1st Inaugural Address (March 4th, 1829)

... to execute the laws of the United States, superintend their foreign and their
confederate relations, to manage revenue, to command their forces, and by
communications of the legislature, to watch over and to promote their interests
generally.
After previous struggles with the Articles of Confederation, Jackson clearly
establishes his political position as a Democratic-Republican and ideals for the Union
while in office. Jackson demonstrates his genuine interest in reconstructing and
instituting a governing body thatll be unified, dignified, and worthy of respect. Finally,
Jackson claims his belief in advocating the interests of the states while attempting to
reform a nation that has endured a horrific economic past.
...that advantage must result from the observance of a strict and faithful economy.
Jackson reasserts his view that investing in bettering the economic system is
crucial for success, especially since the Articles of Confederation created a large
amount of debt and an instable national budget.
Internal improvement and the diffusion of knowledge, so far as they can be promoted
by the Federal Government, are of high importance.
Jackson believes that education is critical for the decision-making skills of all
American citizens; therefore, he emphasizes the power of knowledge and its benefits for
all individuals within the Union.
...military should be subordinate to the civil power.

Despite his strong military background, Jackson reveals deep sincerity and belief
in the power of societys voice. He believes that the military should not should not be
prioritized over the civil power entitled to all Americans.

President Jackson violated states rights in his dealings with South Carolina in
the nullification crisis
Andrew Jackson, "Veto of Maysville Road Bill" (1830)
.http://pinzler.com/ushistory/vetoofmaysupp.html
."As great as this object [goal of internal improvements] undoubtedly is, it is not the only
one which demands the fostering care of the government. The preservation and
success of the republican principle rest with us. "
"Providence our country is blessed with a general prosperity and our citizens exempted
from the pressure of taxation, which other less favored portions of the human family are
obliged to bear; yet it is true that many of the taxes collected from our citizens through
the medium of imposts have for a considerable period been onerous. In many
particulars these taxes have borne severely upon the laboring and less prosperous
classes of the community, being imposed on the necessaries of life, and this, too, in
cases where the burden was not relieved by the consciousness that it would ultimately
contribute to make us independent of foreign nation articles of prime necessity by the
encouragement of growth and manufacture at home"

Force Bill of 1833

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/force-bill-of-1833/

-An Act further to provide for the collection of duties on imports

-it shall become impracticable, in the judgment of the President, to execute the
revenue laws, and collect the duties on imports in the ordinary way, in any
collection district, it shall and may be lawful for the President to direct that the
custom-house for such district be established and kept in any secure place within
some port or harbour of such district, either upon land or on board any vessel;
-legislation enacted by the 22nd U.S. Congress on March 2, 1833 during the
Nullification Crisis.

Jacksons Proclamation Regarding Nullification

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp
-

And whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of
conduct in direct violation of their duty as citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of
their country, subversive of its Constitution, and having for its object the instruction of the Union
Jackson is saying that South Carolina is violating the responsibility they promised to uphold
when they signed the Constitution
The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly
unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one
State may not only declare an act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution
Jackson is pointing out that the reasons for South Carolinas nullification is not because they
cannot live with the tariffs, but just because they CAN challenge Congress, they are doing so
If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their
execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their
collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must
be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question
of its legality is to be decided by the State itself, for every law operating injuriously upon any
local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as
has been shown, there is no appeal.
He is drawing from the Constitution that all much be equal. And if South Carolina doesnt
implement the tariffs, it would be unconstitutional to tax all the other ports. Then no money could
be made for the country and things such as transportation could not be built. What South
Carolina is asking is unconstitutional.
Jackson speaks of when the country was first forming and even back in the Article of the
Confederation they said, it Article 8, Every State shall abide by the determinations of Congress
on all questions which by that Confederation should be submitted to them.
the Articles influenced the writings of the Constitution. Back when the states were first promising
to make a union, they agreed even then that Congress, the voice of the people, should be able
to determine laws and tariffs.
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 expressly 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.

