Compare the motives and effectiveness of those opposed to the power of the national government in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves and the Nullification Crisis

early republic

federal govt expanded its authority through Hamilton’s financial plan, Alien and Sedition Acts, and Protective tarrifs

Expansions of the federal govt

sparked resistance from states and regions concerned about states’ rights and constitutional limits

Thesis

although both the VA and KC resolutions and the Nullification Crisis opposed the growth of national power on constitutional grounds, the earlier resistance was largely symbolic and ineffective, while the later crisis posed a more serious and direct challenge to federal authority but ultimately failed due to federal enforcement.

Alien and Sedition acts

reactions to these, which restricted free speech and targeted Democratic-Republicans, were a motive for VA and KC

First Amendment

motive for VA/KC: belief that the acts violated this and exceeded federal authority

states’ rights

motive for VA/KC: desire to defend these and limit central govt power

Virginia Resolution

written by James Madison

Kentucky Resolution

written by Thomas Jefferson

nullification

idea introduced in the VA and KC resolves. argued states could judge constitutionality of federal laws.

VA and KC resolves

passed as resolutions by state legislatures

effectiveness of VA and KC resolves

no other states joined the effort. Alien and Sedition acts expired, but not due to nullification. set an intellectual precedent for later states’ rights arguments

Tariff of Abominations and Tariff of 1832

nullification motive: Southern opposition to these

South Carolina

motive: claimed tariffs unfairly benefited Northern industry at Southern expense

slavery

motive: fear that strong federal power threatened this and Southern autonomy

Ordinance of Nullification

passed by SC, declaring tariffs void

secession

SC threatened this if the federal government enforced tariffs

John C. Calhoun

led nullification crisis

Force Bill

Jackson’s response, showed federal authority

Compromise Tariff of 1833

reduced tariffs gradually

SC repealed nullification

but symbolically nullified the Force Bill. demonstrated that nullification could not override the federal govt but did force compromise.

Similarities

both argued federal govt exceeded constitutional limits. both relied on states’ rights ideology. both influenced further sectional conflict

Differences

VA and KC were peaceful and theoretical. Nullification includes threats of force and secession. Federal govt ignored earlier conflicts but confronted SC directly.

Conclusion

opposition to federal power was a common theme in the early republic. only threat of force provoked govt response. foreshadowed sectional conflicts that would arise in the civil war.