THE TARIFF QUESTION.
340. The Tariff of 1828.—Thus far Adams’s conduct had been above reproach, however much he had failed in carrying out his various policies. It is less easy to defend his course in not vetoing the tariff bill of 1828—known in history as the “Tariff of Abominations.” It is natural that men who have once tasted the bounty of government should desire more of it; hence we are not surprised at finding the manufacturers of the country soon demanding more protection. The most clamorous advocates of higher duties were the growers and manufacturers of wool, since English woolens were again being sold in American markets. A bill for the aid of the manufacturers of woolens was defeated in 1827 only by the vote of Vice President Calhoun, who again showed the growth of his anti-protection views. Then followed a convention of protectionists at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which advocated very high duties (1827). The adherents of Jackson, whose candidacy was kept shrewdly before the public throughout Adams’s term, now conceived a very subtle plan for helping their hero and still further discrediting Adams. They proposed to levy exorbitant duties on raw products,—a policy which would secure the favor of the Western farmers and sheep-raisers, but would outrage the New England manufacturers. The latter, it was thought, would then join the Southerners in defeating the bill and would owe no gratitude to Adams. Jackson would in consequence keep his Southern votes, yet would also seem friendly to the West and to the protectionists generally. The schemes of Jackson’s partisans to increase his chances of election were unnecessary, since he was already a sufficiently popular candidate. The bill actually passed laid high duties which protected both growers of raw products[[149]] and manufacturers. Although the gains of the manufacturers were thus neutralized, they thought it best to take their chances under the increased duties. Accordingly the congressmen who represented them voted for the bill, and Adams signed it May 24, 1828. The South was greatly outraged in consequence, although some of her own leaders had with sinister purpose forced the rates up.
341. South Carolina’s Discontent.—South Carolina was especially excited. Her feelings and ideas were well expressed in a document—the celebrated “Exposition and Protest”—drawn up by Calhoun. In this manifesto the Vice President, following the lead of his predecessor Jefferson, pushed the doctrine of state protest, as outlined in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, to the extreme of a separate state veto and nullification of an obnoxious law (§ [279]). He went farther than Jefferson, however, his views being derived partly from his own philosophical speculations, partly from the teachings of John Randolph and of other Southern leaders. The consequences of the adoption of his theory were plainly very dangerous, but matters stood still for a while, since all parties were waiting to see what stand the new administration to be inaugurated in 1829 would take with regard to the tariff.
342. Election of 1828.—As might have been foreseen, Adams was defeated in the election of 1828. He had come nearer success than was expected; for the votes of New York and Pennsylvania would have turned the scale. But his opponents, with their scandalous stories, their unnecessary congressional investigations, their general unscrupulousness, had been too much for him. Clay had not been efficient in directing the campaign; while Jackson had secured in his favor what he had not had in the campaign of 1824,—the support of the skillful group of New York politicians known as the “Albany Regency,” at the head of which was the astute Martin Van Buren. Besides, Jackson’s views on disputed questions were a mystery, so that he could be claimed by any faction, while his sympathies and qualities were plainly democratic and thus acceptable to the masses. On the other hand, Adams’s views were so pronounced that he was sure to alienate votes, and his sympathies and qualities were plainly aristocratic.[[150]] Finally, Jackson was a typical Westerner, and the West then held the balance of power. It is no wonder, therefore, that in the popular vote he distanced his rival.
References.—General Works: W. Macdonald, Select Documents of United States History, 1776–1781; J. Schouler, History of the United States (6 vols.); J. Winsor, The Narrative and Critical History of America (8 vols.); G. Tucker, The History of the United States (4 vols., Winsor and Tucker extend to 1840); H. Von Holst, The Constitutional History of the United States (8 vols.); Bryant and Gay, A Popular History of the United States (4 vols.); T. H. Benton, Thirty Years’ View (2 vols.); E. Ingle, Southern Side Lights; Woodrow Wilson, Division and Reunion (“Epochs of American History”).
Special Works: same as for Chapter XVII.
| [148] | John Randolph, probably the most venomously personal debater Congress has ever had among its members, gave immortality to the charge against Adams and Clay by likening the pair to two unsavory characters in Fielding’s novel, Tom Jones. He referred to the “coalition of Blifil and Black George, a combination, unheard of until now, of the Puritan and the blackleg.” The taunt against Clay expressed in the last word was based upon that statesman’s rather loose habits, which were only too characteristic of the public men of the period. The fact that Randolph and Clay fought a bloodless duel over this matter, reminds us of the extent to which manners have changed within three quarters of a century. |
| [149] | For example, the duty on hemp was raised from $35 to $60 per ton. |