MORE ON STATES vs. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Jackson’s language, a bit hard to digest, can be boiled down to this: When you, South Carolina joined the union, you ceded certain sovereign rights to the federal government under the constitution. As a single state you have no authority to act independently and contrarily to the US government. Therefore I, as elected executor of the constitution will take any measures necessary to keep the union intact. Jackson threw down the gauntlet.

Single states stand little to gain alone against the fed. Perhaps if Calhoun could have persuaded enough states to participate in a sweeping constitutional convention supporting his nullification clause, then Jackson’s tone may have been different.

His opposition to the tariff act did produce a compromise with the passage of Compromise Tariff of 1833. But the measure was short lived when only two months later the Black Tariff was passed, ironically “nullifying” the compromise.

You got that perfect. Old Hickory drew the line in the sand and Calhoun and South Carolina stayed put.

I'll post the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions a little later. These are considered to be the Word on state's rights. Jefferson saw the need for there to be a majority of the states to act in opposition to the feds.

I've also been researching SCOTUS decisions that have sidestepped the Constitution allowing the feds to grow themselves a crop of never intended powers. Jefferson addressed this also.

Thanks for the read.
Glenn