# data[].attributes.body
Who is the author?

The author of this excerpt is Andrew Jackson.

What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position?

Treason, Advantages, law, duty, union

What is one quote that reflects the reading?

“Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON”
What is their position on nullification?

I believe that Webster’s position on the nullification is that he is completely against it and believes that it would be considered treason
What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)

Webster believes that the national government is very powerful and should stay powerful. He also believes that the United States government should have a lot of control over the laws and rules of the country.
Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.

Webster mentions that citizens and states should follow the federal law and government rules for the balance and safety of the country. He also states that anyone who thinks otherwise or go against these rules are considered traitors and should be convicted for treason
What questions do you have about this reading?

How did people react to this speech?

I wonder if he was able to persuade people with his ideas and thoughts on the topic?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Who is the author?

The reading is an excerpt from Andrew Jackson’s nullification proclamation in 1832

2. What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)

Disunion by armed force is treason

The laws of the US must be followed

People who say to not follow laws are deceiving people

I will not abandon that union which so many have died for

Fearful of civil discord

3. What is one quote that reflects the reading?

“Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON” (Jackson

4. What is their position on nullification?

Jackson is for it and he calls any state or person who doesn’t follow the law a traitor

5. What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)

He thinks that everyone must follow the government's laws and regulations to keep the union intact. Detail: “The laws of the United States must be executed”

6. Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.

Jackson talks about how people and states must follow the federal government’s laws to maintain the union and to safeguard the ideals that it was based upon. As well anyone who takes up arms against the government and against its laws are traitors

7. What questions do you have about this reading?

Really only one and that is how did people react to the speech or transcript in both the north and south?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Who is the author?
This reading is an excerpt from Daniel Webster's second reply to Hayne.
2. What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
- people's government
- [States are] not sovereign to the people
- Supreme power
- Effectively controlled
- Restricted
- Power to interfere
- Supremacy of the Constitution
3. What is one quote that reflects the reading?
"I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the
power to interfere with the laws of the Union?"
4. What is their position on nullification?
Webster believed that Congress has the power and that South Carolina should concede. This is clear when he constantly illustrates the power of Congress granted to it by the people and how the states were not sovereign enough to make such decisions.
5. What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)
Webster believed that the power of the national government was provided to it by the people and it serves the people. However, he argues that the states do not share this power. Webster states: "So far as the people
have restrained State sovereignty, by the expression of their will, in the Constitution of the United States, so far, it must be admitted". This indicates that if the people wanted the States to have this power, they would have given it to them in the Constitution. He also states that Congress was the "supreme law" and had "general and residuary" power, as opposed to States' "definite and "restricted" power. This further demonstrates his stance on the nullification matter and reinforces his previous arguments.
6. Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
Daniel Webster argued for the government's right to stop South Carolina's interference with the Union regarding the tariff imposed. His argument was based on the fact that, although both types of government have different powers, state governments did not have the power necessary to cause such a disturbance and interference and therefore should be forced to stop.
7. What questions do you have about this reading?
What was the impact of Webster's argument in the final decision?
What slight biases may he have had?

# data[].attributes.body
Who is the author?

The author is Daniel Webster.

What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)

Supreme power

Supposed right

Supremacy of the constitution

Interfere

Limited government

What is one quote that reflects the reading?

“Neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, though one is definite and restricted, and the other general and residuary.” Webster believes that the state government is more restricted than the national government, and therefore does not have the right to declare a national law null and void.

What is their position on nullification?

I think that Webster’s position on nullification is that he is against it, because he seems to talk a lot about the rights of the states compared to the national government. He says, “whence is this supposed right of the states derived? Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the Union?”. He says in this excerpt that the states do not have the right to interfere with or stop any laws made by the government. This includes declaring laws null and void, which is what South Carolina did and what Webster seems to disagree with.
What does this person think about the power of the national government?

He thinks it is the “supreme law”, as he states in the first paragraph. He mentions multiple times that the powers of national and state government are two separate beings and that state government is “definite and restricted”. Webster seems to think that the national government has much more power than state governments do, and that it can overrule the state government, as he mentions that “the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the United States is declared”.
Briefly summarize the reading in two sentences.

Daniel Webster discusses the rights of state governments versus national government, emphasizing that both of these powers stem from the people. Though both are equally important, he shares his perspective on state government being more restricted while national government is more general and holds more power.
What questions do you have about this reading?

I wonder what Daniel Webster’s position was in the U.S. and whether he was from the North or the South, as that could have influenced his opinion on the matter.

