Joey possesses a vast storeroom of useless facts. For something useful, this is Frank Taussig on the protective tariff narrative in those days:
"The South took its stand against the protective system with a promptness and decision characteristic of the political history of the slave states. The opposition of the Southern members to the tariff bill of 1820 is significant of the change in the nature of the protective movement between 1816 and 1820. The Southern leaders had advocated the passage of the act of 1816, but they bitterly opposed the bill of 1820…"
"After the failure of the bill of that year, the movement for higher duties seems for a while to have lost headway. The lowest point of industrial and commercial depression, so far as indicated by the revenue, was reached at the close of 1820, and, as affairs began to mend, protective measures received less vigorous support. Bills to increase duties, similar to the bill of 1820, were introduced in Congress in 1821 and 1822, but they were not pressed and led to no legislation…"
"The tariff of 1824 was passed, the first and the most direct fruit of the early protective movement. The Presidential election of that year undoubtedly had an effect in causing its passage; but the influence of politics and political ambition was in this case hardly a harmful one… It was carried mainly by the votes of the Western and Middle states. The South was in opposition, New England was divided; Rhode Island and Connecticut voted for the bill, Massachusetts and the other New England states were decidedly opposed."
[Frank W. Taussig, "The Tariff History of the United States." G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1892, pp.73-75]
Calhoun understood the [long train of] tyranny to begin with the 1824 tariff:
"To understand the causes which have led to the present state of things, we must go back to the year 1824, when the tariff system triumphed in Congress a system which imposed duties, not for the purpose of revenue, but to encourage the industry of one portion of the Union at the expense of the other. This was followed up by the act of 1828, which consummated the system. It raised the duties so extravagantly, that, out of an annual importation of sixty-four millions, thirty-two passed into the treasury; that is, Government took one-half for the liberty of introducing the other. Countless millions were thus poured into the treasury, beyond the wants of the Government, which became in time the source of the most extravagant expenditures. This vast increase of receipts and expenditures was followed by a corresponding expansion of the business of the banks. They had to discount and issue freely, to enable the merchants to pay their duty bonds, as well as to meet the vastly increased expenditures of the Government. Another effect followed the act of 1828, which gave a still further expansion to the action of the banks, and which is worthy of notice. "
[On the Bill authorizing the issue of Treasury Notes delivered in the Senate, September 19th, 1837, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, pp.70-71]
There was also this, which mentioned the unconstitutionality of the bill:
"If Congress should limit its legislation to the few great subjects confided to it; so frame its laws as to leave as little as possible to discretion, and take care to see that they are duly and faithfully executed, the administrative powers of the President would be proportionally limited, and divested of all danger… Having now pointed out the cause of the great increase of the Executive power on which the Senator rested his objection to the veto power; and having satisfactorily shown, as I trust I have, that, if it has proved dangerous in fact, the fault is not in the constitution, but in Congress, I would next ask him, in what possible way could the divesting the President of his veto, or modifying it as he proposes, limit his power? Is it not clear that, so far from the veto being the cause of the increase of his power, it would have acted as a limitation on it, if it had been more freely and frequently used? If the President had vetoed the original bank, the connection with the banking system, the tariffs of 1824 and 1828, and the numerous acts appropriating money for roads, canals, harbors, and a long list of other measures not less unconstitutional, would his power have been half as great as it now is? He has grown great and powerful, not because he used his veto, but because lie abstained from using it. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a case in which its application can tend to enlarge his power, except it be the case of an act intended to repeal a law calculated to increase his power, or to restore the authority of one which, by an arbitrary construction of his power, he has set aside."
[Speech on the Veto Power in response to Henry Clay, delivered in the Senate, February 28th, 1842, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol IV - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1861, pp.97,99]
May as well include this one:
"The tariff of 1828 was as much a political movement as a measure of protection. The protective policy [the tyranny] had triumphed in Congress by the passage of the Tariff Act of 1824, which was followed by the election of Mr. Adams, to the presidency the next year, by which the protective system gained an ascendency in the executive, as it had previously in the legislative department of the Government."
[On the Bill introduced by Mr. Wright, Chairman of the Committee on Finance, to repeal and reduce certain Duties therein mentioned, delivered in the Senate, February 23d, 1837, in Richard K. Cralle, "The Works of John C. Calhoun Vol III - Speeches." D. Appleton & Company, 1867, p.43]
This is by another senator, for good measure:
"I must be permitted while on this topic [the constitutionality of the bill] to declare that, however this bill may be modified, still the system is one against which we feel constrained, in behalf of those we represent, to enter our most solemn protest. Considering this scheme of promoting certain employments at the expense of others as unequal, oppressive, and unjust, viewing prohibition as the means and the destruction of all foreign commerce the end of this policy, I take this occasion to declare that we shall feel ourselves justified in embracing the very first opportunity of repealing all such laws as may be passed for the promotion of these objects. Whatever interests may grow up under this bill, and whatever capital may be invested, I wish it to be distinctly understood that we will not hold ourselves bound to maintain the system; and if capitalists will, in the face of our protests and in defiance of our solemn warnings, invest their fortunes in pursuits made profitable at our expense, on their own heads be the consequences of their folly."
[Speech of Robert Y. Hayne, Senator South Carolina, on the floor of the Senate, April 30, 1824, in Edward Stanwood, "American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century Vol I." Archibald Constable & Co., 1903, p.236]
Like I said, the 1824 protective tariff was the precipitator that raised alarm bells.
Mr. Kalamata
I have learned that the Navigation act of 1817 did a great deal to create Northern monopolies in the shipping industry. It greatly increased Northern power at the expense of the rest of the country. I've had many discussions with people regarding the various ways this particular law caused all the Southern trade to be controlled by New York.
If you are unfamiliar with it, you ought to take a look, because I think this act is as much of a smoking gun as was the 1824 and 1828 tariffs.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/14th-congress/session-2/c14s2ch31.pdf