Sectionalism
During Jackson's time in office, the northern and southern economies were polarized. The northern economy relied heavily on industrialization, while the South remained an agricultural economy reliant on slave labor to produce their most profitable crop, cotton, which they sold around the world. As the country started to expand westward, the South thought Northerners threatened their "peculiar institution" and way of life. Any issue that favored the North angered the South and was seen as a threat against their state rights. Thus, lines between the industrialized North and agricultural South were drawn, leading the country into a period of sectionalism. During this time, President Jackson was forced to make difficult decisions to keep the nation unified as tensions rose between the two different economies of North and South.
The Nullification Crisis
In 1828, Congress passed a high protective tariff which benefited the industrialized North. This tariff act placed higher duties on foreign imports such as products made from cotton and wool, which the United States' industry produced themselves. Therefore, foreign made products became more expensive than domestic products, causing Americans to purchase the cheaper domestic goods produced in northern states. This greatly angered southerners because it diminished the foreign demand for southern raw cotton. The high demand by foreign markets for southern raw cotton was not recaptured by Northern industrialists reducing Southerners income. The tariff increased the final cost of finished goods the south did not produce. For these reasons, southerners renamed the tariff of 1828 the "Tariff of Abominations." (1)
Andrew Jackson assumed office after the passage of the tariff of 1828, and was forced to confront its consequences. In response to the “Tariff of Abominations,” Congressman Henry Clay proposed a secondary tariff, with lower rates to try and appease southerners. Jackson assumed a moderate view on the tariff issue. He considered modest protection necessary to ensure the production of goods necessary for national defense and security, in order to raise sufficient revenue to pay the national debt. (2)
Andrew Jackson assumed office after the passage of the tariff of 1828, and was forced to confront its consequences. In response to the “Tariff of Abominations,” Congressman Henry Clay proposed a secondary tariff, with lower rates to try and appease southerners. Jackson assumed a moderate view on the tariff issue. He considered modest protection necessary to ensure the production of goods necessary for national defense and security, in order to raise sufficient revenue to pay the national debt. (2)
However, these “modest” rates proved to be too high for some southerners, especially for those residing in South Carolina. John C. Calhoun, a South Carolina native serving as Vice President under Jackson, believed the new tariff of 1832 to be unconstitutional and a violation on states' rights. (3) Other southerners agreed and became angered by Jackson's refusal to waiver in revising the tariff. Calhoun argued that the federal government only existed at the will of the states, and each state retained the authority to declare federal laws unconstitutional. This caused the South Carolina legislature to pass the Nullification Ordinance, which declared the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 “null and void.” (4) South Carolina's defiance became known as the Nullification Crisis. Calhoun later resigned his position as Vice President to fill an empty seat in the Senate so he could better serve his state of South Carolina. Later, South Carolina threatened to secede from the Union if the tariff remained unchanged. (5)
The Nullification Crisis threatened the Union. Jackson responded to the crisis by issuing the Nullification Proclamation. This proclamation declared nullification "incompatible with the existence of the Union.” (6) When South Carolina refused to comply, Jackson advocated for a bill to give him the power to use federal forces in South Carolina to enforce federal tariffs. Jackson essentially asked Congress for the power to use military strength against Americans within American borders. (7) Jackson considered the act necessary to "show to the world that the United States was prepared to crush in an instant rebellion and treason." (8) The Force Bill, as it later became known, was signed by the President along with the compromise tariff of 1833, which would gradually decrease the tariff over the next ten years. This pacified the southern nullifiers for the remainder of Jackson's presidency. However, Jackson feared since the nullifiers failed to break up the Union over the tariff issue, they would proceed to the question of slavery. (9)
Slavery
Jackson firmly believed in the Union, as well as the Constitution. He believed the Constitution resolved the issue of slavery, since it recognized the institution in the South as a way of life. According to Jackson, there was no “debatable ground left upon the subject.” (10) The constitution acknowledged slaves as property, and the federal government did not have the right to confiscate individual property. The moral implications of slavery did not bother Jackson, as he was a slave holder himself. As a slaveholder, he understood the importance of slave labor to the southern economy and was sympathetic to southerners fear of a “big government” confiscating their slaves. These views resulted in gaining southern support, which allowed him to win the presidency. Throughout his political career, Jackson concerned himself more with the rights of the white majority rather than enslaved African Americans. (11)
