At the height of the “Era of Good Feeling” the national government of the United States had introduced many things. One of the items proposed during this time was a series of tariffs from 1814 to 1832. These tariffs served as protective tariffs and were passed very much to the credit of John C. Calhoun. Although Calhoun supported and pushed for the passing of the tariff, the people of his home state did not exactly have the same views as Calhoun. South Carolina being a southern state that depended on slavery and cotton agriculture like most of the south saw the tariff in a different view than the politician from their state as well as those from other regions of the United States. As the tariff issue began to become the main focus of South Carolina politics as well as the blame for less success in the cotton and other agricultural business, Calhoun started to recognize the problem that it had presented. Calhoun did not jump to oppose the tariff, but strong encouragement from state and local politicians within South Carolina brought Calhoun to be the leader in opposing the tariff. Although Calhoun was not the original opposition to the tariff, the idea of nullification presented in the South Carolina Exposition and Protest was the sole idea of John C. Calhoun. Nullification being the individual idea of Calhoun raises some important questions. One of those questions is; South Carolina as a whole opposed the idea of the tariff, but did they support John C. Calhoun’s idea of nullification? This is a very interesting question and has answers. The lowcountry support for the idea was widespread because of its dependence on the plantation system, but the upstate and those living there did not have that dependence. The idea of nullification as well as the view of Calhoun faced much more criticism and objection as well as a lack of interest in the upstate.
The life of John C. Calhoun began in 1782 as the son of an upcountry South Carolina politician. He later ran the family farm at a young age and then headed off to Yale in 1802 where he excelled in the subject areas of Latin and mathematics.1 Being a well educated and bright man he then decided to start his career as a politician after practicing law in Charleston and Abbeville, South Carolina. In 1808 he would begin his political career in the South Carolina legislature, and later in 1810 he is elected to the 12th Congress of the United States. This would mark the start of an interesting period in United States history. While in Congress Calhoun was a member of the War Hawks along with Henry Clay and played a vital role in advancing the War of 1812. Calhoun earned the reputation of being a nationalist when he supported internal improvements. Later Calhoun would become the Secretary of War under President James Madison. Calhoun later decides to run for the presidency during 1821, but he is seen as suspect in the south because of his nationalist views. In 1824 Calhoun becomes Vice President of The United States, but he later gives up the position. This starts the interesting and complicated career of John C. Calhoun..
As vice president Calhoun did not have a very good relationship with Andrew Jackson and his leaving of that office was just the start of his complicated story. It is important to know that Calhoun himself was not the leader in speaking out against the tariff or even doing something about it. The real leaders included the likes of Robert J. Turnbull, Robert Barnwell Rhett, Francis W. Pickens, and Robert Y. Hayne, along with many others.2 These men supported the idea and belief that Calhoun had came up with about nullification and launched a massive campaign supporting the nullification. These men became know as “The Nullifiers”. This group was very much the reason that the idea of nullification got as far as it did. The sponsorship of dinners and events that promoted nullification were held around the state. At these dinners and events the politicians would speak and tell the public about the idea. John C. Calhoun, during this time, still remained very quiet on the issues because of his hope for becoming the next president.3 Calhoun later decided to forget about his fate with the presidency and back the doctrine of nullification. He wrote many letters to state officials including the Governor at the time, James Hamilton Jr., that explained and showed his support for nullification. These letters included the rationale behind why nullification should be allowed and how it is constitutional since the states individually approved the Constitution of The United States, and therefore it can void any amendment it sees fit or harmful to the state.4 This letter was later published and was now open for reading to the public like many of his other letters..
Calhoun was intent to take the idea of nullification to the nation and to defend it. He addressed the people of the United States in November of 1832 at the height of the crisis. In this address he told the people of the United States the views of South Carolina and that the act of placing duties on imports was seen as unconstitutional to the people of South Carolina and its government. As a result he later on in the address talks of how the state of South Carolina believes it has the right to declare the tariff null and void on the count that it is unconstitional.5 To justify many things that Calhoun believed, he often made claims in these letters and speeches about how many recognize a state’s right to secede, but not to nullify. He expressed his feelings about this particular subject and how it is impossible to believe one and not the other.6.
It is believed by many that many of the backers of nullification were not a good representation of Calhoun’s political philosophy. This can be seen in many ways including the belief that Calhoun was not very exuberant about the idea of opposing and speaking out against the tariff in the first place. Political pressure from leading politicians in South Carolina was the primary source for Calhoun’s speaking out against the tariff that contained ideas he once supported. Many historians have explained this and also that Calhoun was very much interested in preserving the Union. Although he was thought by some to be interested in preserving the Union, his actions did all but support that in the views of many around the nation as well as South Carolina. The compromise reached in early 1833 was seen by many outside of South Carolina as well as inside of the state as a step towards a southern confederacy. Long after the compromise itself people in South Carolina showed their support for the idea and their strong backing of states rights. Men around the state wore the blue cockade, which was a representation of nullification long after the issue had been settled.7.
