and Protest denouncing the Tariff of 1828. Calhoun viewed the new tariff as nothing more than a protection of northern industry at the expense of the southern economy. Calhoun was a proponent of states' rights and thus his perspective was in direct opposition of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. He believed that a large centralized authority such as the federal government would undermine the power of the individual states. From this point of view it could be argued that Calhoun's philosophy was more in tune with Jefferson's Democratic-Republican (Anti-Federalist) philosophy rather than Jefferson's political rival Alexander Hamilton (Federalist). Jefferson's political philosophy opposed any increased power by the federal government at the expense of the state governments. Moreover, he believed that high tariffs only benefitted the wealthy merchants and manufactures located in the northern states. On the other hand, Hamilton advocated for a strong centralized government concerning the economic affairs of the new nation. His philosophy required a pro-national banknig system and high protective tariffs, everything Jefferson and later Calhoun were against.

Agree with all of the points in the post above.  In addition, remember that Calhoun, angry about the Tariff of Abominations and what he viewed as a federal government growing in strength and threatening the institution of slavery, was a sectionalist and states' rights advocate. Jefferson adopted some federalist principles as President, imposing an embargo on European powers and limiting merchant trade, and went to war against the Barbary Pirates, not to mention using the federal treasury to purchase the Louisiana Territory.  All of these are actions I believe Calhoun would have opposed.

This is really a hard question to answer unless you give us someone with whom to compare Calhoun.

You could say Calhoun was attuned to Jefferson's ideas in that they were both pretty skeptical about giving power to the national government.  Calhoun was one of the leaders of the nullification movement.  Jefferson was an anti-Federalist who wanted the federal government to have less power relative to the states.  His "Kentucky Resolutions" are often cited as justification for nullification.

On the other hand, most scholars believe Jefferson did not believe in the idea of nullification or of states seceding from the Union.

I respectfully disagree with the above post, as it is just a matter of historical opinion.  In 1799, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were responsible for the passage of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which proclaimed the right of the states to reject any federal law they felt was unconstitutional.  This is essentially nullification in its earliest form, but for a different reason.  This was a reaction to Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts, which were clearly unconstitutional.  The Supreme Court was made up of Federalists at the time, so they had not yet taken action to rule laws unconstitutional yet, and would not do so until 1803 and the Marbury v. Madison case. 

So I think Jefferson would have sided with Calhoun on the issue of nullification.  While he did develop more federalist leanings when he became President, I think at his core he was still a champion of the states.

I will assume that you are talking about the conflict between these two men over the issue of nullification, since that is the main time their two views could be contrasted.

In my opinion, Jefferson would have sided with Jackson in this conflict.  While Jefferson was an anti-federalist, he was also a nationalist of sorts -- e put the good of the country before political principles.

For example, you can see this in his actions on the Louisiana Purchase.  He was not convinced that it was constitutional, but he thought it was good for the country, so he did it.

I think you can see this in his imposition of the embargo as well -- that was similar to the tariff in that it hurt parts of the country, but Jefferson thought it was best for the country so he did it.

Again, this question really needs a "than."  Are you asking if he is more attuned to Jefferson's ideas than to Hamilton's, for example.  Or are you asking if he is more attuned to Jefferson's ideas than someone else is?

Jackson was definitely more attuned to the Jeffersonian, democratic ideas than he was to the ideas of Hamilton and the Federalists.  Jackson believed strongly in preserving the interests of the common people in opposition to those of the elites.  This can be most clearly seen in his actions that killed the Bank of the United States.  The idea of such a bank could be traced back to Hamilton and it was completely antithetical to Jackson's ideals.  The one area where Jackson might have differed from Jefferson is in the fact that Jackson thought the president should wield a lot of power -- using the veto so much, for example.