More importantly, the Tariff of Abominations was a bill assembled by Calhoun and his cronies, as he publicly admitted 10 years later.
He loaded it with poison pills so New England congressmen would reject it, at which point the southerners would join in voting down their own bill.
He outsmarted himself, and the bill passed.
Exactly why this example of extreme southern stupidity should instead by considered an example of northern oppression is quite beyond me.
“What that plan was, Calhoun explained very frankly nine years later, in a speech reviewing the events of 1828 and defending the course taken by himself and his southern fellow members. A high-tariff bill was to be laid before the House. It was to contain not only a high general range of duties, but duties especially high on those raw materials on which New England wanted the duties to be low. It was to satisfy the protective demands of the Western and Middle States, and at the same time to be obnoxious to the New England members. The Jackson men of all shades, the protectionists from the North and the free-traders from the South, were to unite in preventing any amendments; that bill, and no other, was to be voted on. When the final vote came, the southern men were to turn around and vote against their own measure. The New England men, and the Adams men in general, would be unable to swallow it, and would also vote against it. Combined, they would prevent its passage, even though the Jackson men from the North voted for it. The result expected was that no tariff bill at all would be passed during the session, which was the object of the southern wing of the opposition. On the other hand, the obloquy of defeating it would be cast on the Adams party, which was the object of the Jacksonians of the North. The tariff bill would be defeated, and yet the Jackson men would be able to parade as the true “friends.”
http://mises.org/etexts/taussig.pdf page 55
Interesting book I just found. If we’re going to argue about tariffs, we might as well have some actual data. I suspect the actual history turns out to be a great deal more complex than “northern oppression of southern innocents.”
I see three things in your conclusions. One, you did not read further than your quote, or you would have seen Webster’s influence in passage. Two, you apparently are not familiar with political manipulations. And three, this had nothing to do with the eventual outcome of the struggle concerning tariffs.