The Ordinance of Nullification: Daniel Webster and State

Two interests, as we have seen, were opposed to this, those of agriculture and commerce. Neither these nor manufactures were at first such sectional interests as they later became. Pennsylvania was the State in which manufactures had most developed. Commerce was the leading pursuit farther north, and the tariff of 1816 was carried by the support of several Southern members against New England generally. Yet the rapid development in the South of agricultural industry, and the natural desire to obtain the cheapest goods in return for the products of their fields, without regard to whether they came from the North or from abroad, soon brought non-tariff into prominence as a Southern party principle. In the North opinion was more divided. Its shipping interest was large, and for the advancement of that low tariff seemed desirable. But its manufacturing interest was growing steadily more important, and for the rapid development of that a protective tariff had become a necessity.

That protection of manufactures against undue competition until grown strong enough to stand without support, and the consequent development on American soil of all the industries adapted to its people, climate, and natural conditions, were measures essential to the best good of the country, was theoretically undeniable. But theoretical considerations, and the question of future advantage, have very little to do with the management of human affairs. Men are governed by their present interests, in many cases even where wise enough to see that those interests are opposed to the present or future interests of mankind at large. A tariff controversy therefore at once arose, which developed into what has been denominated, a "thirty-year tariff war," since it extended from 1816 to 1846, during which period it was among the most prominent political questions of the country.

The tariff bill of 1816 was a sort of compromise between the conflicting interests. A high duty was advocated on all goods which could unquestionably be produced in sufficient quantity in the United States. A bill was passed in which this classification of dutiable articles was adopted, but in which protection was admitted as an incidental feature only, and the raising of revenue made the predominant principle in calculating duties. With this compromise nobody was satisfied. New agitation at once began, and in 1820 a bill was passed by the House in favor of an openly protective system. This bill was rejected by the Senate. Yet the protectionists, who were steadily growing in power, would not let the question rest, while the North and the South became definitively divided on this measure, the latter losing its earlier division of sentiment and becoming decidedly in favor of low tariff.

With this change in opinions and national questions came a change in parties. With the end of the war the old Federal party had virtually passed out of existence. The Republican party, which became overwhelmingly predominant, now split into two new parties, the Democratic and the National Republican (which later became known as the Whig party), between which the country was for many years afterwards divided. The tariff for a considerable period remained the leading political problem. The depression of industries which followed the era of high prices and prosperity after the war gave the protectionists a strong weapon, of which they did not fail to make active use. In 1824 the question again became prominent before Congress. The plantation States were now unanimous in their opposition to the tariff measure, yet it passed both Houses by small majorities. In 1828 a new revision of the tariff was made in favor of protection. The fight had now become bitter. The general growth of manufacturing interests throughout the North had given the protectionists the balance of strength, and the free-traders, finding themselves powerless to gain their ends in Congress, began to indulge in treasonable language, claiming that individual States had the right to refuse to submit to laws which worked adversely to their interests.

It was particularly in South Carolina that this doctrine was advocated, and the power of a State to nullify, or to render null and void the operation of a Federal law, was openly advocated by hot-headed Congressmen of that State, who wished to apply this dangerous principle, which was but a step short of secession from the Union, to the tariff bill of 1828. Mr. Hayne of South Carolina, the opponent of Daniel Webster in the most famous oration of the latter, was an ardent advocate of this doctrine, and, while bitterly denouncing New England in that famous controversy, he openly urged on the floor of Congress the doctrine of "Nullification," claiming that any State when deeming itself oppressed by a law of Congress considered unconstitutional by the State legislature, had the right to declare this law null and void and to release its citizens from the duty of obedience. The crushing reply which Webster gave to this argument, and the remarkable ability with which he unfolded the principles of the constitutional government of the United States, had little effect on the discontented State, which two years afterwards passed an ordinance of nullification of the tariff laws. A brief account of the manner in which this act of rebellion was crushed by President Jackson we extract from the "Biographical Memoir of Daniel Webster," by Edward Everett, including in our selection a description of other vigorous measures adopted by the hard-headed "hero of New Orleans."]