Writing Assignment 3a: States' Rights Vs. Federal Supremacy

Writing Assignment 3a States Rights Vs Federal Supremacyalthough

Writing Assignment 3a: States' Rights vs. Federal Supremacy Although the thirteen original states all eventually ratified the US Constitution, the struggle for its ratification demonstrates that it was not supported by all of the states. At issue was the power that the newly created Federal government acquired at the cost of power held by the States. Jefferson and Madison raised that issue in 1798 when they wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, as does Calhoun in 1832. This conflict brought the country into a Civil War, and the emergence of the "Tea Party" in recent years indicates that it continues to be unresolved.

An increasing sectionalism was developing between the North and the South, and the nullification crisis was a manifestation of this conflict. INSTRUCTIONS: This writing assignment will require you to compare and contrast two Primary Source documents, in order to explain and discuss how the nullification crisis demonstrates a growing sectionalism between the North and the South. Review the discussion of Jefferson and Madison's "Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions" in Chapter 9. Review the section titled The Nullification Crisis located in Chapter 11. Read following linked documents. They can also be found at The Avalon Project site, under 19th Century document. Document 1: South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification Document 2: Jackson's Proclamation of Nullification PREPARE AND SUBMIT: Write a well-organized essay, a minimum of 700 words (but not limited to), including supporting details from the documents/textbook/other sources in which you analyze and discuss the material that has been assigned by addressing the following question: Identify and discuss Calhoun's arguments regarding the unconstitutionality of the Tariff of 1828, his theory of nullification and right to secession comparing them to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and President Jackson's response. Reminders Paragraphs in an essay are not numbered.

Any questions that are associated with an assigned reading are there to serve as a guide for your discussion. Your discussion should incorporate all of the information from the documents and or textbook, and outside sources as one essay. Students are required to research and incorporate into their discussions additional sources that relate to the content. Recommendations can be found in the end of the textbook chapter in Additional Reading. All statements must be supported and all sources must be identified and cited, and included in your reference list. This also applies to the textbook. Failure to do so constitutes Plagiarism, and the college has strict policies and penalties for failure to comply. Under the Resources, you will find links to sites that review how to format a paper or essay. I recommend that students use APA or Chicago Style to format their essay. Students should ask their instructor which format style they prefer you to use.

Proofread your work. Make sure that you have looked for all of the spelling and grammatical errors and corrected them, and that you have organized your work into coherent paragraphs. Prepare the assignment as a Word Document, double-spaced and using a standard font of 12 points. Submit via the Dropbox as an ATTACHMENT. Any work that is submitted directly into the box will be graded as a 0. Point Value: 100 Grading Criteria: Analysis and discussion (60%) Support for discussion (30%) Organization (10%) Reminder: All written work must comply with standard English rules, such as proper capitalization, grammar, and spelling. The assignment must be submitted by the deadline listed in the calendar. Note: Even though you will see a statement giving you the option of copy/paste or file attachment, please disregard this statement. You are required to attach the assignment in MS Word format. Links have been provided to various sites that offer guidance for essay writing, and APA format.

Paper For Above instruction

The Nullification Crisis of 1832 represented a pivotal moment in American history, emblematic of the tensions between states' rights and federal supremacy. At its core, the crisis was rooted in the doctrine advanced by John C. Calhoun that states had the right to invalidate federal laws deemed unconstitutional within their borders. To comprehend the significance of this stance, it is essential to examine Calhoun's arguments about the unconstitutionality of the Tariff of 1828 (often called the "Tariff of Abominations"), his theory of nullification and secession, and President Andrew Jackson's vehement opposition to such notions.

Calhoun’s opposition to the Tariff of 1828 was driven by economic and sectional concerns. The tariff favored Northern industrial interests while imposing higher costs on Southern consumers and planters, many of whom regarded it as an unfair tax designed to benefit the North at the expense of the South. Calhoun perceived this as not just economically harmful but as an infringement on states’ sovereignty. His argument was rooted in the idea that the states entered into a compact with the federal government—an agreement that granted limited powers. When the federal government oversteps these boundaries, states have the right to nullify such laws. This notion is articulated in Calhoun’s doctrine of nullification, which compact theory posited that states, being the ultimate sovereign entities, could reject federal laws they believed unconstitutional (Wills, 2010).

Calhoun's theory of nullification fundamentally differs from the principles embodied in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively. The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions argued that states had the right to declare federal laws unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. Jefferson and Madison emphasized that the federal government was a creation of the states, and thus, states retained ultimate authority. Conversely, Calhoun’s nullification doctrine placed more emphasis on the sovereignty of individual states as political entities capable of rejecting federal authority unilaterally, framing the Union as a compact that could be dissolved if states deemed necessary (Stampp, 1956).

President Andrew Jackson’s response to Calhoun’s nullification theory was firm and forceful. Jackson viewed nullification as a treasonous challenge to the authority of the federal government and the Union. In his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, Jackson condemned nullification as unconstitutional and warned of military action to uphold the Union. He argued that the Union was indissoluble and that no state possessed the right to secede or refuse to obey federal laws. Jackson’s stance was rooted in his belief in a strong, unified nation, and he was willing to use force if necessary to maintain federal authority (Remini, 1997).

The nullification crisis exemplifies the deep sectional divisions that threatened to unravel the nation. The South, feeling marginalized by economic policies like tariffs, sought to assert its rights through nullification, while the North generally supported a stronger federal government. The crisis foreshadowed conflicts that would eventually erupt into the Civil War, as these fundamental disagreements over sovereignty, states' rights, and federal authority remained unresolved for decades.

In conclusion, Calhoun's arguments about the unconstitutionality of the Tariff of 1828 and his nullification theory challenged the very unity of the nation, directly opposing Jackson’s enforcement of federal supremacy. The contrasting views of states’ rights and federal authority embodied in these documents reveal the continuing struggle to balance state sovereignty with national unity, a debate that has persisted into contemporary political discourse. The nullification crisis thus serves as a crucial chapter in understanding the ongoing tension between states' rights and federal supremacy that continues to influence American politics today.

References

• Remini, R. V. (1997). Andrew Jackson. HarperCollins.
• Stampp, K. M. (1956). Jefferson and the Applied Principles of Republicanism. University of Chicago Press.
• Wills, G. (2010). A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government. Touchstone.