# data[].attributes.body
Who is the author?
Andrew Jackson
What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
-Advantages
-Treason
-union
-law
-duty
What is one quote that reflects the reading?
"They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON."
What is their position on nullification?
Andrew Jackson states that he is completely against the nullification. He states they can't prevent the execution of laws and in agreeing to the nullification they are doing so and in his words committing treason.
What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)
He believes that the national government has the most power and strongly supports any laws set by them which is why he calls the nullification treasoness. "the conflict [it] force(s) upon the government of your country….the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world.” In other words, those for the nullification go against his belief that the national government should be above all others under the law.
Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
Andrew Jackson is stating in this excerpt that the nullification is causing division in the people. And this division is preventing the execution of the law and disrupting order.
What questions do you have about this reading?
I don't have any questions.

# data[].attributes.body
Who is the author?
J. Gregg who is the Chairman of the Senate and House of Representatives of South Carolina.
What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
- commonwealth
- undisguised
- enumerated powers
-  privilege
- surest pledge
What is one quote that reflects the reading?
"Wholly dependent on agriculture and commerce, not only for her prosperity, but for her very existence as a state" (Gregg 59)
What is their position on nullification?
They are for nullification because of their beliefs. They think that if this were to occur then it would help the south thrive in relation to its economy, south Carolina also agreed since they believed that the constitution gave them the ability to block the enforcement of federal laws.  The congress specifically was being to "strict" and going against their rights.
What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)
J.Gregg believes and the people of South Carolina believe that if needed or pushed by the government then they will have no option but to exercise their rights given by the constitution and fight back. They also believe that the government doesn't necessarily have the right to make these decisions and they would prefer to live in harmony amongst the other states. "but feeling is to be their bounded duty to expose and resist all encroachments upon the true spirit of the constitution[...] do, in the name of the commonwealth of South Carolina" (Gregg 59)
Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
In the reading South Carolinas senate and house of representatives have agreed that the government should not have control over any decision that needs to be made since if they do that would be too much power. Also since they are the people of the state they should have the say since they are living there and believe that their rights would be violated. This all came about South Carolina wanting to revoke the decree created for tariffs since they did no justice in relation to the economy.
What questions do you have about this reading?
If they were so keen on being peaceful and being in "harmony" with other states around them then why couldn't they find a better way in which they could have resolved all of the problems?
What else was J. Gregg doing in this time period?
Is there anything else he was known for?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Who is the author?
Andrew Jackson
2. What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
Advantages, honor, duty, laws, treason
3. What is one quote that reflects the reading?
"Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences-on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country….the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world"
4. What is their position on nullification?
He is completely against nullification and goes as far to compare it to treason.
5. What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)
He thinks that if the national government disagrees on something, and certain laws only apply to northern or southern states then that would lead to a disunion. "They know that a
forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition
must be repelled. Their object is disunion, but be not deceived by names; disunion, by armed force, is
TREASON"
6. Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
Andrew Jackson's speech is about how nullification is bad and that people should not support. He says that the only way to postpone it is with force, which would be treason.
7. What questions do you have about this reading?
I don't have any questions

# data[].attributes.body
1. Who is the author?
J.Gregg Chairman of the Senate and House of Representatives of South Carolina.
2. What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
- Unwarrantable
- No free government
- Grossly Unequal
- Inadequate
- Desolation
3. What is one quote that reflects the reading?
“South Carolina from her climate situation, and peculiar institutions, is, and must ever continue to be wholly dependent on agriculture and commerce, not only for her prosperity but for her very existence, [...] the loss of her foreign commerce, these products should be confined to an inadequate market, the fate of this fertile state would be poverty and utter desolations.” (Gregg 42).
4. What is their position on nullification?
South Carolina is completely for nullification they believe that it hinders their lively hood and the future of their economy in the south. They believe that Congress does not have the right to make a decision like this that is so negative for their personal rights, it goes against the “free government” which the United States is trying to achieve, by favouring one party over the other.
5. What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)
They believe that the national government has no right to this decision, since they are all free states with rights they cannot be imposed a tax that hinders to negatively their economy and threatens their way of life.
“Since no free government least of all a government of enumerated powers, can of right impose any tax, any more than penalty which is not at once justified by public necessity and clearly within the scope and purview of the social compact” (Gregg 41)
6. Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
The Senate and House of Representatives of South Carolina protest against the new tariff laws because in their opinion they threaten commerce and their economy as a whole, by limiting their overseas trade. They think that the fact that the government should pass this law is completely beyond their rights since they are a free state and this is clearly favouring one part of the country over another; all in all, they believe this tariff will run the state into “poverty and utter desolation”.
7. What questions do you have about this reading?
Now that I understand a bit more about where they stand I wonder why they didn’t try to have a compromise between the two sides? It seems both were hellbent on getting their way and didn’t consider an in-between, was it simply not possible?