During the height of the crisis many people around South Carolina expressed their views on the idea of nullification. There were both supporters and opponents of the South Carolina Exposition and Protest. Calhoun received invitations to dinners with powerful local politicians and people around South Carolina. One invitation came from M. LaBorde, J.F. Carroll, and J. Terry from Edgefield in March of 1833. In this invitation was a letter asking about the idea of secession and their support of it if nullification was not able to happen. Calhoun responded and expressed that secession was an absolute last resort.8 Although it seems that support for nullification was very popular around the state of South Carolina, there were many who opposed the tariff and many of those being important politicians around the state. Two of those powerful politicians were William Drayton and Joel Poinsett who did not like the tariff, and did not like the idea of nullification even more. Their belief was that nullification would cause more economic damage for the south and South Carolina. They had also seen that the controversy itself had begun to cause economic damage to the state and southern region of The United States.9.
The tariff itself was not the only concern of the plantation owners of South Carolina. The tariff and threat of depression in the south were not the only things that scared Carolinians, many plantation owners not affected heavily by the tariff were concerned more with slavery. These slave owners believed that the Constitution’s preamble was used in a way that transferred wealth from them to the manufacturers of the north. It was a concern that if the tariff was able to be placed on them that northerners against slavery would soon take away another important southern institution or idea, the soul of the southern economy.10 It is very interesting to see how the tariff brought out other worries for the people of South Carolina other than the tariff itself. The idea of nullification was sectional at a national level and this may have also been true inside of the state. Seeing that the tariff did not much effect the people of the upstate of South Carolina as it did those in the lowcountry of the state and their large plantation system, it would be very easy to think that the people of the upstate would oppose nullification and the ideas related to it. Although this is very true, the people who were politically powerful in the upstate were slave and plantation owners who were more concerned with these issues. The fact that Calhoun himself lived in the upstate and had an influence in that area also played a part in the support of nullification and the state of South Carolina in that area. .
It is very interesting to find that those politicians from areas such as Charleston like William Drayton were the leading opposition to nullification. It is odd that politicians and others opposing the idea of nullification would be from an area where it would seem that support would be very strong. Some other things show that the coastal areas in South Carolina, such as Charleston, were very much in opposition to nullification. This later became evident in some elections around the state. The people of South Carolina later elected a more moderate majority in the state legislature who were not very warm to the idea of nullification. This moderate majority was not against Calhoun, but they were against nullification. Although the people of South Carolina elected this majority does not mean that they were willing to drop the issue with the tariff. This majority was interested in using Calhoun and his power in the national government to get the tariff lowered.11.
Many view this conflict with nullification as a question of republicanism and not as much a question of sovereignty. It was also viewed as a prelude to war, but not to those who were actually involved in the crisis. This was one of the first major sectional conflicts that caused tension before the civil war.12The views of people and support of politicians in the areas where both the Civil War and the Nullification Crisis occurred are very similar. Often times the people did not have the same views as the politicians who were supposedly representing them. It is evident that the majority of the people did not have the same political views as the politicians. The people with money and power, in this case plantation owners in the lowcountry of South Carolina and the few in the upstate, had the opportunity to vote and most of the actions in both cases were not representative of the common majority. It is very interesting to see how the elections went despite many not having the opportunity to vote. Both those running in support of nullification and those against used bribes and many other things in an attempt to sway the election..
The people of South Carolina on the whole did not support the idea of nullification. They did however continue to support John C. Calhoun in his political career. Although Calhoun had not been the biggest advocate for opposing the tariff, the solution for that was his and he continued to back his ideas. The state did gain a form of respect for Calhoun for standing up for what was in the best interest for South Carolina. This is reflected in what people came to call Calhoun--Cast Iron Man. He became known as this more because of how he was perceived personally. This name to people of South Carolina could more be used to the extent of describing what he did politically. He continually defended slavery and was reelected to the Senate in 1845. Before that he even served some time in the Tyler administration as secretary of state. Although he held that position, he did not budge on his views of slavery. Calhoun later opposed the Mexican- American War because he thought it was harmful to the Union.13It seems that he is very much for preserving the Union and not what he was often viewed as. Calhoun as well as the majority of the people in South Carolina, besides those who were very powerful and influential, were very interested in the preservation of the Union..
Calhoun initially was very careful in the process of introducing ideas and solutions about the tariff. He anonymously drafted the South Carolina Exposition and Protest. He later became less interested in his own political ambitions and more interested in representing those who had supported him and continued to support him throughout his career. This is no different from politicians today in that they are going to do the things for the people that got them where they are. Calhoun and his views may not have been the view of the majority of people, but it was the view of those who mattered..
The states rights stance stems originally from previous events, but this was its first appearance as a major issue. The sectional divide concerning states rights started during the debates of Hayne and Webster. This may be why people defended his views or stayed quiet on them. Sectional pride could have been the source for the idea of nullification going so far. This again is something that shows why people may have not been completely in support of the ideas. It is not a stretch to say that many ended up backing Calhoun and other politicians involved with nullification just because of the northern opposition to it. One other thing to think about is how a northern opposition, if successful in proving a southern state wrong, would hurt other future political issues. The issue that would be of most concern to those in South Carolina would be that of slavery. If a northern politician is successful in proving that a state like South Carolina is wrong on an issue as important as the tariff, the southern states find themselves with a fear that northern influence will attack other ideas and institutions..
