Abomination’s Tariff in American History

Jackson and Calhoun: The Democratic Party and State Interests

Jackson and Calhoun represented the Democratic Party, which was also the party that promoted the interests of the state. In the other hand, Jackson supported the rights of the states on the basis that they did not challenge the union, although Calhoun did not think the union a threat. During the Nullification Crisis in the 1830s, the divisions among Jackson and Calhoun intensified as Calhoun favored the condition of the houses, i.e. South Carolina sought to nullify the tariff barriers of 1832 and 1833, while Jackson threatened to use the military to compel South Carolina to comply with the protective tariffs. Since he was president and Calhoun was his chief executive, Jackson felt more dominant than Calhoun. Therefore, a crisis emerged between the two men due to the controversial tariffs that seemed to be impartial and unconstitutional as far as the United States Constitution was concerned.

National Approach and State’s Rights Perspective

Tariffs or taxes on imports are supposed to be imposed based on the constitution. However, the tariffs which were imposed on South Carolina imports was not constitutional based on Calhoun’s views, but Jackson argued that it was due to National concern. Therefore, opposing the tariffs on South Carolina imports was the state’s rights while advocate such tariffs were national rights because Calhoun was focusing on the constitutional rights needed by states. Protecting one branch of the industry and destroying others was unconstitutional because states need to exercise their constitutional rights equally as far as their industries are put into consideration by the government. Therefore, Jackson’s approach was based on national perspective while Calhoun’s argument was grounded in the state’s rights because he was concern about South Carolina which was already struggling with the high taxes on imports and cheap pricing of the outputs from the industries in the state.

Reasons for the Controversy Surrounding the Issue

The use of force to impose the controversial tariffs was the biggest issue because every implementation suggested or contemplated is supposed to be evaluated by the legislature and senates to makes sure it has the strong basis. Imposing tariffs on imports of a single industry in particular state is unconstitutional thus it was wrong for Jackson to force in unconstitutional command. Jackson cut off Calhoun’s supporters from the cabinet to paralyze Calhoun’s mission on prevention of passing the controversial bill in the cabinet. Hurting the south would have raised the issue regarding the lack of equity and personal interest during Jackson’s regime. Nullification crisis rose due to the reason that the president was trying to exercise unconstitutional approaches due to his position in the government.

How Issue Fit into Larger Picture about the Eventual Civil War

Civil wars are common in most nations because of the extra-judiciary activities exercised by most governments. Leaders in the governments are supposed to lead as per the constitution and law, but it is surprising that most of them are ruling based on their interest without considering the constitutional rights of states and citizens. Passing bills into law requires thorough evaluation by the experts and cabinet. Discrimination of states and institutions based on race and geographical locations is an outdated system of governance thus leaders are supposed to act as per attributed laws for the citizens to emulate and embrace equity across the nations. Nations should learn from the past cases such as the case between Jackson and Calhoun as a way of shaping up leadership and eliminating civil crisis or war. Hence, the case acts like the picture of leaders acting unconstitutionally and leaders that lead as per the interests of the majority in the nation.