Should South Carolina been allowed to to leave America in the nullification crisis
Debate Rounds (5)
First off, allow me to state some background information on the topic.
South Carolina had, as did the majority of the Southern States, an agricultural-based economy. This meant that they had few industries, and they had to import many manufactured items from Northern companies. Tariffs placed on these items made them very expensive, and this eventually weakened the state's economy. In 1828, a new tariff was passed by Congress. This only worsened the economic issues that South Carolina was having. They became fed up with the high-priced imports, so secession from the Union was threatened. John C. Calhoun, the Vice President and a South Carolina native, was torn on what to do. He eventually proposed nullification, which subsided the secession threat. This issue was hotly debated and remained untouched until 1832, when yet another tariff was passed. This put South Carolina over the edge, and they decided to nullify the tariffs from 1828 and 1832. Andrew Jackson was displeased and though of this action as treason against the Union. In response, he sent a warship down to Charleston. Although no one was injured or hurt, the intimidation of the ship alone was enough to make South Carolina repeal the nullification of the tariffs. Jackson then had the Force Bill passed, which stated that the President had the authority to use military force to enforce Congressional acts. This bill made any further nullification impossible during the time. Although a reduction on the tariffs was eventually put into effect, the crisis was still fresh in the minds of many people for many years to come.
This brings me to my point. I believe South Carolina should have had the right to secede from the Union. They were having an economic crisis that was only getting worse, and would have only GOTTEN worse unless something was done about it. Secession does not necessarily lead to anarchy, it only proves to other states that a law is unjust enough to be acted upon. If an unjust law is no law at all, then why should it be obeyed? It shouldn't be. After all, America seceded itself from Britain due to unjust laws, and there was no anarchy. South Carolina was treated unfairly and should have been allowed to act in order to help their people.
Pro: South Carolina was treated unfairly and should have been allowed to act in order to help their people. But they weren't going to help their people were they because many of their people were slaves and they completely mistreated slaves which was one reason the North refused to let them out.
A tariff is defined as a tax on goods coming into or leaving a country (South Carolina in this case). Tariffs are only beneficial when they prevent an imported product from undercutting local prices. The tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were very harmful to the state's economy, and would be therefore unable to be put to their favor, unless the tariffs were abolished fully. This happened in 1835, only AFTER South Carolina subsided their threats.
But they weren't going to help their people were they because many of their people were slaves and they completely mistreated slaves which was one reason the North refused to let them out.
Slaves were mistreated and were common in the state, but they were a MINORITY. South Carolina was acting in the interests of the white majority of their citizens. Slavery was not an influence in Jackson's use of force either; he acted as he did because he believed South Carolina was committing treason against the Union.
My opponent has stated that the slaves should have been mistreated because they were a minority, well right now there are more Christians in America than any other religion does that mean we now enslave all the Jews, Muslims, and Atheists because they are not the Majority.
I never stated that they should have been mistreated or enslaved. I said that they were a minority and South Carolina was acting in the interests of their white citizens. Religion does not play a factor in slavery, and neither does skin color or race. Slavery was based on cheap labor and strong workers, which they were able to achieve through the African Americans at the time.
In reference to the main topic, nullification is defined as a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. That being said, nullification is still relevant to modern times. Nullification is a state power (state powers are protected and guaranteed under the 10th Amendment) and it can unify the states to combat an unjust law or cause. Without it, we would be a the knees of the federal government, and we would have no say in the laws that were passed. THIS, not secession, would lead to unrest and eventual anarchy. It would be Unconstitutional for states to have this right taken away, as it was for South Carolina by Jackson.
My opponent continues to get off the topic of slavery. I made this debate to see what the rebuttal is to the fact that South Carolina were mistreating their civilians.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively. "
To summarize it- powers not given to the Federal Government are reserved for the states. Nullification was proposed as a STATE right, not a federal right. This means that the federal government should not have been interfering with state rights, as it goes against the Constitution.
I made this debate to see what the rebuttal is to the fact that South Carolina were mistreating their civilians.
If you made this debate to see what the thought was on slavery, then why did you not mention it in the resolution? This debate does not focus on slavery, it focuses on the issue of State Rights vs Federal Rights.
SholtoDebate forfeited this round.
Best wishes in the voting stage.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con FF a rounded so Pro gets points for conduct and for convincing arguments since he made better effort in proving his case.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.