Tariff of 1828

Tariff of 1828
Name	Tariff of 1828
Enacted	May 1828
Also known as	"Tariff of Abominations"
Sponsor	Richard Mentor Johnson
Passed by	20th United States Congress
Signed by	John Quincy Adams
Purpose	Protective duties on imports

Tariff of 1828 was a United States statute enacted in May 1828 that imposed high duties on imported manufactured goods and raw materials. It provoked intense sectional conflict between proponents in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states and opponents in the Southern United States, contributed to the political fortunes of Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams, and helped precipitate the Nullification Crisis involving John C. Calhoun and the legislature of South Carolina. The measure reshaped debates in the 20th United States Congress and influenced constitutional interpretations by the Supreme Court of the United States and state courts.

Background and Legislative History

Legislative origins trace to tariff debates in the presidencies of James Madison and James Monroe, including the Protective tariff of 1816 and the Tariff of 1824, with advocates like Henry Clay and opponents such as John Randolph of Roanoke. Political alignments in the Era of Good Feelings dissolved into factions supporting the Adams-Clay program and the Jacksonian movement around the 1824 United States presidential election and the so-called Corrupt Bargain (1824 election). Sponsors in the House of Representatives included members of the Adams coalition and allies of Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, who sought to expand manufacturing in New England and protect interests in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Southern members led by John C. Calhoun of South Carolina drafted amendments and protests as hearings in the Committee on Manufactures considered rates for woolens, iron, cotton textiles, and hemp. The bill's passage in the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States reflected sectional bargaining during the 20th Congress and culminated in signature by President John Quincy Adams.

Provisions and Rates

The statute specified graduated duties on a wide array of imported items, raising rates above those in the Tariff of 1824. Key schedules targeted imported woolens, iron products, and agricultural manufactures from Great Britain and continental suppliers, with ad valorem and specific duties. The law imposed especially high rates on raw materials used by Southern planters and on finished goods consumed in the South, while offering protection to infant industries in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania. Tariff commissioners and customs collectors in ports such as Boston, New York City, Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia administered the tariff through the United States Customs Service and bond provisions at major harbors. The act's schedules altered effective prices for imports from Liverpool, Bristol, and Le Havre and reshaped trade flows with Ireland, Scotland, and the Netherlands.

Economic and Regional Impact

Manufacturing centers in New England and the Mid-Atlantic experienced increased protection, encouraging investment in textile mills in Lowell, Massachusetts and ironworks in Pittsburgh. Conversely, export-oriented planters in Virginia, Georgia, and Alabama argued that higher duties raised the cost of imported goods and invited retaliatory measures from trading partners such as Great Britain. Southern cotton producers who shipped through New Orleans and Charleston contended that tariff revenues benefited northern infrastructure projects championed by Henry Clay's American System while disadvantaging southern commerce dependent on free importation of manufactured goods and raw materials like hemp and wool. Merchants in port cities adjusted credit arrangements with banks such as the Second Bank of the United States and regional branches facing shifting patterns in imports and insurance costs.

Political Reactions and the Nullification Crisis

Political backlash coalesced around leaders in South Carolina and the emerging Democratic Party allied with Andrew Jackson. Vice President John C. Calhoun authored the influential "South Carolina Exposition and Protest" articulating state opposition, and state legislatures convened special sessions in Charleston and Columbia to consider resistance. The controversy intensified in the context of the 1828 presidential election, in which Andrew Jackson defeated John Quincy Adams, and in the subsequent confrontation over the Force Bill and Compromise Tariff of 1833 brokered by Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun. The crisis featured public debates in newspapers such as the Charleston Mercury and the National Intelligencer and mass meetings in Charleston, where proclamations by Governor Robert Y. Hayne? and orators invoked state rights rhetoric.

Legal and Constitutional Issues

Opponents advanced constitutional arguments grounded in compact theory and the doctrine of nullification, citing precedents drawn from writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, including concepts from the Kentucky Resolutions and the Virginia Resolutions. Supporters invoked the supremacy of federal statutes under Article VI of the United States Constitution and cited judicial interpretations from the Supreme Court of the United States in cases addressing tariff and commerce powers. Debates tested the limits of congressional authority under the Tariff Clause and raised questions adjudicated indirectly in state and federal litigation and in debates over the Electoral College's political dynamics. The legal crisis presaged later constitutional confrontations including the Dred Scott v. Sandford era sectional jurisprudence.

Repeal and Legacy

Intense political pressure led to modification and partial repeal through subsequent legislation, especially the Tariff of 1832 and the negotiated Compromise Tariff of 1833, which gradually reduced rates and averted immediate secession. The episode reshaped party alignments, accelerated the rise of the Democratic Party under Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson, and affected long-term debates over protective tariffs, regional interests, and federalism. Historians link the statute to evolving interpretations of interstate commerce and to infrastructural policy debates later pursued in Congressional debates over internal improvements and fiscal policy during the Antebellum era. The measure's popular epithet, "Tariff of Abominations," endured in political memory as a symbol of antebellum sectional conflict.

Category:United States federal legislation Category:1828 in the United States Category:Tariffs