South Carolina, in particular, acted out against the Tariff of 1828. South Carolinans campaigned heavily against the tariff, justifying their arguments with the principles set out in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions written in the previous century by Jefferson and Madison to support states’ rights. They also supported their case by arguing that the U.S. Constitution allowed states to individually nullify federal laws for the whole union.

The South Carolina legislature published a pamphlet titled “The South Carolina Exposition,” which offered persuasive arguments for nullifying the Tariff of 1828, stating that it was unjust and unconstitutional. South Carolina eventually revealed that the author of “The South Carolina Exposition” was none other than John C. Calhoun, Vice President of the United States. Calhoun was raised in South Carolina and supported the efforts to nullify the Tariff of 1828.

Supporters of nullification, who came to be known as the “nullies,” attempted to pass nullification through the South Carolina state legislature, but their efforts were impeded by the Unionists, a small but determined group of men who believed that states did not hold nullification rights. Although other states made rumblings about joining South Carolina’s cause, none ever actually did, and South Carolina fought the tariff battle alone.

The nullification cause benefited from Calhoun’s leadership. Calhoun was serving as Jackson’s Vice President, but he had fallen out of Jackson’s favor as his successor thanks in part to Martin Van Buren’s efforts. Van Buren, who was Secretary of State, delighted in any situation that widened the divide between Jackson and Calhoun.

One infamous situation that caused a rift between Jackson and Calhoun, and helped confirm Van Buren as Jackson’s favorite, was the Peggy Eaton affair. Peggy, the wife of Secretary of War John Eaton, had been accused of adultery prior to her marriage to John. The gossip mill speculated that Peggy had cheated on her first husband with John, causing her first husband to commit suicide. Even though John married Peggy, the shroud of dishonor stayed with her.

Jackson had lived through similar scandals surrounding his wife, Rachel. He and Rachel had married, erroneously believing that her divorce from her first husband had been finalized. When the mistake was discovered, Jackson had the divorce finalized and he and Rachel remarried, this time legally. Still, Jackson’s detractors accused Rachel of being an adulteress, and Jackson blamed those accusers for her illness and eventual death.

Not wanting Peggy Eaton and her husband to suffer the same fate, Jackson demanded that his cabinet and their wives treat Peggy as their social equal. However, Calhoun’s wife, Floride, continued to snub Eaton and directed her friends to do the same. Calhoun, hoping to keep domestic harmony, followed Floride’s lead, much to Jackson’s dismay. However Van Buren, a widower who had no worries about marital discord, was free to lavish Eaton with attention, putting him in the President’s favor.

Van Buren also took every opportunity to point out where Calhoun’s opinions differed from Jackson’s, particularly where federal aid to local projects was concerned. One major project that sought federal aid was the national road-building effort. 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.

However, Jackson exercised his veto power. He acted partially out of his continued animosity for Henry Clay (whose home state would benefit entirely from the Maysville Road), and partly out of his belief that providing federal aid for a single state project was unconstitutional. Supporters of the Maysville Road project were quite angry, and they began calling Jackson “King Andrew” because they believed he had abused his power as President.

Calhoun was dismayed at Jackson’s rejection of both the Maysville Road proposal and of him as Jackson’s political successor. Jackson made his feeling clear about Calhoun on April 13, 1830, during an annual event honoring the birthday of ex-President Thomas Jefferson. During the party, at which both Jackson and Calhoun were present, every toast given extolled states’ rights—until Jackson’s turn, that is. His toast, “Our Union—It must be preserved!” left no doubt about his position, or about his opposition to Calhoun.

Calhoun immediately followed Jackson’s toast with one of his own extolling states’ rights, but for Calhoun, it was apparent that his differences with Jackson would limit his political aspirations. Still, he was determined to fight for his home state, and having lost his hopes for ascending the political ladder, Calhoun switched his focus to championing the south.

Calhoun was not the only prominent figure fighting for South Carolina’s rights. Senator Robert Y. Hayne followed Calhoun’s example of leadership during an event that would come to be known as the Hayne-Webster debate.

Hayne was serving in the Senate when a fellow senator, Samuel A. Foot of Connecticut, proposed a restriction on the sale of western lands still owned by the federal government. Believing that this proposal was an attempt to restrict western expansion and the inevitable political influence of a strong western region, Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton appealed to the South to join forces with him to defeat the proposal. Governor Hayne recognized the potential benefits of an alliance with the emerging west and he quickly stepped forward.

Hayne was soon drawn into a debate to justify his position. The proposal to restrict western expansion was originated by Samuel Foot, but it was the eloquent and dynamic orator Daniel Webster, a senator from Massachusetts, who engaged in verbal sparring with Hayne. Although Hayne was an able speaker in his own right, he was no match for the awe-inspiring Webster.

During the debate, Daniel Webster was able to steer Hayne toward another sensitive issue—nullification. Webster underscored nationalism and the destruction which could befall a nation that allows one state to nullify a federal law, making himself out to be a unifier and Hayne a divider. Hayne made attempts to steer the debate back to the interpretation of the Constitution regarding the sale of federal lands, but the damage was done. Daniel Webster won the debate with his argument for nationalism, and Hayne lost public support for his interpretation of the Constitution.

Copyright 2006 The Regents of the University of California and Monterey Institute for Technology and Education