Sounds nice? Small government? Two problems, though. First, in 1846 the Westerners had been promised Southern support for the bill by Calhoun in exchange for support on tariff reduction. When Polk, the Southern Democrat and slaveowner, betrayed what was believed to be a done deal, Westerners were irate.
Second, the Army Corps of Engineers had been doing the same kind of work on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers for years. Southerners had no qualms about activist government when it benefited them. It was only when somebody else wanted federal funding that it became a constitutional question.
To be fair, Pierce also vetoed funds for necessary dredging on the Mississippi, but by that time, Westerners were already convinced that Southerners were denying them the kind of work that the federal government had already been doing for the South.
I don't think federal projects would have created a sea path from the lakes to the ocean. That only came in with the Saint Lawrence Seaway a century later during the Eisenhower administration. But the projects might have helped bring lumber and ores from the upper lakes to the growing industrial cities. They could also have given farmers alternatives to the railroads and the Mississippi River traffic, bringing prices down.
So here's the upshot: all this talk about New York City and its evil dominance of trade and Southerners' righteous desire to redirect money away from New York, and we find out that some Southerners were determined that nothing challenge New Orleans's position as a major port of international trade. Quite a surprise.
It can be hard to separate out what's a free market result and what reflects prior government intervention, or what's "natural" from what's man-made or the product of human effort. The further back you dig, you may find government involved somehow. So when they tell you about the Navigation Acts, remind them of the Rivers and Harbors bills and the earlier federally-funded dredging and clearing on the Mississippi.
Exactly, well said.
That is also true of allegedly "conservative" Southern Democrats is the years before, say, 1964.
In fact they were always happy to "tax the rich" Northerners to pay for Federal programs benefitting their own constituents.
Well if *I* was paying 70-80% of all the taxes, I probably wouldn't want the money spent on the other portion of the population that was paying only 25% of the taxes.
So let's see. Tax people with money, to fund government projects for the people who didn't pay the bills. *LIBERAL*.
Two problems, though. First, in 1846 the Westerners had been promised Southern support for the bill by Calhoun in exchange for support on tariff reduction.
Wait, westerners? You mean Chicago? I always thought "west" was west of the Mississippi. I guess some of this stuff was to be on the Mississippi and the Great Lakes.
Second, the Army Corps of Engineers had been doing the same kind of work on the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers for years. Southerners had no qualms about activist government when it benefited them. It was only when somebody else wanted federal funding that it became a constitutional question.
Well they were paying for the bulk of the costs. If I was paying the vast lion's share of the bills, I would be less bothered that some of the money got spent back on me. And yes, people are hypocrites.