THE TARIFF OF 1824 (1820-1824)
As has been shown in the last chapter, the attitude of portions of
the south towards strict construction was not inveterate upon
measures which promised advantages to that section. But the tariff
struggle revealed the spirit which arose when powers were asserted
unfavorable to any section. The failure of the tariff bill of 1820
[Footnote: See above, chap. ix.] was followed by other unsuccessful
attempts to induce a majority of Congress to revive the subject. The
messages of Monroe favored a moderate increase of duties; but it was
not until 1824, after the return of Henry Clay and his triumphant
election to the speakership, that Congress showed a protectionist
majority ably disciplined and led. [Footnote: For previous tariff
history, cf. Babcock, Am. Nationality (Am. Nation, XIII.), chap.
xiv.]
The tariff bill of 1824 was supported, not as a revenue, but as a
protective measure. It proposed an increase of the duty upon iron,
hemp, cotton bagging, woolens, and cottons. Upon woolen goods, the
friends of protection desired to apply the minimum principle which
the tariff of 1816 had provided for cotton goods. But the cheap
woolens were mostly used for the clothing of southern slaves, and
the proposition for an increase of duty met with so strenuous a
resistance that in the outcome the cheap foreign goods bore a lower
rate of duty than did the high-priced products. Although the act
somewhat increased the protection upon woolen fabrics as a whole,
this was more than offset by the increased duty which was levied
upon raw wool in response to the demand of the wool-raising
interests of the country. [Footnote: Taussig, Tariff Hist., 75.]
Another struggle occurred over the protection of hemp. This product
was used both for the manufacture of the ropes essential to New
England shipping and for the cotton bagging used in the south. Thus
the shipping and the slave-holding sections were brought into union
in opposition to the provision. Nevertheless, this important
Kentucky interest received a substantial protection. The attempt to
secure a marked increase of the duty on iron bars resulted in a
compromise proposition which satisfied neither party and had little
effect upon domestic manufacture, while it increased the cost to the
consumer. The Senate amendments reduced the proposed rates on the
most important articles, so that, on the whole, the extreme
protectionists failed to carry their programme, although the bill
increased the duties upon the articles most essential to the
shipping and planting sections sufficiently to leave great
discontent. [Footnote: Stanwood, Amer. Tariff Controversies, I.,
chap. vii.]
In the debates upon this tariff, Henry Clay led the protectionist
forces, basing his arguments upon the general distress of the
country, which he explained by the loss of the foreign market for
agricultural products, and which he would remedy by building up a
home market by means of the support of manufactures--the creation of
an "American system." "We must naturalize the arts in our country,"
said he. Not the least significant portion of his plea for
protection was that in which he called attention to the great
diversity of interests--"agricultural, planting, farming,
commercial, navigating, fishing, manufacturing"--within the United
States. Some of these interests were, as he said, peculiar to
particular sections. "The inquiry should be in reference to the
great interests of every section of the Union (I speak not of minute
subdivisions); what would be done for those interests if that
section stood alone and separated from the residue of the Republic?
If they come into absolute collision with the interests of another
section, a reconciliation, if possible, should be attempted, by
mutual concession, so as to avoid a sacrifice of the prosperity of
either to that of the other." [Footnote: Annals of Cong., 18 Cong.,
1 Sess., II., 1997; cf. Clay's letter to Brooke, August 28, 1823,
Clay, Private Corresp., 81.]
Perhaps the ablest speech on the other side was that of Webster,
[Footnote: Webster, Writings (National ed.), V., 94-149.] who
ridiculed Clay's discovery. "This favorite American policy," said
he, "is what America has never tried, and this odious foreign policy
is what, as we are told, foreign states have never pursued." He
denied the existence of general depression, although he admitted
that profits were lower and prices considerably depressed. Webster's
argument included an analysis of the theory of protection as against
free-trade, in which he made a classical statement of the opposition
to protection. In short, he represented the attitude of the
commercial classes, particularly those of New England, whose
interests were injured by any restraint of the freedom of exchange.
As yet these classes exercised a dominant influence in
Massachusetts.
Senator Hayne, of South Carolina, also argued the case against the
tariff with a grasp and power of presentation that was hardly second
to that of Webster. In particular he protested against compelling
the planting regions to pay the cost of a protective system. Two-
thirds of the whole amount of the domestic exports of the United
States, he argued, were composed of cotton, rice, and tobacco, and
from this trade arose the imports of manufactured goods which paid
the revenues of the United States, and which the protective system
rendered expensive and burdensome to his section. He warned the
manufacturers that the south would repeal the system at the first
opportunity, regardless of interests that might accrue under the
proposed measure. [Footnote: Annals of Cong., 18 Cong., 1 Sess., I.,
618.]
In the speeches of some of the representatives of the south was a
note of revolt not to be found in Webster's argument. For the first
time in the discussion of the tariff, the constitutional objection
was made prominent. It was argued that the power to impose taxes and
duties was given for the purpose of raising revenue, not for the
purpose of protection. If not the letter, at least the spirit, of
the Constitution was violated, so it was charged, by this distortion
of the power of taxation. The proceedings of the constitutional
convention were recited to show that a proposition conferring the
alleged power was voted down. To this, Clay gave the reply that the
clause on which the protectionists relied was the power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations.
