The Nullification Crisis of 1832, involving John C. Calhoun and South Carolina, is often cited by critics of nullification as a prime example of the dangers of this doctrine. However, a lesser-known but equally significant nullification crisis occurred in 1850, involving the state of Vermont. This crisis not only highlights the complexities of the debate over states’ rights and federal power but also underscores the irony that nullification was not solely used to defend slavery, but rather to resist federal laws that protected slavery.
In 1850, Vermont passed a Habeas Corpus Law that effectively nullified the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. This federal law required citizens to assist federal marshals in capturing escaped slaves, forcing private citizens to participate in maintaining an immoral system. Vermont’s law, on the other hand, stipulated that the state’s attorney had a duty to "protect, defend, and procure to be discharged" any person in Vermont "arrested or claimed as a fugitive slave." This law was a direct challenge to federal authority and an assertion of states’ rights.
The concept of states’ rights, which holds that states have ultimate authority over the federal government outside of powers granted by the Constitution, was commonly associated with the South. However, in 1850, Vermont seized upon nullification to strike a blow against slavery, demonstrating that this doctrine was not exclusively Southern. While nullification by Southern states is well-known, the use of this doctrine by abolitionist states prior to the Civil War is often overlooked.
Vermont’s actions were not isolated, as talk of nullification was in the air in the fall of 1850. Abolitionists like John Greenleaf Whittier and William Lloyd Garrison defended the use of nullification on religious grounds, comparing the anti-slavery cause to biblical characters who defied laws contrary to their convictions. Whittier, a poet and abolitionist, wrote that he was a "nullifier" when it came to the Fugitive Slave Law, and that he would not enforce it in Massachusetts. Garrison, publisher of the Liberator, defended the use of nullification by abolitionist states, citing the example of Daniel and St. Peter, who defied laws that ran contrary to their religious convictions.
The response to Vermont’s law was a "firestorm of protest" from newspapers both North and South. The Washington Daily Republic wrote that Vermont’s law "plainly and intentionally overrules and sets aside the Constitution and the Law of Congress." The Boston Daily Advertiser accused Vermont of "direct and open nullification" of federal law. However, despite threats from President Millard Fillmore and Virginia Gov. John B. Floyd, no action was taken against Vermont. Fillmore threatened to take whatever action necessary to ensure the federal law was enforced, but this ended up being little more than tough talk.
This episode highlights the irony that nullification was not used to defend slavery, but rather to resist federal laws that protected slavery. It also shows that the use of nullification was not confined to the South, but was also employed by abolitionist states in the North. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the debate over states’ rights and federal power was complex and multifaceted, with different states and individuals employing nullification for varying purposes.
In conclusion, the nullification crisis of 1850 in Vermont was a significant event in American history that underscores the complexities of the debate over states’ rights and federal power. It highlights the irony that nullification was not solely used to defend slavery, but rather to resist federal laws that protected slavery, and demonstrates that this doctrine was employed by both Southern and Northern states for varying purposes.
Archival publication: original document last modified 2024-09-12. This historical essay preserves the original draft’s interpretation; it is not guidance on current law or a statement of current product status.
Leave a Reply