1830 Andrew Jackson - Defending the Tariff of 1828 - Federalist #12

In 1830, President Andrew Jackson repeated the arguments of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #12 to defend the Tariff of 1828 from those who argued that it was unconstitutional.  Jackson was forced to defend its constitutionality after the South Carolina House of Representatives published a 35,000-word paper that was written by former Vice President John C Calhoun known as the "South Carolina Exposition and Protest".  The paper was written in December of 1828 and presented to the South Carolina House of Representatives who then had 5,000 copies printed and distributed.  At the time, the South Carolina House withheld the name of the author, but it was later revealed to be Calhoun.   The same John C. Calhoun who had supported the very same tariff that the exposition was railing against.   Calhoun explained years later that his early support was to help make the bill so unpalatable to the New England politicians that they would never support it.  Calhoun and other Southerners were planning to walk away from the bill in the final vote.  The Exposition challenged the Tariff of 1828 as being unconstitutional because it favored manufacturing over commerce and agriculture.   Jackson in his 1830 State of the Union Address argued that the Tariff was constitutional because, the States had explicitly delegated the power of the tariff to the federal government in the Constitution. 

Jackson explained that the "power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the several States", and with that power came the right to target those duties in order to encourage one domestic branch of industry over another.   Not only was the right of protection, a direct and intentional consequence of the power, it was also one that the states delegated to the federal government "without limitation or restricting".  The only exception was for what Jackson called an insignificant reservation limited to their inspection laws.  Jackson argued that since the authority had passed entirely from the states to the federal government, they gave up any and all power to impose taxes designed to protect industry or agriculture.  Without such power, no nation could defend itself from the "selfish and destructive which might be adopted by foreign nations".  Therefore, Jackson concluded this "indispensable power" that the states freely gave up "must be within the scope" of the federal government as "expressly delegated to Congress".  

When did the states give up this power?  That was my first question.  The answer is when the U.S. Constitution was adopted.  Prior to this, under the Articles of Confederation, the central government did not have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations or among the states and lacked the power to impose taxes or enforce any revenue collection from the states.   Back then, each state had retained the power to regulate commerce and impose taxes on imports.  When the U.S. Constitution was ratified it included a clause (Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2) known as the "Import-Export clause", that delegated this power to the federal government and granted the exclusive right to impose duties and imposts on imports on them. 

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's [sic] inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul [sic] of the Congress.

Article 1, Section 10, clause 2

This decision was not taken lightly.  Prior to the ratifying of the Constitution in 1788, the Import-Export clause received considerable debate at the Constitutional Convention, even more than the Commerce Clause which granted Congress the authority to “regulate trade with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Indian Tribes,".   Alexander Hamilton laid the groundwork for ratification in the Federalist paper #12. The Federalist papers were a series of 85 pro-ratification articles and essays that were published and circulated in the 1780s and written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay under the pseudonym "Publius".   In Federalist #12, Alexander Hamilton addressed the subject of Revenue and taxation.   Hamilton pointed out that a direct tax on the wealth of the people would not only be impractical but would also unlikely raise a considerable sum of money.  Attempting to do so, by taking from the pockets of farmers would yield "but scanty supplies", whether it be in the unwelcome shape of a property tax, or a consumption tax.   Rather than a direct taxation from the wealth of our private citizens, Hamilton argued that in America the national revenue should be derived from indirect taxes, such as imposts and duties on imported articles.   Hamilton also argued, that the power to impose duties on imports should be delegated to a federal government, where it can be used most effectively and without prejudice to trade.   Hamilton wrote that "It is therefore evident, that one national government would be able, at much less expense, to extend the duties on imports, beyond comparison, further than would be practical to the States separately, or to any confederacies".   In the end, the states agreed with Hamilton, and adopted Article 1, Section 10, clause 2 giving Congress the power to impose tariffs on imports coming into our country.

