of 1827 in further resolutions, temperately phrased, against Federal efforts to make internal improvements within the State.
Manifestly, nothing came of this interposition by South Carolina and Virginia. The issue of internal improvements, in their view, was not of sufficient magnitude to warrant further, more drastic action. Besides, a far more significant problem, still no bigger than a man's hand, could be seen in the distance: The same resolutions that protested the policy of internal improvements also protested the tariff act of 1824.
Kentucky vs. the Court
BEFORE a review is attempted, however, of the dramatic events that stemmed from the tariff laws of this period, attention may be usefully directed to the determined, violent--and largely successful--interposition of Kentucky and Georgia against Federal decrees that seemed to them gross encroachments upon their reserved powers. Let us consider the case of Kentucky first.
In the period immediately following the Revolutionary War, Virginia, in common with other States, made widespread grants of land to the soldiers, officers, sailors, and marines who had fought in the war. In other cases, speculators and land companies acquired enormous tracts of property, parts of which they then sold or leased--or abandoned. Many of these grants conveyed land by exceedingly vague metes and bounds; conflicts of title were the rule, not the exception.
Thus, when the time came in 1789 for Kentucky to be split off from Virginia, some provision necessarily had to be made covering the rights and interests of persons who held land in the Kentucky territory under grant from Virginia. By an act of the Virginia General Assembly on December 18, 1789, it was provided that as