Tariffs affect ALL agriculturalists North and South the same.
You pretend that huge areas of the North were not agricultural with the wild declarations of impact on the South.
“True” Southerner means a Southerner swallowing the bilge and lies justifying the RAT Rebellion.
Tariffs affect ALL agriculturalists North and South the same.
That's not necessarily true, either of agriculture as an industry or of region. Since protective tariffs throw all international trade into turmoil by - first - provoking retaliation and - second - altering/manipulating the direction and balance of payments abroad, who the tariff affects the most will depend upon (1) what exports the country produces at the time and (2) what import-competing sectors are being protected. It also isn't even immediately clear in the import-competing sector that the tariff will be a good thing for all participants in that sector due to Stolper-Samuelson effects (in layman's terms, whether and what in a sector gains will depend on if it is a labor intensive or capital intensive production process).
Generally speaking though, at the time of the nullification crisis protective tariffs did disproportionately burden export agriculture through their trade-discouraging effects. The question then becomes what type of agriculture products were being exported: southern crops such as tobacco and cotton or norther crops such as corn and grain? Answer that and you will know who likely had the strongest tariff grievance.
“True” Southerner means a Southerner swallowing the bilge and lies justifying the RAT Rebellion.
This is what I love about neo confederates, had I said that tariffs were the cause of the Civil war, I would have been applauded for being right, however the second I said that the tariffs were a punishment for slavery then magically tariffs had nothing to do with the south's secession.
Amazing how that works isn't it?