Final answer:
The South Carolina v. Congress tariff debate was significant as it dealt with the nullification doctrine, state versus federal authority, and led to the Compromise Tariff of 1833 and Force Act, with lasting implications for the nation's constitutional framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
The significance of the South Carolina v. Congress debate over the Tariff is anchored in the principle of nullification and the balance of federal versus state power. Vice President John C. Calhoun drafted the South Carolina Exposition and Protest, arguing the tariff was unconstitutional since it favored certain regions over others and failed to provide uniform duties. His doctrine suggested that states had the right to nullify federal laws they found unconstitutional, which led to the Nullification Crisis as South Carolina attempted to render the tariffs void within its borders.
President Andrew Jackson, adamant about preserving the Union, opposed nullification and took measures to enforce federal law. This struggle culminated in the Compromise Tariff of 1833, orchestrated by Henry Clay, which gradually reduced tariffs, and the Force Act, giving the president power to use military force to collect tariff duties. As a result, South Carolina rescinded its nullification of the tariffs but symbolically nullified the Force Act, with both sides claiming victory but leaving future constitutional controversies unresolved.