The Middle Period, 1817-1858

t of the Struggle for the Repeal of the Tariff of 1828-Jackson on the Tariff of 1828, in his First Annual Message-George McDuffie as South Carolina's Political Economist-Dr. Thomas Coo

uthern Disappointment-"The South Carolina Exposition"-Calhoun's Doctrine of "States' rights"-Nullification in Theory-The Nullification and Anti-nullification Parties in South Carolina-First Attempt to try the Validity of the Tariff in the United States Courts-Nullif

on's

cer

te

ovem

ments which had prevailed to that time, and proposed that the general Government should abandon the subject entirely and should distribute the surplus

Mays

d B

o the President for his approval a bill authorizing and requiring the Government to take stock in a

e

he B

ional money for internal improvements. He argued that the subject must be considered upon its own merits, and not brought into connection with the tariff policy. He thus saw the prospect of the expenditure of millions of national money upon internal improvements in order to relieve the protectionists of the embarrassment of a great surplus, and denounced it. He contended that the Government should adopt its policy upon each of these subjects as if the other did

A majority still voted for the bill, but it was a much reduced majority. The vo

avery

volved

n the

he v

voted for it, a majority of those from Pennsylvania and New Jersey voted for it, while a majority of those from New York voted against it, and, lastly, the Representatives from New England were divided. It thus appears rather far fetched to ascribe the attitude of the opponents of the bill, in any section, to the influence of the slavery interest. Those who voted against the bill said they did so because the object for which the appro

h influ

ing the

toward

ements

d to th

priations for internal improvements, which the President usually vetoed, if they were in separate bills, and usually approved, if they were included in the general appropriation bills. It is calculated that while Ad

il

il

gu

es, and at the close of the decade more than two thousand miles. As the railway system spread over the country, through private enterprise, the appropriations of national money for internal improvements became more and more confined to the specific improvements of rivers and harbors. The roads and canals of a national character were being made unnecessary by the extension of the railways. It is undoubtedly, then, far more plausible and natural to attribute the overthrow of the policy of internal improvements by the general Gov

ot be allowed to magnify its powers when forming the Territories into Commonwealths, and they had learned from the tariff struggles that Congress must not be allowed to magnify its powers in regard to the regulation of foreign commerce and the raising

riff of 1828 the influence of the slavery interest is eas

ommen

strug

epeal

f of

onstitutional, except as incidental to raising the revenue or regulating commerce, and impolitic even then, when their operation would be unequal upon the different sections of the country, and felt by any section to be oppressive. The language of the paper was r

d recognize Southern interests in the policy upon this subject which he would recommend. But, while Jackson had not committed himself to protection for the sake of the manufacturers or of the producers of raw materia

on the

28, i

nnual m

n's vi

Tari

eral

e paid, and the sinking fund would not be much longer required, a modification of the existing tariff in the direction of a reduction of duties would soon be the true and necessary policy; and that the principle to be followed in making such a modification ought to be to reduce the duties upon such articles as might come into competition with home products no further than would leave to the latter a fair chance in such competition; and that from the general principle of a reduction to t

riff reduction. This part of the message was referred to the committee on Manufactures, according to the rule of procedure which had prevailed in the House of

e McD

th Car

cal ec

omas C

ght in the institution, but the Doctor wrote and published much upon economic and political subjects between 1820 and 1830. In fact, he set the direction of thought upon such subjects in South Carolina and throughout a large portion of the South during that period. As has been already mentioned, he was an Englishman by birth. He had spent a part of his earlier life in France, and had imbibed the doctrines of French republicanism. For this reason he was disliked and shunned by conservative men in England to such a degree as to make longer residence in his native country uncomfortable to him. He came to the United States in the last decade of the eighteenth century

r of the Government, it must be incidental to some express provision; and that it could be incidental only to the power for raising the revenue. He, therefore, conten

McDu

ff B

who thought with him, both natural and necessary that the committee of Ways and Means should claim their constitutional prerogative, and make an effort to get the ear of Congress to their representations. Consequently, on February 5th, 1830, Mr. McDuffie reported a t

tariff question. It shows them to have been still moderate tariff men, rather than out and out free-traders. To the unprejudiced mind of the present day it certain

Ta

of

to the House early in April, and taken up for consideration on the 15th. It was nothing more than

uff

ndm

in the form of an amendment to this bill. He offered such an amendment, which provided

ie's d

he pro

xpor

y the

e imp

in the foreign markets for the imports, pay, finally, the duty upon the imports. His course of reasoning in the establishment of this doctrine was as follows: He reduced all trade ultimately to barter between producers, and then declared it to be self-evident that when a producer of exports should be obliged to pa

an one-fifth of the Union, both in territory and population, produced thirty of the fifty-eight millions' worth of annual exports; and finally drew the conclusio

dang

McDu

lusi

ral belief theretofore prevailing, from the doctrine that the consumers of the imports ultimately pay the duties, that the burden of the duties fell nearly equally upon the different sections. So long as this belief was general the sense of oppression in any particular part or section of the country cou

ccept

McDu

e at th

at they consumed only a comparatively small portion of the imports received in exchange for their exports, and sold the rest to the people of the other sections with the duties added on, thus shifting the dut

belief

city o

or manu

embraced and enounced the doctrine held before this by Colonel Hayne upon that subject, which was that slave labor could only be employed suc

