Thanks very much! I know nothing about tariffs other than it’s a tax. Thanks for pointing out tariffs were one-way so I can stop kicking that can down the road.
I looked up the Tax of Abomination of 1828 - a tariff on imported British goods to protect Northern industrialism, which negatively impacted cotton exports from the South to England.
How was Northern protectionism - of their intent on becoming the industrial capital and policy capital (coming on the heels of wholesale exportation of northern slaves to the South to make way for boatloads of indentured servants) - not just a continuation of putting the South to heel?
The North was basically saying to the South, here, take our slaves off our hands, stay agricultural, but you only sell to the North, and only buy from the North, who will dictate prices, and, by the way, we’ll be the population and policy center for the States because we’ll be encouraging massive immigration so we have more people in our factory cities? Oh, and one more thing, after we export all our slaves to you and dance all the way to the bank with the proceeds of sales, then we’ll declare war on you for having those exact same slaves?
I’m not seeing how the impact on the South was a “neo”-confederate misinterpretation? What did I miss?
Tariff of Abominations was on all imported goods of specific categories, not just on British goods. This law was passed as a protective tariff to protect American manufacturers and workers from cheaper foreign competition. (Oddly enough, a great many people who are still upset about the T of A are all in favor of protective tariffs today to protect American manufacturers and workers from cheaper foreign (Chinese) competition.
Very interestingly, it passed only because southern interests, led by Calhoun, inserted poison pill provisions to cause New England congressmen to vote against it. Much to the southerners' surprise, the bill passed anyway.
http://www.mises.org/etexts/taussig.pdf page 55. This is, BTW, a book that tells you more about tariffs than you will ever want to know. Without having some kind of political agenda to support.
Protective tariffs were not a north vs. south issue, as such, in 1828, because there was no north vs. south split.
There was instead a north vs. south vs. west split. The south generally allied with the west to win elections and control the government. But the west liked protective tariffs, so it allied with the north to pass them. The biggest proponent of such tariffs was not a New Englander, but Henry Clay, a Kentucky slave and plantation owner.
The whole protective tariff issue started during and after the War of 1812, when the country was greatly embarassed in military preparations by inadequate industry. So the idea was to protect "infant industries" so they'd grow to where they'd be viable on their own and available when the next war came around.
Of course, it soon turned into pork.
coming on the heels of wholesale exportation of northern slaves to the South to make way for boatloads of indentured servants
You are quite correct about one of the dirty little secrets of northern ending of slavery. It freed remarkably few slaves, as most were sold south before the laws came into effect.
But you are quite mistaken about indentured servants. The institution was in serious decline in the 19th century