Changes
/* Nullification Crisis: 1833 */
Calhoun's followers believed republican values were safe only at the state level, but he ignored the tyranny of the majority at the state level. He did not champion the rights of the individual. [[Daniel Webster]] argued in contrast that republican values were secure only at the national level.<ref>David F. Ericson, "The Nullification Crisis, American Republicanism, and the Force Bill Debate." ''Journal of Southern History'' 1995 61(2): 249-270. [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2211577 in Jstor]</ref>
Most historians argue that nullification (and, in 1860, secession) were reactionary efforts to turn back the [[abolitionist]] assault on slavery. Wood (2003) rejects the assumption that Calhoun and his followers were un-American because they resorted to nullification. Woods argues that the longstanding conservative Southern interpretation of [[Republicanism, U.S.|republican]] ideology and its persistence in the South and says the "Nullifiers" viewed their attempts at nullification and secession as well within the framers' views of republicanism. The Constitution produced by the federal convention of 1787 and the structure of the new government that was formed after the Bill of Rights in 1791 further illuminate the significance of the connection between states' rights, nullification, and republicanism.<ref>W. Kirk Wood, "In Defense of the Republic: John C. Calhoun and State Interposition in South Carolina, 1776-1833." ''Southern Studies'' 2003 10(1-2): 9-48. Issn: 0735-8342</ref>
==Democratic politics==
To restore his national stature, Calhoun cooperated with Jackson's success, [[Martin Van Buren]], who became president in 1837. Democrats were very hostile to national banks, and the country's bankers had joined the opposition [[Whig Party]]. The Democratic replacement was the "Independent Treasury" system, which Calhoun supported and which went into effect. Calhoun, like Jackson and Van Buren, raged against finance capitalism, which he saw as the common enemy of the Northern laborer, the Southern planter, and the small farmer everywhere. His goal, therefore, was to unite these groups in the Democratic Party, and to dedicate that party to states' rights and agricultural interests as barriers against encroachment by government and big business.
