Tariff rates came way back down."
Not under President Jackson, who needed the tariff revenues to pay-OFF the national debt.
The War of 1812 drove US national debt from $45 million up to $127 million in 1816 (roughly equivalent to today's national debt).
That caused Congress to raise tariff rates and reduced the debt to $90 million under President Monroe, then to $67 million under President John Quincy Adams.
To further reduce the debt the "Tariff of Abominations" passed in 1828 and under President Jackson's first term got the debt to $24 million.
In his second term Jackson reduced tariffs from their peak of ~60% to ~40% and still paid-OFF the national debt in 1835.
From that point tariffs generally fell, to ~20% in 1860.
Here is a graph of US historical tariff rates:
FLT-bird: "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."
Slavery was the only reason which could drive Southerners to threaten secession.
Everything else was "politics as usual", including the original Morrill proposal, which would only have restored rates Southerners happily agreed to in 1846.
"Unequal Federal expenditures" was pure propaganda since the reality was an even distribution of spending over time.
So... what Southern propagandists meant by Federal spending "in the North" was spending anywhere North of South Carolina!
As for "the steady usurpation of power by the federal government" that is pure Democrat clap-trap.
Democrats never give a d*mn about too-much Federal power so long as they rule in Washington, DC.
It's only when Republicans take over that Democrats suddenly discover -- OMG -- Constitutional limits are being exceeded, NOW we have to reign in Federal government!!
FLT-bird: "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."
Founding Fathers like John Adams (MA), Benjamin Franklin (PA), Thomas Jefferson (VA) and George Washington (VA) were all close friends in 1776 and 1788.
They trusted each other, supported each other, depended on each other and worked together to accomplish their common goals -- independence (1776) and Federal government (1788).
They also shared common religious & ethical values, including their views regarding slavery.
They all considered slavery a moral (if necessary) evil which should be abolished eventually.
They all, including Southerners like Jefferson, took steps in that direction.
The new Federal government which replaced the old Articles of Confederation in 1788 was strikingly greater in its powers & scope.
Its purposes, even before the common defense, were to
- Form a more perfect Union -- meaning make us one Federal country, not just a loose collection of confederated states.
- Establish justice -- through Congress, courts and executive to define and enforce just what is "justice".
- Insure domestic tranquility -- to defeat rebellions, insurrections, "domestic violence" and treason.
After those purposes come the "common defense", "general welfare" and "Blessings of Liberty".
FLT-bird: "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."
Every original Founder expressed his opposition to slavery and hopes that it would eventually be abolished.
Founders like Thomas Jefferson did help abolish slavery in the Northwest Territories, abolished the international imports of new slaves and first proposed a long-term plan of Federally compensated abolition.
Jefferson's abolition plan got nowhere, but it demonstrates clearly that our Founders understood slavery was morally wrong and should be eventually abolished.
FLT-bird: "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."
Total Democrat lying bunk!
Democrats, then as now, wanted strict Constitutional controls on their political opponents.
Once they themselves were in power -- after the 1800 election -- then they did whatever the h*ll they wanted, the Constitution be d*mned.
Do you think New England Federalists in 1814 threatened secession because Democrats in Washington DC were too weak??
Nonsense!
FLT-bird: "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."
Before ~1814 there were two national parties -- Adams' Federalists and Jefferson's Democrats.
After ~1830 there were two national parties -- Clay's Whigs and Jacksonian Democrats.
So here's the key fact to understand: most of Adams' Federalists became Clay's Whigs and most of Jefferson's Democrats became Jacksonian Democrats.
It was the same people, same ideas, just different party names.
After Democrats' Civil War against the United States, they were out of power almost continuously until Wilson's election in 1912.
Out of power Democrats did what Democrats naturally do -- they weaponized the Constitution against their opponents to restrict Republicans as much as possible.
Once in power under Wilson & FDR, Democrats did what Democrats naturally do -- they ran roughshod over the Constitution and anything else in their way.