Ready for an ‘abomination?’ In American history, tariffs have consequences

American tariffs? Let me tell you about those. Move President Trump’s tariffs to one side for now, we will get back to those in a moment. We could start with the first American tariff in 1789, which put 5 per cent on most manufactured goods, but instead we will start with the more spectacular 1828 “Tariff of Abominations” which was set at almost 50 per cent.

Northern industrialists pushed for the tariff to protect their factories against competition from British goods. Southerners in the Cotton Belt howled against it because they were not much involved in the manufacturing industry, wanted to import from Britain and were dependent on trade with Britain. The South feared retaliation against their cotton exports by the Westminster government.

Indeed, so “abominable” was the tariff that the great Vice President John C. Calhoun of South Carolina – and if your American geography is weak, that is deep Cotton Belt – published an argument for the state nullification of federal law. Calhoun and his Southern supporters said that the federal government was merely an agent for the sovereign states and the states could nullify federal law within their borders, including any tariffs which the sovereign states felt were unconstitutional.

If your American history is stronger than your American geography, you will hear in Calhoun’s argument the thinking which grew into the demand for secession by the Southern states from the federal union in 1861. (Actually, I could trace the argument even further back to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, but that might lead us into a swamp of history which no European could navigate.)

By 1832, it was obvious the tariff was too poisonous to continue – South Carolina was ready to arm to resist it – and the US Congress passed a new tariff, lowering the rates, though the rates stayed high. More important was the fact that the “Tariff of Abominations” inspired the ideology of secession which did not die.

Tariffs have consequences.

Which brings us to Trump and his tariffs of 25 per cent on goods from Mexico and Canada, and a new 10 per cent on top of existing tariffs on Chinese goods. We can stick with the Mexican and Canadian tariffs for now. Please note the way Trump slammed the tariffs – wham! – on the table. That was an opening bid, a real stunner, from a pro negotiator. Twenty-five percent on Mexico and Canada, until they stop the illegal immigrants, until they stop the fentanyl — and until Canada pays for the cost of being under America’s nuclear umbrella. People forget about that issue, especially Democrats and their friends in Ottawa, when they complain that Canada should not get a heavy tariff because it does not let that many illegal aliens over the border or let in that much fentanyl (“not much?” How much is an okay amount? How many over-dosed dead Americans are not many?).

The issue for Trump in dealing with Canada is that it is a freeloader on American defence. Canada pays just a shameful 1.4 per cent of GDP for defence. The Ottawa government reckons that tiny amount allows Canada to go to all the NATO parties without actually establishing a military which could defend their country.

Which is why Trump has taunted Trudeau and the Canadians by saying Canada could become an American state. Either Canada starts acting like an independent sovereign state that will pay to defend itself, or it can go on acting like a colony of the United States, sheltering under American power, and the US will treat it accordingly. That is, without the dignity an independent, sovereign state would merit.

Meanwhile the Russian and Chinese navies cruise along Canada’s coast.

Is Trump’s move outrageous? Of course. As the American historian and commentator Victor Davis Hanson said about Trump, “Outrageous gets attention. Then people start to discuss. There is irony in all of these, but the point is to bring attention in an eccentric fashion and get something done quickly.”

Which is why the tariffs went down suddenly and shockingly, wham. Trump wants to solve the problem quickly. His move is a variation on the old joke about how a farmer gets a mule to be obedient. He hits the mule across the head with a two-by-four and then the mule will do as he is told, because he is giving the farmer his full attention. (For my Continental readers, a two-by-four is a plank of wood 5.08 cm high by 10.16 cm wide and as long as you like. Mule does not care.)

As for Mexico, governments there have allowed the country to be dominated by paramilitary gangs, murderers, drug dealers and people smugglers. How bad is it in Mexico? This is from Global Conflict Tracker: “Mexico faces a crisis of kidnappings, disappearances, and other criminal violence that has left over thirty-thousand people dead each year since 2018. Gangs and drug cartels largely perpetrate this violence, but the state has also committed human rights violations in its war against these groups.” The violence became so bad that the government directed the military to fight the gangs: “Rights groups say military policing has eroded the treatment of civilians, who face arbitrary detention, rape, and extrajudicial killings.”

Since Trump’s inauguration, federal agents have been carrying out arrests of thousands of illegal immigrants who are involved in serious violent crime: rapists, murderers, child molesters, gang violence. Most of the criminals, whatever nationality they are, came into America over the Mexican border. Trump now tells Mexico it must stop those migrants, and the US will keep piling on the tariff pressure until it does.

The tariffs would end quickly, though, if Mexico listened to what Trump wants. Mexico must stop the caravans of migrants who come across their territory to get to the Texas crossing. And it must confront the drugs gangs. So far, Mexico appears to be doing neither. Trump will keep hitting it hard until it does. He is ready to go the full abomination.