Why Westerners and Southerners Agitated for the War of 1812
The representatives from the non-mercantile inland, the West and the South voted for the war. Many of the representatives who had passed Macon’s Act No. 2 were not re-elected in 1810. Young new leaders, Henry Clay and John Calhoun, replaced the old guard. Representative John Randolph dubbed them the “war hawks,” and they prevailed. They hoped the United States would conquer Canada. Indian raids in the West would end. Vast new territories in the Louisiana Purchase would open for American settlers.[1]
Throughout the mercantile centers of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Charleston, ship owners were against the war, but resistance in New England was strongest. Reverend Jedediah Morse, preaching politics from the pulpit, blamed James Madison. Radical Federalist newspapers in New England viciously attacked the president, calling the conflict with Britain “Mr. Madison’s War.” The papers advised their readers to refuse service if they considered “Mr. Madison’s War” to be unconstitutional. Rhode Island and Connecticut objected to calling out their militias in service to the United States, and suggested that residents refuse to subscribe to government loans. Incensed, Mathew Carey wrote to Madison, “[These events are] open rebellion and insurrection against which the government must act in its own defense.” He suggested Madison send a Rhode Islander and Republican writer, Jonathan Russell, to Boston to defend the Union’s interest. Madison ignored Carey. [2]
Why South Carolina Wanted to Nullify a Federal Law in 1828
Fast forward from the War of 1812 to 1828. During the early years of the nineteenth century South Carolina’s planters made large profits growing cotton. Over the years cotton exhausted their soil. Ambitious planters moved to Mississippi and Alabama, growing large quantities of cotton in fertile new territory. With that, supply increased and the price of cotton fell. South Carolina’s planters could no longer make a profit on soil that produced less cotton per acre. South Carolina’s population did not increase, and the wealth of its planters declined.[3]
In 1828, Congress passed a protective tariff, promoted by Mathew Carey and Henry Clay. South Carolinians quickly labeled it the “Tariff of Abominations.” They argued the tariff favored Northern manufacturers at their expense. The tariff and money for roads and canals were only taxing schemes to better the North at the expense of the South. [4]
In 1828, John Calhoun wrote the South Carolina Exposition presenting an argument for nullification of federal laws. First he quibbled about Congress’ power to enact duties. He argued a duty for revenue was different from a protective or prohibitory duty.[5]
Next he outlined how a state could assert its rights interpreting the Constitution. He suggested a state convention could declare a federal law null and void. That resulted in the term “nullification.” State conventions ratified the Constitution, he argued. Sovereignty arose from the citizens of the states. It did not come from citizens collectively, as a nation.[6] Clearly, Calhoun based his arguments for nullification on the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions
When Jefferson wrote his Kentucky Resolution in 1798 he argued the Constitution was an agreement among states. When the federal government overstepped its limits a state had the authority to decide that a law was void within that state. He called the action “nullification,” but Kentucky’s legislature deleted the term from the resolution.[7]
Madison’s differed with Jefferson about a state legislature’s role in nullifying federal acts. He believed the citizens of states held the sovereign power, but state conventions, not state legislatures, had the authority to decide constitutional issues. He argued the states ratified the Constitution, and sovereignty came from the citizens of a state. [8] Madison also used an ambiguous term, “interpose.” His resolution could be interpreted as a state having the authority to intervene or the ability to interrupt by protesting a federal law.
Next: How the New England States Asserted their Rights to Madison; How Madison Reacted to South Carolina’s Assertion of States’ Rights during the Nullification Crisis
Look for it Monday, February 4.
[1]Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager,The Growth of the American Republic, Vol 1 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962) 402-3.
[2] Edward C. Carter, II “Mathew Carey and ‘The Olive Branch,’ 1814-1818, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 89 No. 4 (Oct. 1965) 401-403.
[3] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 475.
[4] Morison and Commager, Growth of the American Republic, 475-6
[5] Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought, The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007) 397.
[6] Howe, What Hath God Wrought, 397
[7] Gordon S. Wood, Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789-1815. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) 269.
[8] Wood, Empire of Liberty, 269-70.
