BibekanandaPandeyHISTfinalpaper

docx

School

Dallas Colleges *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1301

Subject

Political Science

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SargentJayMaster192

Bibekananda Pandey Final Paper 1. Under what grounds does Daniel Webster (Document #1) oppose the ability of a state to nullify federal laws, also known as the Doctrine of Nullification? What justifications does South Carolina (Document #2) employ to defend their decision to nullify federal laws? In comparing these two primary documents, whose arguments regarding the concept of nullification are most persuasive to you and why? Daniel Webster was a politician in the United States who served as the Secretary of State under Presidents William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, and James Monroe. He also represented Massachusetts and New Hampshire in the House of Representatives. Fillmore, Millard In 1830, Daniel responded to South Carolina Senator Robert Hayne's claim that states had the power to defend themselves by annulling federal law they believed to be unconstitutional with a speech titled "Labor and Union. "Daniel Webster argued in favor of the Union's superiority to individual states. Although Webster did not prepare his statement, it is widely regarded as one of the best ever spoken on the US Senate floor. This argument between Daniel Webster and Robert Hayne was sparked by the Tariff of 1828, which naturally brought up the Nullification Crisis. Daniel and Robert of South Carolina fight about their annulment of the hated Tariff. Overall, Webster made the case that he opposed nullification and secession and, in contrast to Calhoun, thought they were acts of revolution. " The Constitution does not provide for events which must be preceded by its destruction. Secession brings that consequence with it and is revolutionary" Daniel Webster publicly encouraged Congress to adopt the idea of "Nullification," asserting that any State had the power to deem a law of Congress illegal

and exempt its population from its enforcement if it felt oppressed by it. Andrew Jackson, the president of the United States, was compelled to debate South Carolina about the protective tariff that had been implemented by the federal government of the United States in 1828 to aid trade in the northern states toward the close of his first term in office. Its provisions were judged to be "Tariffs of Abominations," and if they had been allowed to remain in effect, they would have severely harmed South Carolina's economy. Jackson had been opposed to the state's tariff laws for a long time, but business and agricultural interests had anticipated he would use his presidential authority to change them. They believed that all the protection's advantages went to Northern manufacturers, and that South Carolina suffered as a result of higher pricing, making the state's planters poorer while the nation as a whole became wealthier. Robert Haynes' speech convinced me more when I compared the two documents, even if South Carolina intended to nullify for the wrong reasons. If a state didn't like a federal legislation, I think it should be possible for that state to challenge it. Asserting that the United States was not a confederation of independent states from which one state could leave at any time, Webster denied a state's capacity to invalidate federal law. A country, he further asserted, is defined as " The Constitution does not provide for events which must be preceded by its destruction. Secession brings that consequence with it and is revolutionary." [Dan30].He opposed states' rights to override federal laws in part because he thought the Constitution was the most important legislation chosen by Americans and that a state couldn't establish a law like this just to protect its own interests. A state is independent and has its own rights as long as such rights and independence do not clash with the Constitution, which is the supreme law,

according to him as well.He also stressed that although voters restricted state governments, they gave the federal government a great deal of power. Because of this, the state is under control and no one has the right or ability to challenge the laws of the government. The state has always been constrained for the people, and if they believe that the state legislature created the constitution and that they can reject provisions that directly impact them, then there is a very severe problem. The Union's architects, those who established its boundaries. He concludes his speech by outlining the different rights that the Constitution and the states each possess, saying that he does not think the state has the power to void laws and that a voiding act cannot be avoided or resisted. For the most of his career, constitutional law was Daniel Webster's area of practice. His command of the English language helped him when he transitioned from lawyer to politician during the Conflict over Nullification He was a senator and representative in the Massachusetts legislature. As a senator, he was interested in the development of a national bank, protective tariffs, and improvements to the transportation system. Webster voted in favor of the Tariff of 1828 because Massachusetts had a significant interest in manufacturing following the introduction of textile mills in 1789. As a result, he discovered constitutional backing for his position in Congress's ability to regulate commerce and advance general prosperity. While South Carolina blamed the tariff for its economic problems, Robert Hayne, a senator from that state, put out the justification that a state might overturn such repulsive, revolting, and illegal legislation in 1830. They also asserted that the states would be able to break away from the Union as a result of that argument. After realizing this, Webster worked tirelessly and persuasively to maintain the power of the federal government, culminating in his speech "Liberty and Union, now and