This is Jacksons general statement about the leading principle. He follows up with more
evidence and conviction why nullification is against the Constitution.
...the law in question was passed under a power expressly given by the Constitution, to lay and
collect imposts, but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who
passed it. However apparent this purpose may be in the present case, nothing can be more
dangerous than to admit the position that an unconstitutional purpose, entertained by the
members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power, shall make that law void;
for how is that purpose to be ascertained?
Here Jackson is saying that the Government had a full rights under the Constitution to be able
to pass these laws. South Carolina is questioning the motive behind them. Jackson asks how
the motive can make a law unconstitutional and how they would prove the motive.
If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional and if all laws of that description may
be abrogated by any State for that cause, then, indeed, is the federal Constitution unworthy of
the slightest effort for its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our
Union. We have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation We have trusted
to it as to the sheet-anchor of our safety, in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or
domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe as the palladium of our liberties, and with all
the solemnities of religion have pledged to each other our lives and fortunes here, and our
hopes of happiness hereafter, in its defense and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in
attaching this importance to the Constitution of our country?
Jackson is being sarcastic here. He is questioning South Carolina. Asking them that if they think
the Constitution is wrong in letting the government make laws that support the country as a
whole, has the nation been putting its faith in the wrong thing? Has everyone before them been
wrong? He is challenging them.
The Constitution has given expressly to Congress the right of raising revenue, and of
determining the sum the public exigencies will require. The States have no control over the
exercise of this right other than that which results from the power of changing the
representatives who abuse it, and thus procure redress.
The Constitution has given it to the representatives of all the people, checked by the
representatives of the States, and by the executive power. The South Carolina construction
gives it to the legislature, or the convention of a single State, where neither the people of the
different States, nor the States in their separate capacity, nor the chief magistrate elected by the
people, have any representation.
For South Carolina to say it has the right to say no to a law is not fair because none of the other
states are represented. The Constitution calls for making everyone equal and not letting the
other states be represented in their decision is not equal.
Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land; that the judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
words from the Constitution itself
The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising
under the laws of the United States, and that such laws, the Constitution and treaties, shall be
paramount to the State constitutions and laws.
being a bigger part of a whole.
The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league, and whether it
be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It
is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people

individually, not upon the States; they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State
having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute jointly with the other States a
single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession
does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation, and any injury to that unity is not
only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offense
against the whole Union.
Jackson is pointing out that the government - and the Constitution is not about the individual
states but about all of them working together as one. The break this Union would mean to
destroy what people had worked so hard for for so long.
Notes:
The Union as a whole represents and encompasses everyone so as a result the states
should not rebel for their own needs. The nation imposes laws and tariffs for the good of
everyone. Taxes were used for transportation which was good for everyone.
Questions:
Starting question: Hypothetically, if the Union were to not tax the states how do you think
the end result will turn out?
If brought up about how no taxes would bring forth equality and it would be
beneficial then bring up Articles of Confederation
Response question: Do you think that a situation would come up similar to that of the
Articles of the Confederation? If so, how do you think that would differ in results and
outcomes from the past?
(Keep in mind the Articles of Confederation and its previous reasonings for its production
and its ultimate outcome and its inevitable downfall.)

Charleston Port in South Carolina wanted to not pay tariffs because it was in support of
the North instead of the South. If their taxes were to be taken away, then every other
ports taxes should also not pay. The Constitution states that equality is a given for all.
If each state was to rebel against the union because of their own personal needs, then
each state would be on their own. They would no longer be part of the Union. That is
why compromise was vital for the nation.
If one state is able to break away then does that make it okay for other states to do so?
The Great Compromise: finding a middle ground; with more population, the more
representative in House of Representative but to satisfy smaller states, all states have 2
Senators
Constitution short because it resembles common law- simple and not detailed; as a
result it does not state the wrongdoing of Jackson- again Constitution is a compromise:
everyone agreed upon it-- You agreed to a document that you are now fighting against because
it serves an inconvenience

On John C. Calhouns Speech

What [Mr. Calhoun] was about to say, therefore, would, under parliamentary rule, be
entirely out of order. But he would throw himself on the indulgence of the senate for
his pardon for the entire irrelevance of the remarks which he should feel himself bound
to make.
Calhouns justification of nullification and secession as constitutional rights of the state
also went beyond traditional states rights doctrine as they were based on an
unprecedented notion of absolute state sovereignty. Most old states righters, including
James Madison, condemned nullification as an extra constitutional and republican
theory as it was not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and because it subverted the
cardinal principle of republican government, majority rule. (The South Carolina
Encyclopedia)
-Calhouns argument would be irrelevant and entirely out of order. Calhoun went
beyond the established rights for states by basing his argument off of states having
absolute sovereignty.

