Why did Southerners resist the increased tariff in 1828, arguing it would be nullified?
Southerners resisted the increased tariff in 1828 because they argued that it would be nullified due to the fact that it was unconstitutional. The tariff was seen as a way for the North to benefit economically at the expense of the South, as the South was largely agrarian and relied on imports from Europe for manufactured goods. The tariff would have increased the cost of these imports, making them more expensive for Southerners.
The resistance from the Southerners towards the increased tariff in 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, stemmed from a combination of economic and political factors. To understand why they resisted and argued for nullification, let's break it down step by step:
1. Understanding the tariff: Start by researching and understanding what the tariff was and its implications. The Tariff of Abominations was passed by Congress in 1828, raising the import duties on various goods, including textiles, iron, and agricultural products. It aimed to protect Northern industries from foreign competition.
2. Economic interests: Consider the economic interests of the Southern states. Unlike the industrialized North, the South primarily relied on agriculture and traded extensively with other countries. The increased tariff meant higher prices for imported goods, which would negatively impact the Southern economy, especially the large plantation owners who relied on foreign markets for their products.
3. Sectional interests: Recognize the political dynamics between the North and South during this time. The tariff issue became intertwined with broader sectional interests, where the Northern states, with their growing industrial base, supported protective tariffs to shield their industries from foreign competition. In contrast, the Southern states saw the tariff as favoring Northern interests while imposing economic hardship on them.
4. Nullification argument: Dive into the concept of nullification. Nullification was the idea that states had the right to declare federal laws unconstitutional and therefore null and void within their borders. Southern states, particularly South Carolina, led by figures like John C. Calhoun, argued that the increased tariff was unconstitutional and unfairly burdened them, and therefore they had the right to nullify it within their jurisdiction.
5. States' rights: Consider the broader issue of states' rights. The nullification argument was rooted in the belief that the federal government should have limited powers, with states retaining sovereignty and the ability to protect their citizens' interests. Southerners viewed nullification as a way to protect their own economic and political autonomy from what they saw as unfair federal legislation.
6. Crisis and resolution: Research the events following the passing of the Tariff of Abominations to understand how the nullification crisis unfolded. South Carolina threatened to nullify the tariff, leading to a tense standoff with the federal government. The crisis was eventually diffused through political negotiations, and a compromise tariff was passed in 1833 to gradually reduce the tariff rates, satisfying the Southern demands to some extent.
By examining the economic interests of the South, the sectional tensions between the North and South, the concept of nullification, and the broader concept of states' rights, you can understand why the Southerners resisted the increased tariff in 1828 and argued for nullification.
The increased tariff in 1828, also known as the Tariff of Abominations, was met with resistance from Southerners for several reasons. Here is a step-by-step breakdown of their opposition:
1. Economic Disadvantages: Southern states, particularly those reliant on agriculture, felt disproportionately burdened by the increased tariff. The tariff primarily targeted imported manufactured goods which were necessary for the industrialized Northern states. However, the South relied heavily on imported manufactured goods and exported agricultural products, making them bear the brunt of the tariff's impact.
2. Nullification Theory: South Carolina, in particular, took a stand against the tariff by invoking the doctrine of nullification. This theory, popularized by John C. Calhoun, argued that since the federal government was a creation of the states, the states had the right to declare a federal law null and void if they believed it violated the Constitution.
3. States' Rights: Southerners, influenced by the states' rights philosophy, believed that the federal government was overstepping its authority with the tariff. They argued that the Constitution's purpose was to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare of the entire nation, not to favor one region's economic interests over another.
4. Sectional Tensions: The resistance to the tariff highlighted the growing sectional tensions between the North and the South. The Southern states believed that the tariff was an example of the North's dominance and economic exploitation of the South, thereby deepening their sense of grievance and furthering their desire to protect their own economic interests.
5. Nullification Crisis: South Carolina escalated its opposition by passing the Nullification Ordinance in 1832, declaring the tariff null and void within the state's borders. This led to a constitutional crisis and a threat of secession, ultimately resolved through the Compromise Tariff of 1833.
In summary, Southerners opposed the increased tariff in 1828 due to economic disadvantages, the invocation of nullification theory, their commitment to states' rights, the exacerbation of sectional tensions, and their belief in protecting their own economic interests.