A time of immense change and political involvement, the antebellum years of the early 1800s is one of the most intriguing time periods of America’s history. Harry L. Watson’s incredible book, Liberty and Power: The Politics of Jacksonian America, details the ups and downs of politics during Jacksonian America. Watson does a great job on explaining how the eighteenth century concept of republicanism transformed nineteenth century America in the form of a ‘market revolution.’ Social, political and economic changes were the center of life during Jacksonian America. Watson’s synthesis is a must-read for anyone interested in Jacksonian politics.
In 1828 and 1832, Andrew Jackson passed tariffs raising the cost to import goods to America. This was mainly to protect the fast-growing Northern economy. Many Southern states did not like that British goods were now more expensive because many relied on foreign trade in their livelihoods of farmers. In 1832 South Carolina published “South Carolina Exposition and Protest”. This was a document written by the Vice President.
In 1816, the first tariff was passed in an attempt to protect American industry against foreign competition. However, it was evidently clear that this tariff would only benefit the North and somewhat drain the South economically. Because Northern manufacturers were the ones who were selling products, the South would be paying extra money for items that they could not produce themselves or live without. Gradually over the next few years Southern resentment towards the tariff continued to grow and grow. Eventually, tensions reached an all time peak when the “Tariff of Abominations” was passed, which almost caused South Carolina to secede from the Union.
During that time, the quality of the British product was better than America’s. Therefore, the Northern cotton industry struggled. At the same time, the Southern enjoyed almost complete free trade with the British and other European countries, because there was barely tariff on imports. For this reason, there was a conflict of interests between the north and the south over a high protective tariff of 1828 removal of agricultural and marine products, industrial products including non-tariff barriers. Even though this policy contributed to the Southern agriculture economy, it put an enormous amount of scale pressure on existent infrastructures in the north area.
The southerners called it the Tariff of Abominations. According to the vote on the Tariff of 1816 in the House of Representative, there were more South representatives who voted against tariff than any other section did.(Document 7) The graph was intended to show people that the southerners did not like the tariff because South sold cotton and other raw materials without tariff, but they needed to buy products with tariff. Sectionalism became of greater importance in the economics and politics because as the result of the dissatisfaction of the south and unequally treatment by the tariff, sectionalism would eventually lead to the civil
When Congress issued tariffs on foreign goods, Southerners believed that Congress favored the North since this tariff would benefit them. John Randolph spoke of this issue, arguing that Congress was being unfair since the South was not benefiting from the actions of Congress at all while the North benefited (Doc A). As for political conflict, there was a clear case of factionalism and political rivalry in 1824 (Doc I). With these conflicts amongst the varying factions and political parties, the political tension and sectionalism within America continued to grow. Accusations and anger from the South further separated them from the North, which did not contribute “good feelings” to the country at
William W. Freehling's seminal work, "The Road to Disunion: Secessionists at Bay, 1776-1854," casts a spotlight on the economic disparities and sectional tensions that laid the foundation for the complex challenges faced by the nation. The South, deeply entrenched in agrarian traditions and reliant on an economy fueled by slave labor, clashed with the North's burgeoning industrialism, marked by factories, technological advancements, and a growing emphasis on wage labor. As the North embraced industrialization, it sought economic policies favoring protective tariffs to shield its nascent industries from foreign competition. On the other hand, the agrarian South, dependent on exporting cash crops such as cotton, desired free trade policies and low tariffs. These fundamental economic differences fostered a climate of tension and mistrust, setting the stage for political confrontations that would define the antebellum period.
A economic difference was created, the south supplied the materials, and the North manufactured goods. This helped with the mindset that the 2 parts of America were separated. On document 2, There are multiple pie charts. Looking at chart 3 there is a large margin of workers in the North to workers in the south, only 8% of industrial workers were in the South. But looking at chart 6, all of the cotton bales came from the South only.
The North was producing about $1.5 billion in manufactured goods in 1861 compared to the South’s mere $155 million (Document 2). With the North producing about ten times more in value, the South became inferior and struggled for power. Also, all of the products in the North was made without any slaves at all, while the South relied on 3.5 million slaves to produce about five million bales of cotton that year. (Document 2). When the North threatened to take away slavery and the South’s livelihood, the South started to become agitated.
The North had a significantly larger population, caused by both the surge in immigrants at the time, as well as the success of business and factories there, creating more jobs. This difference in population meant that the North did not need slavery, and that it supported government ideas that helped business. According to the Congressional Record, in New England and the Middle States, the majority of House votes were cast for the Tariff of 1816, while the majority of the South’s House votes were cast against the tariff (Document 7). These states were clearly in favor of business, while the South who relies on imports and exports, was wholly against it. Because factory jobs were in the North, railroads and steamboats were in vastly more demand in the North than they were in the South, increasing the speed at which a business could move its product, an essential for
The South consisted of slaves states and the North consisted of free states. The South’s outlook of slavery was that is beneficial for them in order to grow economically. By allowing the slaves to do the labor work on the farms without paying them was part of their plan to make a agriculture living. On the other hand, the North was more about trading and using factories to make goods where in that case they did not need slaves for those jobs. These differences were just too much for the South.
Long before Clay’s speech of 1824, American sectionalism was already a long-standing influence in politics. The table of the Tariff of 1816, a tax designed to favor American-manufactured goods over foreign ones, shows how the majority of Americans were in favor of patriotic policies, with 88 members in the house of reps being “for” the tariff against 54. It is quite evident that the common American favored their own industry opposed to foreign industry, and why wouldn’t they. Internal economy grew but consequentially, foreign trade strained, putting the economic aspect of patriotism in a sort of gray area in terms of how beneficial allowing patriotism to influence policy
The south was harmed by having to pay higher prices on goods the region did not produce. Reducing the exportation of British goods to the U.S. made it difficult for the British to pay for the cotton they
Tariffs came around later in the period, causing many farmers to compete with one another for money. Government passed the tariffs to ensure that industrialists were able to run American
Economics is the science that measures a country’s wealth. And by wealth we mean financial wealth, in another words production and consumption of goods and services wealth. Economists measure the wealth of a country by measuring the GDP (gross domestic product) of this country. higher GDP means higher profit for almost all the businesses that are in that particular economy, and of course lower unemployment rates too. And to keep a country’s GDP high, the government of this country, in our case the United States, needs to help the businesses in it to grow.