Letter from Andrew Jackson to Martin Van Buren (1833)

"I have out with all the forbearance to do my duty and on protection to our good citizens
and the officers of our government in the south who are charged with the execution of
the laws, but it would destroy all confidence in our government."
Based on Jackson's letter to his friend, his intent of protecting the rights and
liberties of the citizens of South Carolina supports his argument that the Union must

remain strong as a unit. Although South Carolina has their own interests for the wellbeing of their state, they must abide by the laws created by Congress, delegates
representing all thirteen states. Jackson also brings up the point that nullifying not only
destroys the independence secured by the states but also the government's authority
and control.
"...under the ordinance of South Carolina and the laws to carry it into effect all which are
probably violations of the Constitution and subversive of every right of every citizen."
Jackson continues to support his argument by stating that it is unconstitutional for
South Carolina to dismiss the laws being enforced upon them. Although the citizens of
South Carolina refuse to respect the tariffs being placed upon them, their resistance is
considerably observed as a violation against the federal government and their intent of
serving the common good of the Union. Nevertheless, representatives in Congress,
direct reflections of the common peoples vote, are the ones who pass laws and
Jacksons role in the executive branch is to solely execute the laws passed for the
people by the people. Therefore, it would be unfair for South Carolinas Charleston port
to wave off the tariffs, especially if the tariff is universally enforced throughout the Union.
Finally, it is important that South Carolina understands the long-term value and benefits
of tariffs and how itll vastly improve transportation, trade, and economic interests for all.

Presenting the Argument

1. Based on evidence from Jacksons 1st Inaugural Address, ...to execute the laws of the United
States, superintend by their foreign and their confederate relations, to manage revenue, to
command their forces, and by communications of the legislature, to watch over and to promote
their interests generally, establish Jacksons intentions for the Union. Jacksons 1st Inaugural

Address serves to counteract instability present within the Union, and his main goal is to create
a dignified government, worthy of respect from all citizens.
2. As Jackson enters his first term of presidency, he rejected the Articles of Confederation, a
confederacy that had placed power in the hands of the states, and he devised a government
which strived to fulfill the common good for the Union. The Articles of Confederation left Jackson
to discern the economic mess created by the states themselves, and the former lack of taxation
proved that tariffs were a necessity if the Union hoped to pay off debt from foreign affairs,
regulate commerce, and escape economic chaos. However, Congress needed to have a more
prominent and effective role in government in order to make these changes.
3. South Carolina argued that they did not have to pay taxes if they were unconstitutional. South
Carolina was ignoring the fact that it would be unfair and unconstitutional for Charleston alone to
abolish taxes, and Its missing the fact that without tariffs, there would be less transportation to
improve trade and benefit the entire country.
4. Another problem with South Carolina nullifying is that the Constitution gives Congress the right
to make and enforce laws, and South Carolina is a part of the Union due to the fact that they
signed the Constitution. In Jacksons Proclamation Regarding Nullification, Jackson stated If
South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their
execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their
collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected anywhere; for all imposts must
be equal. It would be unconstitutional for there to be no taxes on the port of Charleston
because it would be unconstitutional to tax all the other ports.
5. When John Colhoun argued that South Carolina had the right to nullify from the Union, he went
beyond traditional states rights by basing his argument off of absolute state sovereignty. He
would be entirely out of order and would throw himself on the indulgence of the senate for his
pardon for the entire irrelevance of the remarks which he should feel himself bound to make.
6. In Jacksons Proclamation to South Carolina in its demand to nullify, he pulled examples from
the Constitution and Congress in order to show that South Carolina was wrong in its demand to
nullify. In Article IV of the Constitution, it says, The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. This would be unconstitutional for
South Carolina to remove a tax and still have that tax in other states because all citizens are
entitled to the privileges of other citizens.
7. Finally, theres proof throughout history that compromise has been successful. Unlike the
solution of unregulated taxation, compromises have been debated and solved thus bringing a
greater good to our country. For instance, the s compromise regarding slaves
representation in population was very significant especially after the Great Compromise. The
Great Compromise settled the heated argument over the large-state plan vs the small-state

