Christopher Karpinski 1.The crisis threatened to tear the nation apart. This crisis was the passage of the Nullification Ordinances by the South Carolina State Assembly in November of 1832. The unity and survival of the nation depended upon President Andrew Jackson's response. On December 10, 1832, President Jackson presented his response to the Congress, arguing that the justification for state nullification of federal laws was misguided, unconstitutional, and treasonous to the country. Jackson began his proclamation by outlining the reasons and reservations that led South Carolina to pass the ordinance; their major concerns were the tariffs of May 29, 1828 and June 14, 1832. South Carolina believed these measures were unfair and didn't fall within the constitutional power of Congress to raise revenue; they proclaimed the laws null and void and threatened succession. In his address, Jackson showed that the doctrine of nullification was incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed. First, he posited that South Carolina's objections based on stated powers and fairness were misguided and incorrect because the Constitution gave Congress the discretionary power to raise revenue by taxation. Next, Jackson argued the Constitution joined the states into a single nation, and in becoming parts of a nation; they surrender many of their essential parts of sovereignty. Thus, secession was wholly unconstitutional because it is an affront to national authority. Finally, Jackson warned the people of South Carolina, who he believed were tricked into nullification by political and social leaders, that any action of disunion, by force, is treason. He made an emotional appeal for these people to see the error of their position. His address ends with a hope that the nation will survive and be reconciled by reasonableness and harmony, but also an assurance that it will be reconciled by force, if necessary.

2. Jackson defended the Indian removal by saying that they would avoid having contact and most likely fights with the whites. He continues on with the fact that this removal would help the economy in a struggling time and the Indians would receive compensation for any new work they put in on their land in the east but was most likely going to rip them off. He then says that it will be hard for the Indians to leave their father’s graves but justifies it by saying that everyone in America had to leave their father’s graves to go to the new land (America). Finally he closes by saying that the government’s attitude towards the “red man” is generous. I find this argument to be quite terrible in that he is simply saying we the white men have the power. He is just simply going to force the Indians to move and in that move he was well aware that a significant amount of them would die. Overall, I find his argument to be egotistic and bigot like with his assumption of power of the Indians and that he calls them savages.

3. Jackson takes an anti-judicial review stand. He says that other branches of the government should have the same amount of power as the Supreme Court. He says this because he believes it is better than to have one single-handedly decide the fate of the law. I disagree with the opinion because the Supreme Court judges have earned their spot and clearly are intelligent enough to make it to that spot and certainly can represent the nation in deciding laws. Also, since they serve for a lifetime they simply have the power to completely disagree with their party and have no obligation to stick with their party, they are able to make their own choice, as they choose not how someone else chooses for them.