You are on page 1of 5

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?

You might also like