plan, yet the creation of the House of Representatives and the Senate satisfied and appeased
both sides. Therefore, throughout history, we can see that compromise is achievable; however,
cooperation is necessary in order to strive for the greater good of the nation rather than the
personal interests of the individual state.
8. A big problem with the nullifying from the Union is the fact that it goes against the common good
of the nation and is only thinking about a specific state's rights.
Questions:
Background info: South wants to break away because thought taxes benefiting north rather than
south. Europeans wanted cloth rather than cotton (south) so cotton dropped. Economic
reasons.
Starting question: Hypothetically, if the Union were to not tax the states how do you think
the end result will turn out?
What is your reasoning for stating that Jacksons ideas were unconstitutional
signed it agreeing to be apart of the union

If brought up about how no taxes would bring forth equality and it would be
beneficial then bring up Articles of Confederation
Articles of Confederation made taxes optional
End result was not good
The Articles did not give Congress the power to place tariffs on foreign goods, hurting
American businesses that could not compete with cheaper British goods. The U.S.
government had no chief executive so there was no one to enforce the laws that were
passed.
The Constitution addressed many of the problems created by the Articles by creating
a federal system of government with a much more powerful national government. It gave
the national government the power to tax, draft troops, control interstate commerce, etc.
Response question: Do you think that a situation would come up similar to that of the
Articles of the Confederation? If so, how do you think that would differ in results and
outcomes from the past?
(Keep in mind the Articles of Confederation and its previous reasonings for its production
and its ultimate outcome and its inevitable downfall.)
Violated the states rights
Question: Charleston Port in South Carolina wanted to not pay tariffs because it
was in support of the North instead of the South. If their taxes were to be taken

away, then are you implying that every other ports taxes should not be paid as
well? As part of a union all must equally participating and helping it thrive.
The Constitution states that equality is a given for all.
Article 4 in the Constitution states The citizens of each state shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
If each state was to rebel against the union because of their own personal needs, then
each state would be on their own. They would no longer be part of the Union. That is
why compromise was vital for the nation.
Question: If one state is able to break away then does that make it okay for other
states to do so?
The Great Compromise: finding a middle ground; with more population, the
more representative in House of Representative but to satisfy smaller states,
all states have 2 Senators
Constitution short because it resembles common law- simple and not detailed; as a
result it does not state the wrongdoing of Jackson- again Constitution is a compromise:
everyone agreed upon it-- You agreed to a document (in which you signed) that you are now
fighting against because it serves an inconvenience. Does that make it right for other states to
do so? No. It goes against compromise which ultimately is a gain for both parties.

Response to their statements:

Constitution was a contract of becoming part of a union. They knew compromise was
needed

Gladys: According to your argument, the Constitution claims that each state has the right
to declare a federal law unconstitutional. But to declare this does not immediately result
in the nullification of South Carolina. Do you believe that if all states had a disagreement
with the Federal Law they should immediately break away from the union?
You signed the Constitution in agreement to form a union
Do you think that a compromise would result in a better result?
The Great Compromise 2 Senators for all; House of Representatives determined by
population of states

Tia: Jackson still imposed the taxes onto the citizens from South Carolina although they
declared tariff unconstitutional. He did this for the good and to sustain the equality of the
country. Do you believe that he should have not imposed these taxes? (Keep in mind the
articles of confederation)
(If they say they think he should not have imposed taxes)

