In 1832, the state of South Carolina adopted an act of nullification of two tariff acts of the United States; tariffs enacted in part to protect Northern manufacturing. The South Carolinians were the free traders of the day, and they were afraid of a trade war that would restrict access to foreign markets, particularly Great Britain, for their cotton, if United States had high tariffs for manufactured good from England.
As the South Carolinians protested, agriculture and particularly cotton — relying on their “peculiar institutions” — were really the state’s major source of income. South Carolina’s law prohibited the collection of the tariff duties at its ports, purported to deprive the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to adjudicate the constitutionality of the act, and further provided that anyone trying to challenge the validity of the act of nullification would be in contempt of the courts in South Carolina.
The South Carolina Legislature backed up the act with a threat of arms and a threat to secede.
South Carolina justified it actions by saying, Well sure, the Constitution says that the federal government can collect duties, but it isn’t “enumerated” that it can do so for the purpose of protecting Northern manufacturing. South Carolina was arguing for a giant Captain, May I? approach to federalism. The same approach that Emmer advances.
We’ve written extensively here about Tom Emmer’s legislation to permit the Legislature, or the Executive in Minnesota to nullify federal law. His bill for a constitutional amendment to permit legislative annulment also contains a denial of federal court jurisdiction. And once again, we’ll bring in Tom Emmer’s faithful retainer Sen. Mike Parry to describe why this is a good idea:
Let’s just say that President Andrew Jackson and Sen. Parry don’t see eye to eye on this nullification thing!
On December 10,1832, Jackson responded to the South Carolina law with his Proclamation against Nullification (it’s the document after Washington’s Farewell Address on the web page). Here is the organizing principle of his Declaration:
I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNION, CONTRADICTED BY THE LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNAUTHORIZED BY ITS SPIRIT, INCONSISTENT WITH EVERY PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GREAT OBJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS FORMED. [capitalization in the original]
He observed that the remedy for a state that felt aggrieved by a federal law was in court, or in the Congress.
He warned South Carolina’s citizens: “Mark what pretenses you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and treason, on which you stand!”
He also told its citizens that if they took the field against the United States, “that you will be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live.” No little prophecy there.
David Strom complained when I called Tom Emmer a “neo-Confederate goober.” He’s right; I should have called him treasonous and an insurrectionist.