Ta

nou

stitu

titutional, but only such a tariff as sacrificed one interest to another, or the interests of one section to those of another. This he claimed the existing ta

ie's t

e to the

Tarif

tariff laws, the threat of nullification. It was ill timed, as threats generally are, and it h

ts principle remained the same. It reduced the duty on no article whate

th o

ction

d. This meant that the protectionists were very willing to free those articles from duty which did not come into competition with home productions, in order to preserve and increase th

on the T

us revenu

m, in th

ember,

in details, and expressed the opinion that no law reducing duties could be made which would be satisfactory to the American people that would not leave a considerabl

ut

point

servative minds the reduction of the duties. But here was a plan, suggested by a Southern President, for relieving the Treasury of any amount of surplus for an indefinite period, without the reduction of a si

d as dire oppression, and that some of them were reviewing the Constitution, and the political principles upon which it was founded, with

outh C

siti

n's do

ates'

dent, presided, in regard to the fundamental principles of the Union, taught Mr. Calhoun several very important points in the evolution of his doctrine of "States' rights." Especially was he warned against the great error, made by Mr. Hayne, of representing the United States Government as one of the parties to the "constitutional pact" and the "States" as the other. Mr. Webster so completely demolished this theory that Mr. Calhoun was preserved from introducing this fallacy or any of its corollaries into his reasoning, if he had ever been inclined to do so. In his "Address on the Relations of the States

, and that through it the "States" created only a governmental agent for their general affairs. The term or phrase United States was only the name of the general governmental agent of the "States." Sovereignty was in the "States" only. Consequently, when the United States assumed power

ific

the

dicial power of the United States. But Calhoun said in reply to this, that the United States courts were a part of the Government, substantially under the control of Congress and the President, through the power of Congress to constitute judgeships at pleasure, and of the President and the Senate to fill them, and that they were interested, therefore, in the usurpations of power by the Government. He further held that these courts could not decide political questions, although these questions might incidenta

lificat

ullifi

tie

Caro

, and others of scarcely less note. In the first half of the year 1831 they still held control of the municipal government of Charleston, and of the legislature of the Commonwealth, although the "States' rights" men had obtained the governorship. Nearly all of the opponents of nullification denounced the tariff laws as unjust and oppressive to the South, but they also denounced the doctrine that the execution of any law of the United States could be constitutionall

nullifiers from securing a sufficient majority in the legislature to order the call of a convention. The nullifiers had committed themselves to the doctrine that the nullifying power was a power of sovereignt

the municip

ton by the

ve great strength to the nullifiers, and in the municipal election of

attemp

lidity

in th

es c

Unless they could say that they had tried this means in vain, they would still have to suffer the imputation of too hasty action, if nothing more. In order to escape this, two Charleston lawyers imported a package of dutiable goods, gave bonds for the payment of the duty, refused payment,

ific

rebe

that the former was a constitutional, as well as a sovereign, method of resistance. He asserted that it was the great conservative principle of the Constitution, and defined it to be that reserved right whereby a "State," in convention assembled, might suspend the operation of a Congressional act upon its citizens which it considered unconstitutional, until conventions in three-fourths of the "States" should pronounce the

sting cant of devotion to the Union, accompanied by a recommendation to do those acts that must necessarily destroy it, is beyond patient endurance from

n's me

ber,

Tarif

ed. He called attention to the prospect of the early extinguishment of the public debt, when the annual instalment to the sinking fund would be no longer needed, and recommended that Congress should at once deal with the question of the reduction of the duties to a point where they would produce no more

ements, or for any other purpose. The plain inference from the message was that by March 4th, 1833, the deb

estion

commi

Tariff

han the majority of his protectionist brethren, and it could be reasonably hoped that he would report a bill from his committee which would be conciliatory in character. The Southerners were not quite willing, however, to rest entirely on his own good will, and raised the contention that the subject of the tariff ought to be referred either to the committee on Ways and Means, or to the committee on Commerce, sinc

from the

s and

ve and one-half per centum ad valorem on all articles; on some, immediately and totally, but

dical reduction of duties, but it was an indiscriminate reduction.

iff Bil

he Com

nufac

the Secretary of the Treasury, of December 7th, 1831, and proposed the repeal of the existing system of minimal valu

ustoms by about five or six millions of dollars, leaving thus still an annu

or, the noted political economist of Oxford University, in support of his position. He could not, however, convince the House, and his bill was finally disposed of in less than a week. Mr. Adams' bill was then taken up. It was understood as proposing a slight reduction all around. It was intended to do so. But M

f the Tar

se of Repr

or intimidated by his threat. It passed the bill on June 28

h, 1832, Mr. Clay introduced the famous resolution for making the tariff upon articles coming into competition with home m

t time the protection of manufactures had been regarded by all persons and parties as a temporary policy and had been justified as such, while this propositi

"Ame

st

tem," as he termed it, which made up the text-book for the later supporters of that system. His idea was simply to collect the duties from those foreign products which come into competition in the home markets with domestic products, and prevent the accumulation of a

e gross amount of at least ten millions of dollars per annum, and now it was called upon to consider the plan for a decrease of revenue by an increase of duties. It is h

s committee on Manufactures. The committee reported a bill based on Mr. Clay's principle. The Constitution does not, however, allow the Senate t

bi

Se

se amendments were all in the direction of Mr. Clay's idea, and were adopted by the Senate. The bill as thus amended passed the Senate on July 9th, the Senators from every Northern Commonwealth voting for it, and those from every Southern Commonwealth,

bi

ly pa

ents, and the measure was sent to a Conference committee. This commi

ould prove to be any relief to the South. Many of the Southerners claimed that it would incr

ties by something like this sum as the necessary result; but instead of this they were now offered, as a final solution of the tariff question, a slight reduction of duties on articles coming into competition with home products, a practical abolition of

estion was whether some legal basis for the resistance could be found, or whether it must take on the form of rebellion. We have already considered Calhoun's doctrine of nullification, and his claim that it was a constitutional remedy; it now remains for us to trace briefly the history of the attempt to apply it. Before, however, we can