South Carolina Passes Ordinance of Nullification

Context

Economic divisions between the industrial North and the agricultural South sharpened in the early decades of the republic. Protective tariffs shielded Northern manufacturers from foreign competition while increasing costs for Southern planters who relied on exporting cotton and importing goods. The Tariff of 1828, widely reviled in the South as the Tariff of Abominations, prompted South Carolina's legislature to issue the Exposition and Protest, which outlined the theory that individual states could nullify federal laws they judged unconstitutional.

What Happened

After nullification supporters gained control of the South Carolina legislature in 1832, that body summoned a special convention of delegates elected by the people. The convention convened in Columbia and on November 24 adopted the Ordinance of Nullification by a vote of 136 to 26. The measure declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional, prohibited their enforcement within the state after February 1, 1833, forbade appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court on tariff questions, and required state officials to take an oath supporting the ordinance. It further warned that any federal attempt to coerce compliance would be grounds for South Carolina to leave the Union.

Aftermath

President Andrew Jackson issued a proclamation on December 10, 1832, condemning nullification as incompatible with the Constitution and the preservation of the Union. Congress responded by passing both the Force Bill, which empowered the president to use military force if necessary to collect duties, and the Compromise Tariff of 1833, which scheduled gradual reductions in rates. South Carolina's convention reassembled in March 1833, repealed the nullification ordinance, and then symbolically nullified the Force Bill before adjourning.

Legacy

The Nullification Crisis underscored the fragile balance between federal power and state sovereignty in the early republic, affirming the Union's supremacy while exposing deep sectional economic grievances. It served as a precursor to the secession debates of the 1850s and 1860s, shaping later interpretations of the Constitution's supremacy clause and the limits of state resistance to national policy.