Nullification Crisis P4 2023 by Garrett O'beirne

100162746 — 2023-12-04 17:14:08 UTC

He felt that the states have a right to refuse the law

Right to refuse to follow the law

100154453 — 2023-12-04 17:14:27 UTC

he felt as if the states had the right to refuse a law

2023-12-04 17:14:28 UTC

John C. Calhoun

2023-12-04 17:14:28 UTC

He felt as if the states had a right to declare a federal law null/void if it violated rights.

nullify things they DISLIKE!!! (refuse the law, basically)

2023-12-04 17:14:36 UTC

right to refuse the law

2023-12-04 17:14:48 UTC

the right to refuse a law

2023-12-04 17:15:03 UTC

He felt that all the states had the right to refuse the law.

Right to refuse or follow the law

2023-12-04 17:15:14 UTC

2023-12-04 17:15:47 UTC

to not do what the law states

2023-12-04 17:15:48 UTC

allowed to refuse the law

2023-12-04 17:18:32 UTC

no because that refusing the law is bad

2023-12-04 17:18:37 UTC

I don't think that the states have a say if they can refuse the law because you have to follow the law.

i dont think hes allowed to do this because it is ILLEGAL!!!!!!!

2023-12-04 17:18:52 UTC

i don't think that they can do it because they would be ignoring the law and the fedeeral government

2023-12-04 17:18:57 UTC

2023-12-04 17:19:12 UTC

Federal laws are more important, therefore states are supposed to follow it.

i don't think they can they are supposed to follow the law

2023-12-04 17:19:43 UTC

100154453 — 2023-12-04 17:20:37 UTC

No cause people could go ahead and not follow important laws that actually need to be follow and if people dont follow those important laws then it wouldn't be good

jackson told them that a state cannot nullify any national laws

2023-12-04 17:21:57 UTC

2023-12-04 17:21:58 UTC

He stated that secession would be considered treason, and that a state had no right to nullify any federal law.

because he would basically be losing half of the united states if they left

2023-12-04 17:22:34 UTC

2023-12-04 17:22:49 UTC

He said it would be considered "Treason" if they leave,and they would be killed.

100162746 — 2023-12-04 17:22:52 UTC

He felt that they didn't have the right to declare law

they said it would be TREASON!! and that they would be punished with DEATH!! (secession = treason to these guys)

2023-12-04 17:22:56 UTC

he felt they had no right to nullify the law

2023-12-04 17:23:17 UTC

a state couldn't because it would be treason

2023-12-04 17:23:18 UTC

2023-12-04 17:23:29 UTC

he said they cant nullify

100154453 — 2023-12-04 17:23:40 UTC

They were saying that it would have been trason and if it was it would end up to death

he wold lose some of the united states

2023-12-04 17:23:41 UTC

2023-12-04 17:23:44 UTC

He is the president and can't show sympathy to any state.

he needs to keep states in line as the president of the US

2023-12-04 17:24:10 UTC

he would lose parts of the us

2023-12-04 17:24:16 UTC

jackson because he was correct and stated that they had no right to nullify national laws and south carolina still paid the tariff

2023-12-04 17:24:30 UTC

100162746 — 2023-12-04 17:24:55 UTC

He was defending the tariffs and chatised south carolina

2023-12-04 17:25:20 UTC

because its bad

2023-12-04 17:26:05 UTC

He would rather defend the national government's power and he would lose an entire state if the secession went through.

100154453 — 2023-12-04 17:26:52 UTC

He was defending the Tariffs with the government's power which might lose the entire state

2023-12-04 17:28:07 UTC

I think both sides won in different ways. Nationalists "won" in a way that protected their pride. South carolina won economically.

100162746 — 2023-12-04 17:28:08 UTC

I think the winner is the nationalist because they have more information

100154453 — 2023-12-04 17:28:17 UTC

I think it was jackson side he was able to correct everyting and keep things in good

2023-12-04 17:28:19 UTC

Jackson showed that he didn't have sympathy for any of the states,and that he got what he wanted.

2023-12-04 17:29:02 UTC

northern because they won