[FirstFlaBn]

You conflate tariffs and protectionist tariffs. Not the same animal. Tariffs for revenue were favored by all political viewpoints in the 19th Century because of the efficiency in the collection process compared to other methods. Protective tariffs rewarded inefficient producers and favored one region at the expense of others.

It is difficult to precisely draw neat conservative/liberal comparisons between 19th and 21st Century, particularly when talking about something as amorphous as major political party platforms, but if you'll look at the fierce tariff debates from the 1820s on, you'll see that opposition to tariffs was not limited to fighting protectionism but the sure knowledge that when economic growth caused tariff revenues to skyrocket the new found money would not lay around Washington for long. It would be spent; it would be spent to buy votes; it would create power in Washington and dependency in the hinterlands. That is a true conservative principle - and it proves itself a principle because it applies equally today.

[x]

Hamilton did favor protective tariffs. Washington wanted to remain above political disputes but he had no objection to protection. Madison put through our first protective tariff in 1816, and Monroe followed his policy. National defense demanded the development of domestic industries. Even Jackson, a small government man, supported protective tariffs that angered South Carolinians.

A strong argument against protective tariffs was that they would bring in less money than a lower "tariff for revenue only." The opponents of protection often argued that their policies would bring in more money. And it's not clear how much money we are talking about. Tariffs never brought in as much money as the income tax.

Many in early 19th century America thought that the money tariffs brought in could have been used to build roads and canals. This belief carried over into the practices of conservative, limited government Republican Presidents in the 20th century. But up until Wilson and FDR, the effect of tariffs and internal improvements doesn't seem to have been more power for Washington. For New York or Chicago, maybe, but not so much for Washington.

There was a tussle in the capital everytime tariffs were up for a vote, but the charge against the government at the time was that the country was really being run by Wall Street. It was low tariff men, including many Southerners, who expanded the power of the federal government the most in the 20th century.

The South was certainly within its rights opposing tariffs and internal improvements in Congress, but looking back, it might have been better for them to build those roads and canals, either on their own through local taxes or through federal taxation. Forgoing internal development to remain an underdeveloped provider of raw materials for foreign industry doesn't seem to be the wisest choice