Here in 1830, we find Andrew Jackson echoing the arguments of Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #12, making a very powerful argument in favor of federal duties and tariffs on imports.   The U.S. constitution as understood by Jackson gave the federal government sole power to use them as to protect American industry, commerce and agriculture as it saw fit.  It had to be this way.   If the states had given up this power, and the federal government did not possess it, then neither the state or the federal government would have the power or responsibility to protect industry.  This would leave a big gaping hole in our political system and the people would be "stripped of the right to foster their own industry and to counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations".  Surely, this could not be the case.  Besides, Jackson's opinion was shared by his predecessors of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe who had repeatedly and openly recommended that the federal government impose duties or tariffs to protect American industry.   It is interesting to note that Jackson chose to name every one of his predecessors except for the two Adams, including John Quincy Adams who was president when the Tariff of 1828 was created.

Here is the except from Jackson's 1830 State of the Union address defending the constitutionality of the Tariff of 1828.

"Among the numerous causes of congratulation the condition of our impost revenue deserves special mention, in as much as it promises the means of extinguishing the public debt sooner than was anticipated, and furnishes a strong illustration of the practical effects of the present tariff upon our commercial interests.
 The object of the tariff is objected to by some as unconstitutional, and it is considered by almost all as defective in many of its parts.
 The power to impose duties on imports originally belonged to the several States. The right to adjust those duties with a view to the encouragement of domestic branches of industry is so completely incidental to that power that it is difficult to suppose the existence of the one without the other. The States have delegated their whole authority over imports to the General Government without limitation or restriction, saving the very inconsiderable reservation relating to their inspection laws. This authority having thus entirely passed from the States, the right to exercise it for the purpose of protection does not exist in them, and consequently if it be not possessed by the General Government it must be extinct. Our political system would thus present the anomaly of a people stripped of the right to foster their own industry and to counteract the most selfish and destructive policy which might be adopted by foreign nations. This sure can not be the case. This indispensable power thus surrendered by the States must be within the scope of the authority on the subject expressly delegated to Congress.
 In this conclusion I am confirmed as well by the opinions of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, who have each repeatedly recommended the exercise of this right under the Constitution, as by the uniform practice of Congress, the continued acquiescence of the States, and the general understanding of the people."

Almost 150 years later in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court echoed Jackson's words when they summarized the purpose of the Import Export clause during the Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages case.

"The Framers of the Constitution thus sought to alleviate three main concerns by committing sole power to lay imposts and duties on imports in the Federal Government, with no concurrent state power: the Federal Government must speak with one voice when regulating commercial relations with foreign governments, and tariffs, which might affect foreign relations, could not be implemented by the States consistently with that exclusive power; import revenues were to be the major source of revenue of the Federal Government, and should not be diverted to the States; and harmony among the States might be disturbed unless seaboard States, with their crucial ports of entry, were prohibited from levying taxes on citizens of other States by taxing goods merely flowing through their ports to the other States not situated as favorably geographically."

—Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages, 423 U.S. at 285-286

 References

Presidency.ucsb.edu. (2019). Second Annual Message | The American Presidency Project. [online] Available at: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/second-annual-message-3 [Accessed 25 Mar. 2019].

Avalon.law.yale.edu. (2019). The Avalon Project : The Federalist Papers No. 12. [online] Available at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed12.asp [Accessed 25 Mar. 2019].

Findlaw. (2019). FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.. [online] Available at: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/423/276.html [Accessed 25 Mar. 2019]. 

Wagner, D. (2019). 1829 Andrew Jackson - Reducing Tariffs on Coffee. [online] Stateoftheunionhistory.com. Available at: http://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2018/10/1829-andrew-jackson-reducing-tariffs-on.html [Accessed 25 Mar. 2019].

En.wikipedia.org. (2019). Import-Export Clause. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import-Export_Clause [Accessed 25 Mar. 2019].

En.wikipedia.org. (2019). South Carolina Exposition and Protest. [online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Exposition_and_Protest [Accessed 25 Mar. 2019].