Tariff of Abominations was on all imported goods of specific categories, not just on British goods. This law was passed as a protective tariff to protect American manufacturers and workers from cheaper foreign competition. (Oddly enough, a great many people who are still upset about the T of A are all in favor of protective tariffs today to protect American manufacturers and workers from cheaper foreign (Chinese) competition.
Very interestingly, it passed only because southern interests, led by Calhoun, inserted poison pill provisions to cause New England congressmen to vote against it. Much to the southerners' surprise, the bill passed anyway.
http://www.mises.org/etexts/taussig.pdf page 55. This is, BTW, a book that tells you more about tariffs than you will ever want to know. Without having some kind of political agenda to support.
Protective tariffs were not a north vs. south issue, as such, in 1828, because there was no north vs. south split.
There was instead a north vs. south vs. west split. The south generally allied with the west to win elections and control the government. But the west liked protective tariffs, so it allied with the north to pass them. The biggest proponent of such tariffs was not a New Englander, but Henry Clay, a Kentucky slave and plantation owner.
The whole protective tariff issue started during and after the War of 1812, when the country was greatly embarassed in military preparations by inadequate industry. So the idea was to protect "infant industries" so they'd grow to where they'd be viable on their own and available when the next war came around.
Of course, it soon turned into pork.
coming on the heels of wholesale exportation of northern slaves to the South to make way for boatloads of indentured servants
You are quite correct about one of the dirty little secrets of northern ending of slavery. It freed remarkably few slaves, as most were sold south before the laws came into effect.
But you are quite mistaken about indentured servants. The institution was in serious decline in the 19th century
Thanks again! I’ll study your post later since it’s a lot to absorb!!
on the indentured servitude, tho, now you’ve got me confused.
According to
http://public.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site18/The%20Decline%20of%20Indentured%20Servitude.htm
” By the 1830s, indentured servitude among immigrants had almost entirely ended in mainland North America (Galenson, 14).”
but wiki draws also from Galenson to claim:
“Decline[edit]
Indentured servitude appeared in the Americas in the 1620s and remained in use as late as 1917.[43]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant
[43] Galenson, David (1984). “The Rise and Fall of Indentured Servitude in the Americas: An Economic Analysis”. Journal of Economic History. 1 44: 1–26. doi:10.1017/s002205070003134x.
so which date is correct to use?
I know the 13th Amendment of 1865 abolished indenturedness, but is one cite speaking only to British-origin, indentured and the other cite to all indentured (Germans in 1800’s, Orphan trains after 1865, Chinese to work on railroads in the US and sugar plantation companies in Hawaii, etc)?
from http://www.wcl.american.edu/modernamerican/documents/Trammell.pdf
“Following practices established by previous organizations,
most of these charities provided assistance to children through indentured servitude, generally indenturing boys by the age of 12 and girls by the age of 14. [29] Given the
depressed economic conditions and lack of employment opportunities in the East, charities began to place and indenture affected children in rural areas where child labor was needed and welcomed. [30] This grew into the orphan train movement.
“In 1849, the board of governors of the New York Almshouse
favored placing children in families and sought legislation
allowing children to be indentured outside the State of New
York.[31]
“In 1855, New York State authorized “trustees, directors
or managers of any incorporated orphan asylum, or institute or home for indigent children” to “bind out” any male orphan or indigent child under 21 and any female orphan or indigent child under 18.[32]
:snip:
“A more complicated lawsuit arose from a 1904 Arizona Territory orphan train placement in which the New York
Foundling Hospital sent 40 Caucasian children between the ages of 18 months and 5 years to be indentured to Catholic
families in an Arizona Territory parish...”