Oct 21, 2026 · 42 min
How Nullification Turned a Tariff Fight Into a Union Crisis
Selective Obedience of the Law - Nullification Then, Sanctuary Cities Today
The episode shows why state resistance to federal law remains a constitutional question, while separating nullification from court challenges and civil disobedience.
- 1Calhoun’s compact theory gave South Carolina an intellectual basis for rejecting federal authority over tariffs.
- 2Economic grievances were inseparable from South Carolina’s fear that abolitionism threatened the slaveholding order.
- 3The crisis ended through compromise and federal enforcement, but its state-versus-national power dispute persists.
Don't miss
Dan Monroe connects South Carolina’s tariff resistance to its deeper fear that abolitionism threatened slavery, revealing the crisis’s stakes beyond economics.
The brief
Jeff Sikkenga and Cara Rogers-Stevens frame the Nullification Crisis around a question that still resonates: can a state refuse to enforce federal law it considers unconstitutional?
Historian Dan Monroe traces the crisis from protective tariffs and John C. Calhoun’s compact theory to South Carolina’s decision to challenge federal authority.
The episode argues that South Carolina’s economic complaints cannot be separated from fears that abolitionism and slave revolts threatened the slaveholding order.
Andrew Jackson opposed nullification as a constitutional danger, while the 1833 tariff compromise and Force Bill ended the immediate confrontation.
Modern sanctuary policies provide a comparison, but Monroe distinguishes unconstitutional state nullification from court challenges and individual civil disobedience.
Books & mentions
Some links are affiliate links — PodLume may earn a commission if you buy.
Weekly email
State of the Pod, every Monday
The week's most-discussed names and stories from podcasts, with the moments behind them. Free, five minutes, unsubscribe in one click.