George Washington to New Hampshire, 29 December 1777 (Detail, GLC03706) Interpreting the Constitution: The Unconsitutionality of the Protective Tariff of 1828 by Alyce Loesch Westhill High School The Statutes at Large of South Carolina, Thomas Cooper, ed., Columbia, Vol. 1, 1836, pp. 244-245, http://mail.rcds.rye.ny.us/~history/Sampson/Jackson%20debate/ sc_exposition.htm The so-called Tariff of Abominations of 1828 was a high protective tax levied on goods coming into the country from abroad. It was passed at the instigation of Northern manufaaurers, but it distressed many Southern planters who depended on foreign trade for their livelihood. Protest in South Carolina was strong. Agriculture was undergoing grave difficulties because of soil exhaustion, and many believed that the extraordinarily high tariffs would damage the state's economy. During 1828, protests were voiced through Southern newspapers and town meetings, and finally, on December 19, the state legislature of South Carolina issued "The South Carolina Exposition and Protest," which declared the tariff unconstitutional. The author of the document was John C. Calhoun, who chose to initially keep his identity hidden in order to protect his politcal career. On the Unconstitutionality of the Protective Tariff THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES of South Carolina now met and sitting in General Assembly, through the Hon. William Smith and the Hon. Robert Y. Hayne, their representatives in the Senate of the United States, do, in the name and on behalf of the good people of the said commonwealth, solemnly protest against the system of protecting duties, lately adopted by the federal government, for the following reasons. First, because the good people of this commonwealth believe that the powers of Congress were delegated to it in trust for the accomplishment of certain specified objects which limit and control them, and that every exercise of them for any other purposes is a violation of the Constitution as unwarrantable as the undisguised assumption of substantive, independent powers not granted or expressly withheld. Second, because the power to lay duties on imports is, and in its very nature can be, only a means of effecting objects specified by the Constitution; since no free government, and least of all a government of enumerated powers, can of right impose any tax, any more than a penalty, which is not at once justified by public necessity and clearly within the scope and purview of the social compact; and since the right of confining appropriations of the public money to such legitimate and constitutional objcections is as essential to the liberties of the people as their unquestionable privilege to be taxed only by their consent. Third, because they believe that the tariff law passed by Congress at its last session and all other acts of which the principal object is the protection of manufactures or any other branch of domestic industry, if they be considered as the exercise of a power of Congress to tax the people at its own good will and pleasure, and to apply the moneys raised to objects not specified in the Constitution, is a violation of these fundamental principles, a breach of a well-defined trust, and a perversion of the high powers vested in the federal government for federal purposes only. Fourth, because such acts, considered in the light of a regulation of commerce, are equally liable to objection. Since, although the power to regulate commerce may, like other powers, be exercised so as to protect domestic manufactures, yet it is clearly distinguishable from a power to do so to benefit specific industries[by that name) both in the nature of the thing and in the common deception of the terms; and because the confounding of them would lead to the most extravagant results, since the encouragement of domestic industry implies an absolute control over all the interests, resources, and pursuits of a people and is inconsistent with the Idea of Any other than a simple, consolidated government Sixth,-because, while the power to protect manufacturers is nowhere expressly granted to the government, nor can be considered “as necessary and proper to carry into effect the specified power,” it seems to be expressly reserved to thc states bv the 10th Section of the lst Article of the Constitution. Seventh, because even admitting Congress to have a constitutional right to protect manufacturers by the imposition of duties, by regulations of commerce designed principally for that purpose, yet tariff of which the operation is grossly unequal and oppressive is an abuse of power and is incompatible with a free government in society. Eighth, finally, because South Caroling from her climate, situation, and peculiar institutions, is and must ever continue to b wholly dependent upon agriculture and commerce, not only for her prosperity but for her very existence as a state; because the valuable products of her soil, the blessing by which Divine Providence seems to have designed to compensate for the great disadvantages under which she suffers in other respects, are among the very few that can be cultivated with any profit by slave labor and if, by the loss of her foreign commerce these products should be confined to an inadequate market, the fate of this fertile state would be poverty and utter desolation. Her citizens, in despair, would emigrate to more fortunate regions, and the whole framework of her civil polity would be impaired and deranged, if not dissolved entirely. Deeply impressed with these considerations, the representatives of the good people of this commonwealth, anxiously desiring to live in peace with their fellow citizens, and to do all that in them lies to preserve and perpetuate the union of the states and liberties of which it is the surest pledge, but feeling it to be their bounden duty to expose and resist all encroachments upon the true spirit of the Constitution, lest its apparent acquiescence in the system of protecting duties should be drawn into precedent do, in the name of the commonwealth of South Carolina, claim, upon the journal of the Senate their protest against it as unconstitutional, oppressive and unjust. ____ Reference: The United States Constitution and background information based on research 1. Why did the South, especially South Carolina, react so angrily against the Tariff of 1828? 2. What new constitutional principle is being presented by this issue? Why was it viewed as "explosive" by many observers? 3. You are the attorney for the State of South Carolina. Prepare a one page brief defending "South Carolina Exposition and Protest" for the Supreme Court. Be sure to use specific examples and constitutional references. 4. According to the supporters of the Tariff of 1828, why was it constitutional? 5. You are a northern manufacturer, write a letter to the editor of your local paper that expresses your reactions to the accusations made by John C. Calhoun. 6. You are President of the United States at this time, and you must make a decision on this issue. What will your decision be and why have you chosen this path? Your position should be grounded in the Constitution and the social, economic and political realities of the day.