Tariff of Abominations

Tariffs are a controversial issue in 2025. The President has threatened to increase tariffs to encourage Mexico and Canada to control the flow of illegal aliens and fentanyl. He also wants to increase tariffs to incentivize domestic manufacturing, equalize tariffs with foreign nations, and address the trade deficit.

Tariff controversies are not new. The ‘Tariff of Abominations’ was one of the most controversial in our history.

In the 1800s, import tariffs were the primary source of government revenue. In 1828, Congress, by a narrow margin, voted to increase tariffs significantly. The justification was to protect American industry from cheaper foreign competition.

The tariff rates were 40% and above – much higher than anything currently under discussion.

Southern States opposed the tariff for several reasons. The South’s economy was primarily agricultural, led by cotton at the time. Most manufacturing occurred in the North. The South felt the tariff hurt them economically by forcing them to pay higher prices for domestic manufactured goods. In addition, they were concerned our largest trading partner, Great Britain, would retaliate by reducing purchases of Southern cotton.

Angry Southerners, led by South Carolina, labeled it the ‘Tariff of Abominations.’

South Carolina Exposition and Protest

John C. Calhoun of South Carolina was Vice President under John Quincy Adams when Congress passed the bill. He was also VP under Adam’s successor, Andrew Jackson, and became the only man to serve as VP under two different presidents. In 1828, Mr. Calhoun wrote a document called the ‘South Carolina Exposition and Protest.’

He argued that the tariff was unconstitutional because Congress could only tax for revenue, not other purposes such as protectionism. First, he explained that the tariffs did not serve the country as a whole but only a portion thereof:

“…its burdens are exclusively on one side and its benefits on the other. It imposes on the agricultural interest of the South…while its benefits are showered exclusively on the manufacturing States of the North.”

Calhoun explained his position on the power of taxation:

“The Constitution grants to Congress the power of imposing a duty on imports for revenue, which power is abused by being converted into an instrument of rearing up the industry of one section of the country on the ruins of another. The violation, then, consists in using a power, granted for one object, to advance another…”

He quotes from the Constitution:

“Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States…These clauses, taken together, distinctly show that the power was intended to provide the means of defraying the expenses of the Government—and not to build up one interest at the expense of another.”

He then argues that in a republic of States, an individual state can ‘nullify’ Federal laws that violate the Constitution.”

“…[the state] has the right to declare an act null and void, so far as its own citizens are concerned—and to refuse to enforce it within its own limits.”

Calhoun concludes his argument:

“…the Tariff Act of 1828… is not an act for revenue—but an act for protection; and as such, it is an abuse of the power delegated to Congress—and therefore unconstitutional…it is the duty of this State to interpose her authority to protect her citizens from its oppressive operation.”

He recognizes the threat to the Union:

“…the only way to preserve the Union is to preserve the equality and sovereignty of the States which compose it.”

Nullification Crises

South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in 1832. This act declared the tariffs unconstitutional and null and void in South Carolina. The act also stated that South Carolina would secede from the Union if military force were used against it to enforce the tariff.

south carolina ordinance of nullification.jpg

President Jackson forcefully responded:

“I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”

He says South Carolina wants to destroy the Union:

“Whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of conduct in direct violation of their duty as citizens of the United States…and having for its object the destruction of the Union.”

President Jackson will enforce the law by any means necessary, declaring: “Disunion by armed force is treason.”

Calhoun resigned as Jackson’s VP shortly after President Jackson’s response.

South Carolina Asserts the Right to Secede

The South Carolina legislature responded to President Jackson in December 1833.

“…each state of the Union has the right, whenever it may deem such a course necessary for the preservation of its liberties or vital interests, to secede peaceably from the Union, and that there is no constitutional power in the general government, much less in the executive department, of that government, to retain by force such state in the Union.”

Force act

In early 1833, Congress passed the ‘Force Act,’ which authorized the President to use the military to enforce tariff collection.

The Compromise

With the nation teetering on the brink of civil war, Senator Henry Clay from Kentucky and Senator John C. Calhoun from South Carolina hurriedly brokered a compromise measure to diffuse the situation. Congress designed the new tariff — the Compromise Tariff of 1833 — to gradually reduce protectionist duties over 10 years.

Satisfied with the compromise, South Carolina voted to withdraw its Ordinance of Nullification over tariffs but did not repudiate the concept of nullification.

Aftermath

The Nullification Crisis was important because a dispute between the Federal Government and a state government almost led to Civil War. Although the Tariff of 1833 helped ease tensions, it did not resolve the regional differences between the North and the South, nor did it resolve the issue of State’s rights.

Twenty-seven years later, perhaps not coincidentally, South Carolina was the first State to secede from the Union in the leadup to the Civil War.

Today

Today’s opposition to raising tariffs is based on foreign policy and economic concerns, not sectional ones. The gulf between ‘red’ and ‘blue’ states may be wide, but not due to tariffs.