Nullification is Un-American

Have I got your attention, yet? I'm sure if you have read many of my posts, you know by now what my position is on nullification. However, many Americans and news outlets (both left and right) are quick to call you un-American if you even hint at the slightest idea of the states not being in lockstep with the Federal government. In fact, many will even call you racist, citing this passage from Dr. Martin Luther King's August 28, 1963 speech:

“I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”

Since that speech, you will be hard pressed to find any politically correct source that does not equate nullification with racism (or inject a similar political bias). But what you have to ask yourself is this: did nullification work when Alabama was using it as a tool to further racism? Why?

(In contrast, Massachusetts used nullification against the Fugitive Slave Act.)

Nullification did not work in that instance because the other states in the Union did not join Alabama. Nullification only works if there is some form of unity between the states. Nullification is a tool for the states to assert their political voice.

Some point to Andrew Jackson and say that he stopped nullification in 1833 against South Carolina. To determine whether or not that is true, we need to look at a bit of history.

The Tariff of 1828 (or the Tariff of Abominations according to the Southern states) was a protective tariff put in place by the federal government. At the time, industry in the Northern states was suffering because it was less expensive to import goods from Europe (and, more specifically, Great Britain). This, in turn, made it more expensive for Southern states to import goods which were not produced in their region. It also made it too expensive for the British to buy Southern cotton. So while the Northern industries were being greatly helped by this tariff, the Southern industries were being made to suffer by having to buy higher priced goods while on a reduced income.

When South Carolina and other states threatened nullification of the Tariff of 1828, the federal government offered a reduced compromise through the Tariff of 1832. However, this tariff still greatly favored the the Northern states and hurt the Southern states. This led up to South Carolina taking even more action in 1833.

In November 1832, South Carolina called a state convention and declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null, void, and unenforceable within the sovereign state of South Carolina effective February 1, 1833. The state anticipated forceful opposition from the federal government, and thus called up it's militia to be prepared. These actions by the state of South Carolina led to Congress passing both the Force Bill (authorizing President Andrew Jackson to use military force against South Carolina) and a new tariff that was satisfactory to South Carolina and the Southern states.

So who really won that fight? I'd say the state of South Carolina won its fight for a reduced tariff through nullification. I wonder why more states don't consider this when their citizens are overtaxed by the overreaching federal government.

It was the very act of nullification that brought this great country into being. Don't believe me? Take some time to actually read the Declaration of Independence or other acts of the Colonies during that time. You know, the stuff that was glossed over in your history class.

As our government grows and implements more socialist and fascist programs, it seems that nullification is the next step we have to tame the beast and restore the Republic.