Minnesota ICE Shooting

President Donald Trump has often expressed his admiration for our seventh president, Andrew Jackson, especially during his first term. He and his allies have repeatedly compared his own political rise and campaign to “drain the swamp” to Jackson’s own deeply anti-establishment attitude. Trump has also hung a portrait of Jackson in the Oval Office during both of his tenures in the White House.

If indeed Trump finds Jackson’s presidency and his decisive style “inspirational,” then he should look to Old Hickory for guidance on how to deal with the lawless, defiant state of Minnesota and nip that state’s blatant insurrection in the bud.

The American people have witnessed the anarchy on the streets of Minneapolis for weeks now. Radical leftists have swarmed the city, looking to impede and even assault federal law enforcement officers who attempt to carry out their lawful and just duties. Such reckless tactics have already resulted in the death of one agitator, Renee Good, and all the while only serve to protect some of the most vile criminals in our society.

These radicals are being aided and abetted by Minnesota’s Democrat leadership. They have tried to gin up even more resistance by claiming the operation represents tyrannical “state violence.” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey demanded that ICE “get the f– out of Minneapolis. We do not want you here,” and has made it clear that he has no intention of enforcing the law. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz took it a step further, mobilizing the state National Guard after threatening to use it to “protect Minnesotans” from “rogue” ICE agents.

Few presidents have had to deal with a full-blown insurrectionary crisis, but, as it turns out, Jackson faced a similar test during his presidency.

In the early 19th century, tariff policy represented a major issue in U.S. politics. The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to levy national tariffs to generate revenue and regulate commerce. During the antebellum period, tariffs accounted for the vast majority of federal revenue, constituting roughly 90 percent according to some estimates.

The predominantly agricultural southern states relied on imports to get manufactured goods and therefore largely opposed tariff increases, while the more industrial North wanted to protect nascent American industry. Tariffs were subject to fierce debates in Congress, and a new tariff in 1828, passed during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, raised tariff rates to the highest in the nation’s history up to that point. Southerners were outraged and began calling the new tariff the “Tariff of Abominations.”

Southerners opposed to the high tariffs began to argue for nullification theory, which posits that a state has the right to reject, or nullify, a federal law that it considers to be unconstitutional. One of the primary champions of nullification theory was Jackson’s own vice president, John C. Calhoun. Building on arguments made by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, he essentially argued that the Constitution represents a compact between ultimately sovereign states and that the states therefore have ultimate authority on the laws enforced within their borders.

No other southern state opposed the tariffs more than South Carolina. After a new tariff law in 1832 did little to alleviate the situation, South Carolina moved to put nullification theory into practice. A state convention in November 1832 passed the Ordinance of Nullification, which stated that the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 were “null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers or citizens.” Calhoun resigned the vice presidency to support his home state.

South Carolina Gov. Robert Hayne then began organizing an armed militia to resist federal efforts to collect tariff revenue in South Carolina. The South Carolina powder keg was primed and ready to explode.

Jackson, while a proponent of states’ rights, rejected the idea that a state could unilaterally nullify a constitutional law that had been approved by Congress. In December, he issued the Nullification Proclamation, in which he declared:

The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional and too oppressive to be endured but on the strange position that any one state may not only declare an act of Congress void but prohibit its execution; that they may do this consistently with the Constitution; that the true construction of that instrument permits a state to retain its place in the Union and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may choose to consider as constitutional. It is true, they add, that to justify this abrogation of a law it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution; but it is evident that to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws.

And, most ominously, “Disunion by armed force is treason.”

In response to the Nullification Proclamation, South Carolina declared, “that the state will repel force by force, and, relying upon the blessings of God, will maintain its liberty at all hazards.”

This all sounds rather familiar, doesn’t it?

Jackson had also ordered Secretary of War Lewis Cass to begin gathering troops and weapons to force South Carolina’s compliance if the state did not back down. Subsequently, Congress passed the Force Bill in early 1833, which would grant Jackson the authority to use federal troops to enforce the tariff laws.

Ultimately, no other southern states joined South Carolina’s attempt at nullification, and, behind the scenes, Jackson supported Kentucky Sen. Henry Clay’s efforts to reduce the tariff, weakening support for nullification even further. The new Compromise Tariff of 1833 cut rates significantly, and South Carolina ultimately backed down. Jackson had averted the possibility of civil war and reasserted federal authority over its constitutionally endowed powers.

Modern-day Minnesota isn’t that far off from 19th-century South Carolina. The North Star State and other Democrat-controlled states believe that they can nullify federal immigration law with their own “sanctuary” policies. And the state has a leader who has openly threatened to use the state National Guard to resist federal efforts to execute constitutionally valid laws.

There cannot and should not be a compromise effort on immigration in the same vein as the compromise bill on tariffs in 1833. The uncontrolled mass migration into this country is an existential threat and must be treated as such. But the reaction by the would-be insurrectionists in Minnesota must be dealt with as decisively as Jackson dealt with the South Carolinians. The immediate threat of overwhelming federal force and backbone to follow through with that threat if Minnesota does not back down is the only way to end this crisis without a stinging defeat for the president and the country as a whole.

And if, or perhaps rather when, a federal judge steps in to try to stop Trump from doing anything to curb the chaos, he should resurrect Jackson’s famous (though likely apocryphal) reaction to the Supreme Court case Worcester v. Georgia: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

Jackson knew how to deal with the threat of treason. It requires a firm hand and decisive action. Nearly 30 years after the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33, President James Buchanan’s weak leadership allowed the secession movement to grow in strength and helped unleash the deadliest war in American history. Trump needs to make a choice: Will he follow in Jackson’s footsteps and prove that he is truly the man of the hour, or will he allow the chaos to spiral out of control, leaving the country to pay the price?

Hayden Daniel is a staff editor at The Federalist. He previously worked as an editor at The Daily Wire and as deputy editor/opinion editor at The Daily Caller. He received his B.A. in European History from Washington and Lee University with minors in Philosophy and Classics. Follow him on Twitter at @HaydenWDaniel