Even the south, however, laid less stress upon the constitutional
argument than upon the injustice to the section. McDuffie, for
example, replying to Clay, [Footnote: Ibid., II., 2400 et seq.]
argued that no one of the great sections of the country, if it were
a separate nation, could advantageously apply the system of
protection. He warned the western states that the system would make
them tributary to the Atlantic states, [Footnote: Ibid., II., 2423.]
and that they had more to lose by alienating the friendship of the
south for a system of internal improvements which should facilitate
the sale of their meat products to the south than by a union with
the manufacturing interests. With respect to the south itself, he
declared that cotton, which alone constituted one-third of the whole
export of the Union, was in danger of losing the market of England
if we ceased to take the manufactures of that country. Protesting
that the protective system would strike at the root of their
prosperity, by enhancing the cost of the clothing of their slaves
and the bagging used to cover their cotton-bales, while at the same
time it put to hazard the sale of their great staple in the English
market, he yet declared that, if the bill should pass, "even with a
majority of a single vote, I shall, as bound by my allegiance,
submit to it as one of the laws of my country."
But if this South Carolina leader represented the attitude of his
state in showing moderation at this time, [Footnote: See Ames, State
Docs, on Federal Relations, No. 4, p. 6.] not so did the free-lance
John Randolph, of Virginia. "I do not stop here, sir," said he, "to
argue about the constitutionality of this bill; I consider the
Constitution a dead letter; I consider it to consist, at this time,
of the power of the General Government and the power of the States--
that is the Constitution." "I have no faith in parchment, sir; ... I
have faith in the power of the commonwealth of which I am an
unworthy son." "If, under a power to regulate trade, you prevent
exportation; if, with the most approved spring lancets, you draw the
last drop of blood from our veins; if, secundum artem, you draw the
last shilling from our pockets, what are the checks of the
Constitution to us? A fig for the Constitution! When the scorpion's
sting is probing to the quick, shall we stop to chop logic? ...
There is no magic in this word union." While he threatened forcible
resistance, he rejoiced in the combination of the shipping and
commercial classes of New England with the south in opposition to
the measure. "The merchants and manufacturers of Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, the province of Maine and Sagadahock," said he, "repel
this bill, whilst men in hunting-shirts, with deer-skin leggings and
moccasins on their feet, want protection for manufactures."
The bill passed the House of Representatives on April 16, 1824, by
the close vote of 107 to 102, and subsequently passed the Senate by
a small majority:
New England Middle Region South
M N V M R C T N N P D T M V N S G T
e H t a I o o Y J a e o d a C C a o
s n t l t t
s n a a a
l l l
Ayes . . .1 1 5 1 2 5 15 26 6 24 1 57 3 1 0 0 0 4
Nays . . .6 5 0 11 0 1 23 8 0 1 0 9 6 21 13 9 7 56
Northwest and Kentucky Southwest
O I I M K T T A M L T
h n l o y o e l i a o
i d t n a s t Total
o a n s a
l l
Ayes . . .14 2 1 1 11 29 2 0 0 0 2 107
Nays . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 3 1 3 14 102
By this analysis and the map, it is clear that the navigating states
were in opposition, while the manufacturing states were generally in
favor of the bill. The most important textile manufacturers of
Massachusetts, however, were not advocates of protection at this
time. The grain and wool producing states gave an overwhelming vote
(91 to 9) in favor of the attempt to provide a home market. The
planting states gave but 3 votes in favor to 64 against. [Footnote:
See the analysis in Niles' Register, XXVI., 113.] By comparison with
the map of the general survey bill, it is seen that the southern
half of the west was in a state of unstable equilibrium on these
sectional issues. It joined the Ohio Valley and the middle states in
supporting a system of internal improvements, while it transferred
its support to the old south on the question of the tariff. New
England, on the other hand, although divided, tended to unite its
strength with that of the south on both these measures. In general,
the map reveals the process of forming a northern section in
opposition to the south--the union of the Ohio Valley with the
middle states against the alliance of the south Atlantic seaboard
with the Gulf states. The division of forces exhibited in the
Missouri struggle was strikingly like the division now revealed on
the tariff question.
On the whole, the tariff of 1824 was distinctly a compromise
measure. Although the ad valorem duties on cotton and woolen goods
were raised, this was balanced by the doubled duty on raw wool.
Nevertheless, it aroused the opposition of the entire planting
section, at the same time that the manufacturers of woolen goods
felt that their interests had been sacrificed. The tariff question
was, in fact, only postponed. In the history of party development,
however, Clay's system of internal improvements and tariff, as shown
in this session of Congress, had a significance not easily missed;
and state sovereignty sentiment in the south grew steadily after
these measures. [Footnote: See chapter xviii, below; cf. Antes,
State Docs, on Federal Relations, No. 4, pp. 4-13.]