the government to spend more money on internal improvements?

The Northeast and the West wanted the government to spend more money on internal improvements.



B ask A: Why did the Northeast and the West want the government to spend more money on internal improvements?

The Northeast and West wanted the government to spend money on internal improvements to make it easier to move agricultural products and manufactured goods from one region to another.


Check for UnderstandingA ask B: For what two reasons did the South

oppose spending government money on internal improvements?

The South opposed spending government money on internal improvements because the new roads and canals would not help the Southern economy at all, and would cause a rise in tariff rates.


Northerners supported higher tariffs.

• Tariffs are taxes on imported goods.• The North supported tariffs because they

protected U.S. manufacturers from foreign competition, and the revenue would pay for internal improvements.

Southerners opposed tariffs.• The Southern economy was based on foreign

trade, and higher tariffs made imported goods more expensive for Southerners.

• The tariff revenue wouldn’t help the South, which needed no internal improvements.

The West also favored raising tariffs.

• Westerners bought most of their manufactured goods from New England factories, so higher prices for manufactured goods didn’t affect them.

• The tariff revenue would help the West because it would pay for the internal improvements the West needed for transporting factory products.


B ask A: What is a tariff?

A tariff is a tax on imported goods.



A ask B: Why did the Northeast and the West support raising tariff rates?

The Northeast and the West supported raising tariff rates because the tariffs would raise revenue for internal improvements, and would protect American manufacturers from foreign competition.



B ask A: Why did the South oppose higher tariffs?

The South opposed higher tariffs because its economy was based on foreign trade, and higher tariffs made imported goods more expensive for Southerners, who didn’t need internal improvements.


Get your whiteboards and markers ready!

8. How did the issue of tariffs lead to sectional differences?

A. The issue of tariffs caused hostility between the North and the South.

B. The issue of tariffs caused hostility between the North and the West.

C. The North believed tariffs would protect U.S. products from foreign competition and raise money for internal improvements.

D. The South opposed higher tariffs because they would make imported goods more expensive for Southerners.

E. The West opposed tariffs because they need no internal improvements.

Choose all that are true!

The ‘Tariff of Abominations’ (1828)

• In 1828, a new high tariff was being debated in Congress.

• Since the tariff hurt the South but helped the North, angry Southerners felt the government was being unfair.

• Southerners hated the Tariff of 1828 so much they referred to it as the Tariff of Abominations.

• Some Southerners began to say their states should leave the Union (i.e., secede).

Check for Understanding• A ask B: Why did the tariff make

Southerners feel the national government was being unfair?

The tariff make Southerners feel the national government was being unfair because it would increase the cost of

foreign manufactured goods that Southerners frequently imported.

Be sure to restate the question in your answer!


• B ask A: What threat were some Southerners starting to make?Some Southerners began to

threaten that their states should leave the Union.


9. Why did Southerners call the Tariff of 1828 the Tariff of Abominations?

A. It made European imports too expensive.B. It lowered the prices they could charge

for cotton.C. It lowered the tariff to the levels they had

been in 1800.D. It reduced the amount of cotton foreign

countries could purchase from Southerners.

John C. Calhoun wanted to keep South Carolina from seceding.

• Calhoun had to calm Southerners’ fears about the tariff and their loss of influence in the government.

• He also needed to find a way for the South to avoid collecting the Tariff of Abominations.

Calhoun developed the doctrine of nullification from different sources.• The first was the compact theory of government.• Constitution created a compact (or contract)

between the states and the federal government. • If the federal government breaks that contract,

the states have the right to ignore the government.

Calhoun developed the doctrine of nullification from different sources.

• The second was Thomas Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution.

• The Kentucky Resolution said that states did not have to enforce a law that they felt was unconsti-tutional or outside the government’s expressed powers.

Check for Understanding• A ask B: According to the compact

theory, what was the relationship between the states and the federal government based on?According to the compact theory, the

relationship between the states and the federal government was based on a contract between the states and the

federal government.Be sure to restate the question in your answer!

Check for Understanding• B ask A: What did the Kentucky

Resolution say states could do if Congress passed a law the states felt was unconstitutional?

If Congress passed a law they felt was unconstitutional, the Kentucky

Resolution said that states did not have to enforce it.


The Doctrine of Nullification• State legislatures have the

authority to determine if a law is constitutional.

