The Instigator
SholtoDebate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BGreeneID
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Should South Carolina been allowed to to leave America in the nullification crisis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
BGreeneID
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 971 times Debate No: 46443
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

SholtoDebate

Con

South Carolina never had the right to leave America because if they had it would have shown the other states that they could pick and choose their own laws which would lead to Anarchy. Also america needed to show that it was against slavery and if it had let South Carolina Go it would have shown them as weak and they would be regarded as a pro slave country. South Carolina treated their slaves really badly.
BGreeneID

Pro

I gladly accept the opponent's challenge. In my American History class, the South Carolina crisis is the topic we are on, so I am glad to be able to discuss it here.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
SholtoDebate

Con

Instead of immediately trying to secede, why didn't South Carolina try to be diplomatic about it and try to put their tariff to their favor. Also my opponent mentioned nothing about slavery.
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.
BGreeneID

Pro

To address my opponent's rebuttal-
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.

Con states:
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.
Debate Round No. 2
SholtoDebate

Con

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. While you are right about how Slavery wasn't the main influence in Jackson's use of force it was a small influence.
BGreeneID

Pro

Con states:
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.

Additional thoughts:
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.
Debate Round No. 3
SholtoDebate

Con

No where in the constitution does it say nullification is allowed, do you actually think this topic would be so hotly debated if the constitution specified the fact they could leave. ( I'm in a debate at school about this.
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.
BGreeneID

Pro

The Constitution's 10th amendment states:
"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.

Con States:
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.
Debate Round No. 4
SholtoDebate

Con

SholtoDebate forfeited this round.
BGreeneID

Pro

Con has forfeited his final round.

Best wishes in the voting stage.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
SholtoDebateBGreeneIDTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
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.