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

forever, one and inseparable," which defended the Union's control over individual states. I found Document #1 to be more persuasive based on these two points because it goes into deeper detail regarding the Constitution's and states' rights. Furthermore, Daniel Webster's precise and graceful delivery helps me comprehend the idea of nullification. Webster explains a number of reasons why the nullification act must be disregarded. I thought his argument was incredibly persuasive since he backs it up with evidence and actual facts. His claim that for the past forty years, people have chosen the Constitution as their means of prosperity and expansion while restricting the powers of the states is proof of this. 1. What is the “irrepressible conflict” according to William H. Seward (Document #3) and how does he specifically define the two sides involved? How does Alexander Stephens (Document #4) define the Confederacy and why does he believe secession is justified and necessary? How does President Lincoln (Document #5) frame the Civil War and effort to restore the Union as a moral imperative? The "irrepressible conflict," according to William H. Seward in Document #3, is between two various social structures. The "anti-slavery sentiment of the North" and the "pro-slavery sentiment of the South" are how he characterizes the two sides. The two sides that are involved in the relationship between the north and the south are two very different political systems; one was based on pleasing others or using slave labor, and the other on using free labor. Alexander Stephens asserts in Document #4 that the North's dedication to ending slavery

justifies and necessitates secession, characterizing the Confederacy as a state founded on the "great truth" of white supremacy. Since the Union was established to ensure the preservation of the United States and the government's adherence to the concept that "all men are created equal," President Lincoln frames the Civil War and the attempt to restore it as a moral obligation in Document #5.Should states have the authority to overturn federal laws if they disagree with them, in light of these fundamental sources and what you have learned in your course? If not, why not? Include a specific instance or problem (political, economic, social, or cultural) from the end of the Civil War to the present in your response where you could envision a scenario in which nullification could occur and consider both the advantages and disadvantages of such an action. I believe that states should have the authority to void federal legislation. Any federal law that has been deemed to be lawful in light of the Constitution should be subject to their right to be overturned. Let's use the Affordable Care Act as an illustration. In this scenario, the Oklahoma House voted to annul the act, which was signed into law by President Obama. This situation is referred to as nullification. Members of the minimum 48 states advocated changing the federal actions to reduce it to a specific level. They held the opinion that the law was no longer lawful after President Obama's term as president came to an end. Republicans in Austin, Texas, hoped to overturn the federal government's decision to relax gun control laws. President Lincoln delivered a speech that quickly gained popularity by stating that "all men are created equal" and paying tribute to the fallen soldiers, while also reiterating that the failure to retake the South represents a failure to uphold the founding principles of the United

States. Lincoln wanted to make sure that the Union would survive and that the soldiers' deaths had not been in vain. In a speech, President Lincoln spoke the famous phrase, "All men are created equal." ,paying tribute to the fallen warriors while reiterating that the inability to retake the South represents a failure to uphold the founding values of the United States. Lincoln wanted to make sure that the Union would survive and that the soldiers' deaths had not been in vain. 2. In thinking about these primary documents and what you have learned in your course, should states have the power to nullify federal laws if they disagree with them? Why or why not? As part of your response, provide a specific case or issue (political, economic, social, or cultural) within the United States from the end of the Civil War until the present day where you could imagine a scenario in which nullification could play out and reflect upon both the positive and negative consequences of such action. After thinking about these founding documents and what I have studied in class, I do not believe that states should have the authority to overturn federal laws if they are unpopular with their residents. Nullification if many states embraced it, it would weaken the supremacy of the federal government and bring about turmoil and anarchy. Furthermore, it is unlawful and goes against the federalist framework that the United States was founded on. I could envision a scenario in which the state of California might enact nullification to oppose the immigration policy of the Trump administration. While this might preserve the rights of immigrants, it might also have unfavorable effects including

