Final answer:
South Carolina's attempt to use nullification was met with a strong response by the federal government, demonstrating that states could not effectively challenge federal authority. The Nullification Crisis of the early 1830s, although resolved through the Compromise Tariff of 1833, left underlying constitutional questions unanswered. Option b) is correct.
Step-by-step explanation:
South Carolina's failure to use nullification to achieve its objectives demonstrated b) The inability of states to challenge federal authority. During the Nullification Crisis, South Carolina sought to nullify federal tariffs that they found unfavorable, which led to a confrontation with President Andrew Jackson's administration. President Jackson responded by affirming federal authority, sending naval forces to Charleston to collect tariffs, and issuing a proclamation against South Carolina's actions.
The crisis underscored the tension between states' rights and federal authority, ending with the Compromise Tariff of 1833 that effectively lowered the tariffs but did not concede to the principle of nullification. The federal government's enforcement actions and the eventual compromise indicated that while there was room for negotiation, nullification as a means to resist federal law was not effective.
Despite South Carolina's assertiveness, other Southern states did not follow its lead, and the state ultimately conceded to a compromise. The Force Bill of 1833 further solidified federal authority by authorizing the use of military force to ensure compliance with federal laws. The situation was resolved without military conflict, but it left the underlying constitutional questions about state versus federal powers unresolved, as both sides claimed victory from the outcome.