Replies

I don't think the North and South were so far apart in the early years of the republic. New Englanders had poor soil and a poor climate. They couldn't produce much agriculturally so they wanted support for fisheries and shipping and then industry. Pennsylvanians were much more productive agriculturally, but they had mineral resources they wanted to develop.

Virginians had exhausted the soil and were facing increasing agricultural and financial problems. Virginia was the largest state in the beginning, and Virginians weren't opposed to maintaining that advantage by developing manufactures. Even George Washington wanted that canal to the interior built. North Carolinians were middling folk stuck between the aristocrats of Virginia and South Carolina and looking for a role to play. Kentuckians wanted to build roads and support their hemp-growing.

There was much room for cooperation between the regions. Then Cotton became King and every compromise or accommodation that happened earlier came to look like a betrayal of the cotton states and a theft from the wildly profitable plantation economy. Measures that were generally accepted in the early days as strengthening the national economy came to be seen as assaults on the cotton states' cash cow.

x: "Even George Washington wanted that canal to the interior built."

Well... actually two Virginia canals, both supported by George Washington.
The better known is the C & O -- Chesapeake & Ohio -- up the Potomac to Clarke's Ferry, was intended to extend all the way to Pittsburg and the Ohio River.
The second, preferred by Washington, was the James & Kanawha Canal which would run entirely through Virginia to the Ohio River.

Neither canal was supported by Federal government, even though President Adams recommended it.
Jefferson thought the Constitution needed to be amended first, but he did approve Federal support for the National Road, today's US 40.

So there's no doubt in my mind that our Founders wanted national infrastructure projects, though some Founders were a bit, ah, queasy about how, exactly, they should be paid for.

x: "Measures that were generally accepted in the early days as strengthening the national economy came to be seen as assaults on the cotton states' cash cow."

It seems that all of our posters here take for granted & legitimate Fire Eater complaints about "Federal disbursements" going disproportionately to the North:

"The north has adopted a system of revenue and disbursements, in which an undue proportion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of its proceeds appropriated to the north"

That expression is exceptionally succinct, which makes it suspect, but others said much the same, so the sentiment was likely genuine.

However, the facts I've seen say something entirely different.
This link summarizes Federal spending from 1790 to 1860 and near as I can tell, spending was pretty well distributed, when it did not actually favor the South.

Of course, if you are Calhoun from South Carolina, "the North" might start at your state's northern border, in which case Calhoun is entirely correct.
If by "the South" he means cotton states and by "the North" he means all others, then he would have somewhat of a point.
Cotton states produced about 50% of US exports, but certainly did not received 50% of Federal spending.

Years ago, I took time to spreadsheet & tally these numbers and overall "the South", meaning slave-states got 52% of Federal spending on fortifications, internal improvements, lighthouses, hospitalization & pensions.
They were a little over on fortifications, a little under in internal improvements, especially during from 1838 to 1850, which could account for Calhoun's complaints.

Bottom line: Fire Eaters' complaints about "the North" getting most Federal disbursements is only factual if by "the North" you mean all non-cotton states.