A New Power to The American National Government

For the most part nationalism in America has increased greatly in its early years of the republic and so did the trust Americans had in their national government. This meant, the people were willing to allow the national government to use its power, but it wasn’t always the case. There were many instances of opposition against the increasing power of the national government between 1790 and 1835. However, it can be said that the effectiveness of the opposition was great but it did not accomplish much.

To begin there were many incentives for the rise of opposition against the growing national power. This is largely due to the fact that the national government was stretching its powers. Examples of the national government said to be stretching their powers would be the Tariff of Abominations, and the destruction of the National Bank. With these “abuses” of power many prominent men such as John Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster had a motive to oppose the National government.

A major opposition was when John C. Calhoun argued that the Tariff of Abominations was the cause for the stagnation of the South Carolinian economy. John C. Calhoun attempted to create a theory of nullification, and argued that the states not the courts should be able to decide whether congress passed an unconstitutional law. However, Webster argued strongly against this idea stating it was “challeng[ing] the integrity of the union”. However, the state still held a state convention which voted to nullify the tariffs of 1828 and 1832. Jackson said the nullification was treason, and he strengthened forts, and proposed a force bill. The force bill would allow him to use force to enforce the acts of Congress. Eventually a compromise was made so that the tariff would be gradually lowered. This taught Calhoun and the states no state could defy the federal government alone.

However, Calhoun’s argument against the overwhelming power of the national government was not the end, Jackson had also attempted to remove the National Bank. Jackson placed all the federal funds not in the National Bank but instead in several state banks which caused the bank to weaken. Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and Nicholas Biddle, tried to force the President to sign the banks recharter and to place the federal funs back into the bank by stating he was abusing his power. Eventually supporters of the bank sent petitions to Washington urging the use of the National bank. Jackson had won this critical political victory, but the effects of this would be an unstable banking system.

Conclusively, the many movements made in opposition to the power of the National government never did succeed, but it did impact the United States for years to come. The motives for such movements were from the “abuses” the national government had made. Two significant events were the destruction of the National bank and John C. Calhouns theory of nullification against Tariffs restricting the economy of South Carolina.