Nullification Dbq Essay

1) Daniel Webster opposed the doctrine of nullification because he believed that it went against the principle of a strong federal government. His main argument focused on the consequences that could arise if states were permitted to invalidate federal laws. Webster believed that the Constitution established a supreme federal government that should have the final authority in matters that affect the entire country. In document 1, (Webster, 1830) says “No state law is to be valid which comes in conflict with the Constitution, or any law of the United States passed in pursuance of it.” Daniel Webster saw nullification as a threat to not only the principles of unity within the Union but also to the overall welfare of the United States as a

Although they both presented strong arguments to support their opinions, I ultimately agree with Daniel Webster and his opposition to allowing states the ability to nullify federal laws. Document 1 was regarding Daniel Webster's "Liberty and Union" speech, which was a notable address that emphasized the importance of preserving the unity and strength of the United States, which also meant arguing against the idea of nullification. He passionately defended the Constitution and the Union, stating that the country's prosperity and freedom depended on maintaining a strong and unified nation. Webster's speech is considered a pivotal moment in the Nullification Crisis, as he made a compelling case for the supremacy of federal law and the need for national unity. Both arguments were well laid out, but Document 1 stood out to me because I also agree that while states deserve their rights as stated in Document 2, I also believe that if we had allowed states to nullify federal laws back then, we would not have the strong, unified nation we have

(Stephens,1861) states “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.” He stated that the fundamental principle of the Confederacy was the belief in the superiority of the white race and the institution of slavery. Stephens believed that secession was justified and necessary, considering he saw it as a means to protect and preserve the institution of slavery, which he viewed as essential to the Southern way of life. He argued that secession was a response to perceived threats to the Southern economy and social order and that forming a separate nation would allow the Confederacy to uphold its principles as well as safeguard its interests.

After reviewing documents 3, 4, and 5, it seems clear that finding a compromise on the issue of slavery was incredibly challenging. This was due to the fact that the Union and Confederacy had opposing views on the matter and were unwilling to budge. The Union wanted to abolish slavery, while the Confederacy relied on it heavily and was even willing to secede from the Union to protect its