Jackson did not believe in abolitionism and strongly disliked abolitionists. He believed abolitionists placed the Union against itself creating heightened sectional conflict between the North and South. Abolitionism also distracted attention from the economic issues concerning the Bank. Throughout his political career, he tried to denounce the abolitionists to gain southern support for the Democratic party, stating that slavery was a fact of life protected by the Constitution. In Jackson's view, those who supported abolitionism discredited majority rule. Therefore, Jackson avoided addressing the subject directly for fear of the actions nullifiers and extremists in the south and abolitionists in the north would take. (12)
As abolitionists voiced their opinions to Congress, defenders of slavery responded with violence. Southerners demanded that criticism of slavery not only be answered, but silenced as well. Some, especially the South Carolina nullifiers, linked Northern abolitionism to the protective tariffs as part of a campaign of Northern sectional oppression against the South. (13) As antislavery sentiments grew throughout the North, thousands of letters were sent to Congress petitioning for the emancipation of slaves living in the District of Columbia. They believed that since Congress had exclusive jurisdiction over D.C., it had the power to outlaw slavery within its borders. To avoid discussion of the controversial topic, Congress employed the “gag rule.” (14) All petitions pertaining to the question of slavery would be tabled without discussion. This rule represented the slave holders' attempt to eliminate the dispute of slavery in the United States. By placing petitions aside, Congress hoped to avoid conflict and sectionalism in the country. Jackson stood by the gag rule, allowing Congress to table petitions of the abolition of slavery in the District, thus avoiding the slavery question further. While he advocated for unionism, he did not have a solution to the pressing issue of slavery. He feared disunion greatly and alluded to slavery splitting the country in his Farewell Address.
Jackson did not believe in abolitionism and strongly disliked abolitionists. He believed abolitionists placed the Union against itself creating heightened sectional conflict between the North and South. Abolitionism also distracted attention from the economic issues concerning the Bank. Throughout his political career, he tried to denounce the abolitionists to gain southern support for the Democratic party, stating that slavery was a fact of life protected by the Constitution. In Jackson's view, those who supported abolitionism discredited majority rule. Therefore, Jackson avoided addressing the subject directly for fear of the actions nullifiers and extremists in the south and abolitionists in the north would take. (12)
As abolitionists voiced their opinions to Congress, defenders of slavery responded with violence. Southerners demanded that criticism of slavery not only be answered, but silenced as well. Some, especially the South Carolina nullifiers, linked Northern abolitionism to the protective tariffs as part of a campaign of Northern sectional oppression against the South. (13) As antislavery sentiments grew throughout the North, thousands of letters were sent to Congress petitioning for the emancipation of slaves living in the District of Columbia. They believed that since Congress had exclusive jurisdiction over D.C., it had the power to outlaw slavery within its borders. To avoid discussion of the controversial topic, Congress employed the “gag rule.” (14) All petitions pertaining to the question of slavery would be tabled without discussion. This rule represented the slave holders' attempt to eliminate the dispute of slavery in the United States. By placing petitions aside, Congress hoped to avoid conflict and sectionalism in the country. Jackson stood by the gag rule, allowing Congress to table petitions of the abolition of slavery in the District, thus avoiding the slavery question further. While he advocated for unionism, he did not have a solution to the pressing issue of slavery. He feared disunion greatly and alluded to slavery splitting the country in his Farewell Address.
What have you to gain by division and dissension? Delude not yourselves with the belief that a breach once made may be afterwards repaired. If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword. Neither should you deceive yourselves with the hope that the first line of separation would be the permanent one, and that nothing but harmony and concord would be found in the new associations formed upon the dissolution of this Union. Local interests would still be found there, and unchastened ambition. And if the recollection of common dangers, in which the people of these United States stood side by side against the common foe, the memory of victories won by their united valor, the prosperity and happiness they have enjoyed under the present Constitution, the proud name they bear as citizens of this great Republic--if all these recollections and proofs of common interest are not strong enough to bind us together as one people, what tie will hold united the new divisions of empire when these bonds have been broken and this Union dissevered?
Andrew Jackson in his Farewell Address- March 4, 1837 (15)