# data[].attributes.body
1. Who is the author?
The author is Andrew Jackson

2. What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
Advantages, union, treason, citizens, consequences

3. What is one quote that reflects the reading?
“If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home-are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences?”

4. What is their position on nullification?
He believes that nullification is harmful to the union and states should not be allowed to reject laws

What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)
He believes the national government has the most power in the United States, especially in regards to laws. For that reason, he believes it is unrealistic to go against what they say. “If you are, on the head of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences-on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment-on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country….the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world.”

Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
Andrew Jackson is saying that nullification is harmful to the union because individual states are choosing to go against the government and causing divide. He believes the states should be grateful that they are part of a union and therefore, should not try to challenge it by going against the laws.

What questions do you have about this reading?
I wonder if Andrew Jackson was able to convince people to not support nullification with this proclamation?

# data[].attributes.body
Who is the author?

the author of the source is Daniel Webster

What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)

Sovereignty

Coin money

Power to interfere

Popular government erected by the people

laws of the union

What is one quote that reflects the reading?

?Where do they find the power to interfere with the laws of the union?

What is their position on nullification?

I believe that they are against the nullification as they are arguing that the state has no right to go against the laws of the government which the people elected into power.

What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)

The author thinks that the states have no right to be able to state their position on the matter and take all of the laws placed on them since it was their vote that erected them to power. He also states that it is the opinion which the honorable gentleman maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on which it stands.

Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.

The author states his position clearly by saying that the states have no right to interfere with the union and that it is a violation of the nations foundations. This shows that the author does not like the nullification act and believes that it’s an insane idea that the states are even allowed to nullify the laws that are placed on the country.

What questions do you have about this reading?

who is the author, what is his background? is he from the north or the south?

# data[].attributes.body
Who is the author?
Daniel Webster.

What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
supreme law
State sovereignty
Power to interfere

laws of the Union
amended and modified
Quote
"I must now beg to ask, Sir, Whence is this supposed right of the States derived? Where do they find the
power to interfere with the laws of the Union? Sir the opinion which the honorable gentleman
maintains is a notion founded in a total misapprehension, in my judgment, of the origin of this
government, and of the foundation on which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by
the people; those whoa administer it, responsible to the people; and itself capable of being amended
and modified, just as the people may choose it should be."

Their position on nullification.
Webster is against nullification because he believes that the state of south carolina has no right to go against the consitutionn, he specifically says in the last paragraph that no state law should go against the constitution.
Thoughts on the national government?
Webster is most certainly a nationalist due to his high belief in a common america and one strong power in congress.
Summary.
Webster talks about how south carolina reacted in a unconstituitonal manor to the the tariff. He also states his belief that no state law should undermine that of the congress.
Questions?
What state was Webster from?
What was his line of work?
How was he relevant?

# data[].attributes.body
Who is the author?
J. Gregg who is the Chairman of the Senate and House of Representatives of South Carolina.
What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position? (list 5)
- commonwealth
- undisguised
- enumerated powers
-  privilege
- surest pledge
What is one quote that reflects the reading?

What is their position on nullification?

What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)

Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
What questions do you have about this reading?

# data[].attributes.body
Who is the author?
The author of the excerpt is Andrew Jackson.
What are some words or phrases that give you a clue to their position?
- Their object is disunion
- forcible opposition
- power to interfere
- The laws of the United States must be executed
- treason
What is one quote that reflects the reading?
"The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. "
What is their position on nullification?
Andrew Jackson was very much against the nullification and saw it as a threat to the union.  In his excerpt he says that anyone who attempts to cause disunion will be punished because it is  considered treason.
What does this person think about the power of the national government? (Provide at least one detail.)
He heavily supported to government and strongly believed in the power and the unity of the union. He believes that it is put into place to help people. He speaks highly of the people in favor of the union saying "thousand other names which adorn the pages of your Revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union to support which so many of them fought and bled and died"
Briefly summarize the reading in 2 sentences.
This excerpt is from part of Andrew Jacksons proclamation. In it he talks about the importance of the government and the union and if people try to dismember it how they will be severely punished.
What questions do you have about this reading?
How did people react to this piece of writing?
Who saw/heard it?
Who was it written for?