It was modified slightly under President Jackson, then further reduced or raised according to the political mix before 1860.
The high tariff rates under President Jackson were essential to one of his signature accomplishments: paying OFF the national debt.
In 1842 Whigs raised tariff rates and in 1846 Democrats reduced rates under the Walker Tariffs.
In 1856 Democrats again reduced rates and in 1860 Republicans proposed returning rates to their 1846 levels --Morrill Tariff.
The proposed Morrill Tariff was defeated by Democrats in 1860 and could have been defeated or negotiated in 1861 absent Southern secessions.
Morrill was not mentioned in any of the early "Reasons for Secession" documents because it was not their major reason, slavery was.
FLT-bird: "Over the next generation other Southern states came to agree with South Carolina’s position about how economically devastating to their economy high tariffs were."
Democrats in states with any manufacturing assets were just as eager as Northerners to "Put Americans First" with protective tariffs.
Such States included Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia.
Even in the Deep South, no state threatened secession over the Morrill Tariff, or listed it as their reason for secession.
FLT-bird: "The settlement in Jamestown was entirely different from that in Plymouth.
Different people and different purpose.
The differences between the two regions started there in the 1620s.
Slavery was not one of those difference."
Sure, understood, but those differences were vastly less important in 1776 and 1788 than our similarities & common interests.
That's how we got a United States.
And similarities then included a common understanding that slavery was a necessary evil which should be eventually abolished.
Steps in that direction continued until Southerners began reneging on the deal, circa 1830s.
FLT-bird: "In 1776 there were large differences between New England and the Southern colonies.
Even then the Southern colonies had an export based economy.
New England had a fishing and shipping based economy."
Did you already forget that the reason for the 1814 Hartford Convention, threatening secession, was the embargo imposed by Democrats in Washington D.C. against New England trade with England.
Now you may wish to claim such trade was insignificant, but clearly to New Englanders, it was a matter of life & death.
So every region had its products & exports.
FLT-bird: "New England wanted more centralized power. The South did not."
Nonsense, in 1788 there were Federalists and anti-Federalists in all regions, North & South.
After ratification many Southerners gravitated with other formerly anti-Federalists to Jefferson's party, then called Democratic-republicans.
But there were still Federalists throughout the South until Federalists, in effect, committed political suicide at the 1814 Hartford Convention, by threatening secession.
So Jefferson's Democrats claimed to be "strict constructionist" and charged Adams' Federalists with being "monarchists", but it was all just bunk -- no presidents were more aristocratic than the Virginians, and when Democrats came to power they did whatever the h*ll they wanted, the Constitution be d*mnd.
Then as today, Democrats weaponized the Constitution against their opponents, while ignoring it once themselves in power.
The Tariff of Abominations wasn’t modified slightly. Tariff rates came way back down.
The Morrill tariff was specifically mentioned by various Southern newspapers and political leaders as just the latest example of northern business interests using the federal government to pick the pockets of Southerners. Slavery was not the major reason. Tariffs, unequal federal expenditures and the steady usurpation of power by the federal government were the major issues.
You say the differences were less in the 1600s and 1700s. I don’t agree. They agreed to be in what they thought would be a fairly loose confederation in the 1780s and early 1790s for mutual defense primarily. They were all relatively weak.
Oh, and there was no “common understanding that slavery would be abolished” at the time. There was nothing to renege on as far as that goes.
While there were federalists and anti-federalists in all regions, GENERALLY New England favored stronger central government more and generally Southerners wanted decentralized power more.
There was no Democrat party until the 1830s and for the rest of the 19th century and up until the early 20th century it was the Democrats who championed state’s rights and decentralized power. Wilson and FDR flipped that.