how can I respond to this discussion?
The nullification crisis was one of the most intense events in the division between the North and South and illustrates how far and separated the two regions were from each other in terms of policy, institutions, and economy. The nullification crisis differs from the Missouri Compromise in terms of intensity and the subject of debate. President Andrew Jackson persuaded congress to pass the Force Act, which meant he was ready to go to the lengths of war in order to force South Carolina into paying the tariff. Although both the nullification crisis and Missouri Compromise both had something to do with the question of slavery, the Missouri Compromise was more directly related to the issue. The nullification crisis had more to do with states rights and the idea of the United States still being a coalition of small nations. The political idea that John C. Calhoun used in his defense of nullifying the tariff of 1828, According to page 392 in the textbook, “gave the South a well-developed political philosophy to which it would turn when sectional conflict became more intense.” The nullification crisis had, in my opinion, more directly lead to the divide between the North and South. On page 391 in the textbook it says that the south “[insisted] that the tariff on imported manufactured goods raised the prices paid by southern consumers to benefit the North.” I think that line is very important. The Nullification Crisis more vividly illustrated the divide between north and south because it showed the contempt and disdain shown by southerners toward the north because of their differing economies. The south though that the tariff was passed in order to help the north and its manufacturing based economy.