Many interesting things happened in the upstate prior to and during statewide elections in 1932. These events show that there was clearly no overwhelming support for nullification in South Carolina. In Greenville, a Unionist editor by the name of Benjamin F. Perry killed Turner Bynum, an editor in favor of nullification in duel.14In Spartanburg, Calhoun was not a very popular man. One of the most interesting and convincing pieces of information is that in the statewide elections of 1832, only 67 votes in Charleston would have prevented the nullifiers from having a majority in the state legislature. This shows that there were very different views on nullification by different people. In certain places there may have been concentrations of those in favor or against nullification. In places like Greenville and Spartanburg in the upstate and Charleston in the lowcountry of South Carolina, there were both supporters and those in opposition..
The tariff had just as much of an effect on the people of other southern states as it did South Carolina. Although other states did not go as far as Calhoun and claim that the state had the power to nullify the tariff, they were not happy with the tariff. The difference between the other states and South Carolina was the approach taken in opposition to the tariff. Other southern states tried to get things done through Congress. With fighting things in Congress at the national level, the chances of getting something done become much better. Although South Carolina had an unusual way about settling the issues with the tariff, it may have actually worked for them in the long run. Calhoun, in 1932, finally came out publicly in support of nullification. Many people already knew, but this was critical move for his political career. This caused a conflict between Calhoun and President Jackson in Washington, when Jackson threatened to use troops for the purpose of enforcing the tariff in South Carolina.15 One reason that Calhoun may be more highly regarded in his home state than in others is the sacrifice he took politically for his state. Although his proposal and idea was very unusual and unrealistic, he was protecting the interest of the majority of the people in the state. A lowered tariff in 1833 in some part can be attributed to South Carolina and their opposition to the higher tariffs. South Carolina and its strong opposition to the tariff was definitely a player in getting a lower tariff. Although the state wanted to get rid of the tariff, it did accomplish getting something done..
Calhoun’s legacy throughout the United States today is much different in other states than it is in South Carolina. It is also much different when it comes to a sectional divide between north and south. The northern states and history look at Calhoun and his political actions in a much more harsh way than southern states. In South Carolina today Calhoun is seen as a courageous politician and is one of the most respected political figures of all time. This may be because he is not seen as just solely a nullifier in South Carolina as he is in other states around the United States. Calhoun was a very intelligent man, being known throughout the nation at the time as one of the smartest politicians. Many fellow politicians that worked with Calhoun and listened to him were very impressed with his speaking ability. Calhoun was a brilliant man and his intelligence is often overshadowed by his idea of nullification..
The sectional differences in the United States played a huge role in the views on nullification. Not only in the nation did sectional differences play that role, but in the state itself. The lowcountry and its slave plantation system were very much in support of nullification. The upstate, on the other hand, did not rely on that economic and agricultural system as much. As a result of this, in upstate areas like Greenville, Spartanburg, and other districts, there were mixed feelings about nullification. Many people in the upstate probably did not make a big deal out of the situation. Although many people of the upstate did not make a big deal out of the situation, there were many who were avid supporters of Calhoun and there were also those in heated opposition. The state of South Carolina and its people were very interesting during this time period. The stance that South Carolina took on the issue of nullification did not have overwhelming support in any area of the state. Even the lowcountry areas did not give overwhelming support, and the upstate had even less. It is hard to know what the overall opinion of the upstate was on this issue for many reasons. Some of those reasons being the economical structure of the upstate. The people in this part of the state were not the most outspoken politically, and did not depend on many of the things that the tariff would have effected. In some sense the trouble with nullification in South Carolina did not have that great of an interest in upstate and the upstate only had a fraction of the interest compared to the lowcountry. Thus making the upstate an area of mixed opinions when it came to John C. Calhoun and nullification..
1. John C. Calhoun: Life & Times, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/CALHOUN/jcc2.html
2. Walter Edgar, South Carolina: A History, (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 334.
3. Edgar, 334-335
4. H. Lee Cheek Jr., John C. Calhoun: Selected Writing and Speeches, (Washington: Regnery pub, 2003) 365-398
5. Cheek Jr., 399-400
6. Cheek Jr.,. 369
7. Charles M Wiltse, John C. Calhoun: Nullifier, 1829-1835, (New York: Russell & Russell, 1949), 198-211
8. Cheek Jr., pg. 357
9. J. Fred Rippy, Joel R. Poinsett, Versatile American (New York: Greenwood Press Publishing, 1968), 142-145
10. Bernard A. Weisberger, The Nullifiers, American Heritage vol.46 (October 1995) : 20
11. Weisberger, 20
12. David F. Ericson, The nullification crisis, American republicanism, and the force bill debate., Journal of Southern History, vol. 61 (May 1995) : 249
13. John Niven, John C. Calhoun (19th century southern politician), The Reader’s Companion to American History, (Houghton Mifflin, 1991 ), 141
14. Edgar, 335
15. Frederic D. Schwarz, 1828 “abominations”, American Heritage, vol. 54 (December 2003): 12