• If the legislature declares a federal law unconstitutional, then that law is nullified (i.e., not legal) within that state’s borders

• Calhoun published his doctrine anonymously in a document called “South Carolina Exposition and Protest.”

Threats of Secession

Should the need arise, states have

the right to secede from the Union

and become independent.


• A ask B: According to the doctrine of nullification, who had the authority to determine if a law is constitutional?

According to the doctrine of nullification, states had the authority to determine if a law is

constitutional.



• B ask A: What was the name of the document in which Calhoun published his doctrine of nullification?

Calhoun published his doctrine of nullification in the “South Carolina Exposition and Protest.”


10. How would the doctrine of nullifi-cation provide a way for states to

avoid paying the high tariff?

A. State legislatures could nullify their own tax obligations to federal government.

B. State legislatures could pay the tariffs in inflated state currency, which is called nullification.

C. State legislatures could change new federal tariff laws before they could go into effect.

D. State legislatures could nullify a tariff law, and not collect the tariff.

Objections to Nullification

• the permanency of the Union• the supremacy clause of the

Constitution• the Marbury v. Madison decision• the fears of anarchy

Permanent Union• Some Americans were

opposed to the ideas of states’ rights and the compact theory.

• States voluntarily gave up their sovereignty when they entered the Union.

• They could not secede from the Union once they became part of the United States.

The Supremacy Clause• Most Northerners believed that

the Kentucky Resolution was in conflict with the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

• Federal laws are the law of the land, and state laws may not contradict federal law.

The Marbury v. Madison Decision

To many, the Supreme Court’s

decision in Marbury v. Madison made

nonsense out of the doctrine of

nullification.

In 1801, the court had ruled that the authority to determine the constitutionality of a law belonged

to the Supreme Court alone, not the states.

Fears of Anarchy

• Opponents of the doctrine of nullification were very concerned about threats of secession.

• States ruling on constitutionality would lead to chaos in the nation.


• A ask B: What does the supremacy clause say about conflicts between federal law and state law?

The supremacy clause says that state laws may not contradict federal laws.



• B ask A: According to Marbury v. Madison, who has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional?

According to Marbury v. Madison, only the Supreme Court has the authority to declare

a law unconstitutional.


1828• Congress passed the ‘Tariff

of Abominations.’• Calhoun published “South

Carolina Exposition and Protest;” explaining the doctrine of nullification.

• Andrew Jackson was elected president, partly as a protest against the tariff.

Check for Understanding• A ask B: What did Southerners

call the Tariff of 1828?

Southerners call the Tariff of 1828 the ‘Tariff of Abominations.’


Check for Understanding• B ask A: Why did Southerners object

to the Tariff of Abominations?Southerners objected to the Tariff of

Abominations because it raised prices on imported goods.


1829• Jackson took

office, with Calhoun as his vice-president.

• Public debate over the tariff and the doctrine of nullification continued.

1830• Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne

debated the issue of states’ rights and nullification in Congress.

• Jackson learned of Calhoun’s support for nullification.

11. What was the Webster-Hayne debate?

A. President Jackson’s impeachment.B. the doctrine of nullification.C. internal improvements.D. the Tariff of 1832.

It was a debate between Senators

Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne over . . .

1832

• Congress reduced the tariff, but not enough to make Southerners happy.

• South Carolina nullified both tariffs, threatened to secede, and began building an army.

• Jackson was re-elected (without Calhoun); threatened to use force against South Carolina to enforce federal laws.


• Who debated the nullification issue in Congress?

• How did Congress try to solve the crisis?• How did South Carolina respond?• What threat does Jackson make?


1833• Henry Clay created

another compromise tariff, and it was quickly passed by Congress.

• South Carolina repealed its bill of nullification, and the crisis was averted, ending the threat of civil war.


• Who helped the nation avoid war over the Tariff of Abominations?

• What did Clay do to help?• How did South Carolina respond to the

new compromise tariff?


12. How was the nullification crisis resolved?

A. President Jackson sent federal troops into South Carolina to collect the tariff.

B. the Webster-Hayne debate gave everyone a better understanding of the issues.

C. South Carolina came up with a new tariff rate that Congress quickly accepted.

D. Henry Clay worked out a compromise tariff that South Carolina could accept.