Tariff Of Abominations Analysis

1119 Words 5 Pages
Since the founding of the U.S. a struggle for economic power has existed. John C. Calhoun voiced the opinion of countless southern farmers, on the tariff of abominations. “the proposed tariff was in fact little more than “an immense tax on one portion of the community to put money into the pockets of another.” The Northern and Southern states evolved into two very different territories, because of their vastly different economies. The diverse needs of the different economies caused economic policies controversial, because each policy could only support one economy. The Southern States were slave societies, relying on millions of slaves to maintain their vast plantations. The Northern states however did not need slaves. Some families owned …show more content…
The North supported the Tariff. The Northern states had a merchant based economy. They constantly competed with foreign powers to provide the American people with finished goods. The tariff of Abomination protected the Northern economy by making foreign goods more expensive, but the South did not appreciate the tariff. The tariff drastically decreased the amount of goods bought from Europe. In retaliation European countries placed tariffs on American goods, because the South’s economy was based on the production and shipment of raw goods to European countries the tariffs placed on American goods resulted in the immediate decline of the South’s shipping capabilities. Ultimately hurting the Southern economy. The conflict in economic needs the Tariff illuminated lead to the nullification crisis. South Carolina declared the federal tariff “null and void” within their state borders. The South thought of the tariff as detrimental and obstructive, but the North viewed it as constructive and profitable. The tariff and the nullification crisis defined the strife of two fundamentally opposing economies would cause, when they are ruled by a single federal …show more content…
Steven Douglas, the most ardent supporter of popular sovereignty and drafter of the Kansas Nebraska Act, persuaded and cajoled politicians to allow the residents of the territories applying for statehood to vote for the allowance of slavery. Southern and Northern politicians agreed under the belief that the residence would vote for in favor of their region. Also in the compromise of 1850 the land in dispute, infertile in nature gave little reward in terms of natural economic resources; however popular sovereignty did not completely end the Missouri compromise.
The Kansas Nebraska act officially ended the Missouri compromise and acted as the last predecessor of war. The Kansas Nebraska Act stated, new states like Nebraska, would decide whether or not slavery would be legal using popular sovereignty regardless of position relative to the 36.30 parallel, effectively nullifying the Missouri compromise, which had kept the union from war for

Related Documents