While every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style Copy Citation Share to social media Give Feedback External Websites Thank you for your feedbackOur editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External WebsitesWhile every effort has been made to follow citation style rules, there may be some discrepancies. Please refer to the appropriate style manual or other sources if you have any questions.
Select Citation Style Copy Citation Share to social media External Websites Thank you for your feedbackOur editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
External WebsitesEncyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree. They write new content and verify and edit content received from contributors.
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Table of Contents
Ask the Chatbot a Question
Ask the Chatbot a Question
Top Questions What was the nullification crisis?The nullification crisis was a conflict between the U.S. state of South Carolina and the federal government of the United States in 1832–33. It was driven by South Carolina politician John C. Calhoun, who opposed the federal imposition of the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 and argued that the U.S. Constitution gave states the right to block the enforcement of a federal law. In November 1832 South Carolina adopted the Ordinance of Nullification, declaring the tariffs null, void, and nonbinding in the state. U.S. President Andrew Jackson responded in December 1832 by issuing a proclamation that asserted the supremacy of the federal government.
John C. Calhoun: Champion of states’ rightsRead more about John C. Calhoun’s role in the nullification crisis.
How was the nullification crisis resolved?Having proclaimed the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 null and void within its boundaries, South Carolina threatened to secede from the union if the federal government attempted to enforce the tariffs. U.S. President Andrew Jackson declared that states did not have the right of nullification, and in 1833 Congress passed the Force Bill, authorizing the federal use of force to enforce the collection of tariffs. Meanwhile, Senator Henry Clay of Kentucky engineered passage of the compromise tariff of 1833, which gradually lowered tariffs over the next 10 years.
Henry ClayLearn more about U.S. Senator Henry Clay, “The Great Compromiser,” who stewarded the compromise tariff of 1833.
What were the roots of John C. Calhoun’s states’ rights argument?John C. Calhoun built his argument for South Carolina’s right to block the imposition of federal tariffs on the doctrine of nullification espoused by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, respectively, in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions passed by the legislatures of those states in 1798. Jefferson argued that the union was a compact of sovereign states and that the federal government was their agent with certain specified delegated powers. The states, according to Jefferson, retained the authority to determine when the federal government had exceeded its powers and could declare acts to be void in their jurisdictions.
states’ rightsLearn more about the concept of states’ rights. How did the nullification crisis foreshadow the American Civil War?Although the nullification crisis was ostensibly about South Carolina’s refusal to collect federal tariffs, many historians believe it was actually rooted in growing Southern fears over the movement in the North for the abolition of slavery. When South Carolina threatened to secede if it were forced to pay the tariffs, U.S. President Andrew Jackson said that “disunion by armed force is treason.” Some three decades later, 11 Southern states claimed that their sovereignty gave them the right to secede from the union. This constitutional question was resolved only by the victory of the North (federal government) in the American Civil War.
secessionRead about the role the concept of secession played in American history.Nullification Crisis, in U.S. history, confrontation between the state of South Carolina and the federal government in 1832–33 over the former’s attempt to declare null and void within the state the federal Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. The resolution of the Nullification Crisis in favor of the federal government helped to undermine the nullification doctrine, the constitutional theory that upheld the right of states to nullify federal acts within their boundaries.
The doctrine of nullification had been advocated by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798–99. The union was a compact of sovereign states, Jefferson asserted, and the federal government was their agent with certain specified, delegated powers. The states retained the authority to determine when the federal government exceeded its powers, and they could declare acts to be “void and of no force” in their jurisdictions.
The so-called Tariff of Abominations of 1828 was passed at the instigation of Northern manufacturers, but it distressed many Southern planters who depended on foreign trade for their livelihoods. Agriculture in South Carolina was undergoing grave difficulties owing to soil exhaustion, and many believed that the extraordinarily high tariffs would damage the state’s economy irreparably. During 1828, protests were voiced through Southern newspapers and town meetings, and finally, on December 19, the state legislature issued South Carolina Exposition and Protest, which declared the tariff unconstitutional. Secretly drafted by Vice Pres. John C. Calhoun (whose name did not appear on it), the paper outlined the state’s grievances and furthered the nullification doctrine.
Calhoun took the position that state “interposition” could block enforcement of a federal law. The state would be obliged to obey only if the law were made an amendment to the Constitution by three-fourths of the states. The “concurrent majority”—i.e., the people of a state having veto power over federal actions—would protect minority rights from the possible tyranny of the numerical majority.
When the Tariff of 1832 only slightly modified the Tariff of 1828, the South Carolina legislature decided to put Calhoun’s nullification theory to a practical test. The legislature called for a special state convention, and on November 24, 1832, the convention adopted the Ordinance of Nullification. The ordinance declared the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 “null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens.” It also forbade appeal of any ordinance measure to the federal courts, required all state officeholders (except members of the legislature) to take an oath of support for the ordinance, and threatened secession if the federal government tried to collect tariff duties by force. In the meantime, Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to speak for his state in the Senate. In the address that he wrote to accompany the Ordinance of Nullification, he further elucidated his states’ rights theory of the Constitution, stating in part that
the Constitution of the United States is a compact between the people of the several states, constituting free, independent, and sovereign communities…the government it created was formed and appointed to execute, according to the provisions of the instrument, the powers therein granted as the joint agent of the several states…all its acts, transcending these powers, are simply and of themselves null and void, and…in case of such infractions, it is the right of the states, in their sovereign capacity, each acting for itself and its citizens, in like manner as they adopted the Constitution to judge thereof in the last resort and to adopt such measures—not inconsistent with the compact—as may be deemed fit to arrest the execution of the act within their respective limits. Such we hold to be the right of the states in reference to an unconstitutional act of the government; nor do we deem their duty to exercise it on proper occasions less certain and imperative than the right itself is clear.
