[LexBaird]

The sense of injustice expressed by Southern politicians of that era reflected the fact that Southern suppliers of raw materials participated in competitive world markets, while Southern demanders of imported manufactured goods faced artificially high prices because of the tariffs enacted, in part, to protect Northern industries.

Well, then, since the Southern politicians controlled all three branches of the Federal Govt. much of the time leading up to the War, why didn't they change it? Why wasn't it part of the Dem platform in 1860? Why didn't they support Republican tariff reform?

During the Nullification crisis of 1832, Southern Dem Andy Jackson was President, Southern Dem Calhoun was VP, Dems held the Senate 24 (D) -22 (NR) - 2 (Null), Dems held the House 126 (D) - 66 (NR) - 17 (AM) - 4 (Null).

[riverdawg]

The tariff issue returned to center stage as a political potboiler after The Panic of 1857. Many Northern politicians began agitating for higher tariffs at that time, in the belief that industries in the North required further protection from the vagaries of international competition. (This line of “reasoning” was a forerunner of the arguments used 70 years later to justify the Smoot-Hawley tariffs of 1930). The clamor for higher tariffs came about after two decades, following the Great Compromise of 1833, in which tariff rates had gradually fallen. Lincoln ran on a very strong pro-tariff platform in 1860. When he was elected, for many in the South the die was cast for secession. The election of 1860 is a very interesting one; it really was two elections, one in the North (between Lincoln and Douglas) and another in the South (between Breckinridge and Bell).