Quote:
Originally Posted by bambino
|
Sadly- the tarrifs of the Jackson administration led to the following:
During Andrew Jackson's presidency, tariffs were a source of significant controversy and economic tension, particularly in the South. The Tariff of 1832 and the even higher Tariff of 1828, often referred to as the
"Tariff of Abominations," led to the Nullification Crisis, where South Carolina threatened to secede over what they perceived as unfair protectionist policies. While tariffs were intended to protect domestic industries, they negatively impacted the Southern economy, which relied on exporting agricultural goods to other countries.
Here's a more detailed look:
The Tariff of 1828:
.
This tariff, with its high import duties, was viewed as particularly unfair by the South. It was seen as benefiting Northern manufacturers at the expense of Southern planters who relied on imported goods.
Nullification Crisis:
.
South Carolina, feeling aggrieved by the tariffs, threatened to nullify (void) the federal tariffs within its borders. This sparked a crisis that almost led to civil war.
So- in the end the Tarrifs were eliminated - what lesson is to be learned?
If you live in a isolated economy- perhaps tarrifs have a use and need, but in a global economy- not only do taffifs cause distrust amongst trading partners, but they almost always lead to more isolation- which puts you back on having to build it and do it all on your own.
THE USA isn't going to be building everything domestically- and the tarrifs should have been done by congress and targeted vs. overall. Nobody is saying that there aren't unfair trading partners, but it's easier to deal with them one-off, vs throwing the entire market and economy in the shitter. Sorta, babies out with the bath-water.
... GREAT 100 Days!
