Final answer:
Bringing the case before the U.S. Supreme Court would have provided South Carolina with a constitutional method to oppose federal tariffs, serving as an alternative to secession. During the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina challenged federal tariffs, which led to the Compromise Tariff of 1833 and the Force Bill as solutions to avoid dissolving the Union. So the correct option is D.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Nullification Crisis and Judicial Authority
If the people of South Carolina had brought their case before the U.S. Supreme Court, it would have been an alternative to withdrawing from the Federal Union. This judicial approach would have served as a constitutional means of addressing their grievances over federal tariffs, contrasting with more drastic actions such as halting federal tax payments, inaction, militaristic invasion, or secession. The historical context involves the tensions between South Carolina's nullification efforts, President Andrew Jackson's adamant stance to preserve the Union, and the eventual Compromise Tariff of 1833, which alongside the Force Bill, aimed to resolve the dispute peacefully and maintain the federal government's authority.
During this period, South Carolina, under the influence of Vice President John C. Calhoun, contested the federal tariffs of 1828 and 1832, claiming they were disproportionately harmful to the Southern economy and thus unconstitutional. Calhoun advocated for the doctrine that states could nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional, a theory that challenged the principle of federal supremacy. The nullification principle could have potentially led to secession, threatening the stability of the Union. However, Henry Clay's compromise and Jackson's Force Bill, which allowed for the use of federal troops if necessary, quelled the immediate crisis. Despite the temporary resolution, unresolved constitutional questions lingered, contributing to the volatile environment that eventually escalated into the Civil War.