Tia: Do you recall the Articles of Confederation and its outcome on its decision to enable
the right for optional taxation? Do you think that that outcome could be a similar
recurrence if Jackson were to not put forth these taxes?
(The Articles did not give Congress the power to place tariffs on foreign goods, hurting
American businesses that could not compete with cheaper British goods. The U.S. government
had no chief executive so there was no one to enforce the laws that were passed.Resulted in
weak government and economic downfall and chaos.) (The Constitution addressed many of the
problems created by the Articles by creating a federal system of government with a much more
powerful national government. It gave the national government the power to tax, draft troops,
control interstate commerce, etc.)
Gladys : If laws are not present, then how can Jackson preserve the people's liberty and
happiness?
Question: Point 7. Why would Jackson's personal life, as you stated drunk, affect the
desire to nullify. You are part of a union of which you signed a contract.? You have
Congress and Representatives to give you a voice in the government. The president should not
dictate all rules. The president's main job is to solely enforce the rules. May I remind you that
you, the citizens, have elected officials to voice your thoughts, concerns, ideas, etc. Therefore,
why arent you questioning the motivation of those whom youve elected to represent you? Why
aren't you looking towards them?
he was also aware of his quick-temper and bad reputation and therefore
acknowledged it in a letter he wrote in 1824 to one of his Generals, named Samuel
Swartwout. His temper also revealed how Jackson stood by his friends and his beliefs (loyal and
compassionate)
If wanting to bring forth characteristics of Jackson, then the example
provided can display his compassion for others Ex: had compassion, sympathy,
and empathy for Peggy whom had been speculated as being an adulteress and was
therefore looked down upon by Calhouns wife Floride and others in the office and
political field. Jackson protected her and had sympathy for her because he too had
experienced scandal as such with dealing with adultry.
Every person has their faults
If brought up how Jackson vetoed federal aid towards national road-building efforts bc he
believed it was unconstitutional to provide federal aid for a single state project.
This shows that he believed in equality. Therefore, if he vetoed this law then why would
he nullify the tarriff of 1828. If hes going to tax one hes going to tax all. If hes going to fund one
state hes going to fund all states.
If the tariff of 1828 was such a strain on the economics in the South and proved to be so
unconstitutional, then how come no other states decided to join the bandwagon and aid your
cause in nullifying the tariff? When tarriff was reduced they still didnt want to compromise.

In his annual message on December 4, 1832, Jackson stated his intention to enforce the tariff,
although he too encouraged Congress to reduce the burdensome tariff rates.
John Calhoun resigning point Question:
Calhoun and Jackson had differing thoughts and ultimately their relationship and views drifted
further and further apart not only due to their differing views but due to Van Buren. Van Buren,
who was Secretary of State, delighted in any situation that widened the divide between Jackson
and Calhoun. Jackson could relate to Van Burens wifes (Peggy) situation therefore drawing
those two men closer. The division between Calhoun and Jackson further increased due to
Calhouns wifes actions to belittle and demean Peggy.
Now I will be addressing Point 2 Question: There were many reasons for John Calhouns
resignation from Vice Presidency and the turning on his former co-worker; including his
differing views on matters such as tariffs. However, do you recall any other divisions or
aspects that might have aided Calhouns and Jacksons growth of differing views and
hostility towards one another?
What aided this division and resignation from office to join the opposing side was not
only the tariffs and disagreement amongst taxation, but also what created a bigger wedge was
his wifes Florides actions to not treat Peggy as a social equal. To maintain harmony within their
marriage Calhoun reluctantly joined the belittling and inequality treatment towards Van Buren
(Secretary of States) wife. Thus creating a bigger wedge. In addition in 1830, Congress passed
a proposal for a road in Kentucky to run from Maysville to Lexington. Calhoun supported this
effort and championed the use of federal dollars for the Maysville Road construction, since it
would eventually be linked to a national road. Jackson vetoed federal aid towards national roadbuilding efforts bc he believed it was unconstitutional to provide federal aid for a single state
project. This shows that he believed in equality. Therefore, if he vetoed this law then why would
he nullify the tarriff of 1828. If hes going to tax one hes going to tax all. If hes going to fund one
state hes going to fund all states.

Question regarding: The loss of liberty, of all good government, of peace, plenty, and
happiness, must inevitably follow a dissolution of the Union.:
If Im not mistaken, this quote The loss of liberty, of all good government, of peace,
plenty, and happiness, must inevitably follow a dissolution of the Union is simply stating
that once and if there were to be a termination of the Union, the loss of everything needed
and wanted in a Utopia or ideal society would be lost as well. How does South Carolina
breaking away from the Union prevent the loss of such important aspects of life which
presumably come hand in hand with the existence of the Union?