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

a reduction in federal funds and a reduction in the authority of the federal government. In order to give the states the ability to overturn federal laws if they decide they do not agree with them, I say yes. States must be able to legally fight back if the federal government crosses the line and coerces them into passing these laws; otherwise, the federal government would have no recourse. When South Carolina needed to be able to annul the tariff laws that were imposed on them by the federal government during Jackson's administration, that was an instance of nullification in action. Jackson passed the "Force Bill," which gave the federal government the right to use aggressive force to enact any legislation, after making it clear that the states could not and should not fight a federal law. Because 65% of South Carolina's population was enslaved, they were concerned that if the federal government could enforce any rule for them, they may enact a law, the tariff laws, that outlawed slavery. This posed a serious issue for them because of their high rate of enslavement. Since slaves did all the labor for them and they didn't have to lift a finger, they did not want the federal government to take away their slaves because doing so might damage their company's ratings. I think states should be able to invalidate laws passed at the federal level. They should have the power to invalidate any federal law that has been found to be constitutionally valid. Think at how the Oklahoma House voted to overturn President Obama's signature piece of legislation, the Affordable Care Act, as an example. This circumstance is referred to as nullification. Legislators from at least 48 states proposed that the legislature decrease it to a specific level by modifying federal regulations. They claimed that after President Obama's presidency ended, the statute was no longer valid.

Republicans in Austin, Texas, attempted to reverse the federal government's decision to relax gun laws, which they saw as being unjustified. Consequently, These historical documents make it extremely clear that the American Civil War was fought over a number of different issues, including slavery and state rights. It is evident that the ideological and moral gap between the North and the South was the main cause of the conflict, despite the fact that there was no single cause. The South sought to defend its right to practice slavery and to form its own independent government, while the North sought to abolish slavery and uphold the Union. The American Civil War left a lasting impression on the nation as a whole, and its effects can still be felt today, even though the North ultimately won and the Union was preserved. I have concluded that even if states disagree with federal laws, they should not have the power to overturn them after reading these primary texts and thinking back on the material we have covered in this semester. If a sizable number of states embraced the nullification practice, it would diminish the power of the federal government and cause turmoil and anarchy. Additionally, it is against the federalist foundation upon which the nation was established and contradicts the US Constitution. As a result, the federal government must vehemently reject any attempt to reduce the legitimacy of current laws at the federal level. The potential that California may use its right to nullification to challenge the immigration limitations put in place by the Trump administration is one specific scenario that comes to mind. It is possible that this may have a beneficial effect on the preservation of immigrant rights, but it is also possible that it will have unfavorable effects, such a drop in the funding provided by the

federal government and a loss in its authority. Although California may have had noble intentions when it passed nullification to protect immigrant rights, it is crucial to consider the potential repercussions of such a step. The state of California might have had noble intentions in this particular instance. California might witness a decrease in the quantity of federal cash it receives as a result of nullification because the state would no longer be reliant on the federal government for resources. This can have a detrimental effect on the state's budget, which might lead to less funding for crucial public services like healthcare and education. Additionally, it might encourage other states to start opposing federal law in the same way that California has, which might lead to a diminution in the federal government's authority. This might lead to the dissolution of the Union and the collapse of the federal system, both of which would be devastating for the United States as a whole. In the end, nullification can seem like a good option for states that disagree with the laws approved at the federal level, but it's important to think about the consequences of doing so. Along with the possibility of chaos and disruption brought on by nullification, the federal government's authority could be reduced. As a result, it is crucial for the states to work together in order to find a compromise between the rights that the individual states hold and the authorities that the federal government has granted to the states. The only way to ensure the country's ongoing peace and prosperity is to do this.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version