Talk:Tariff of Abominations

Proper title of Act

In accordance with other articles on tariffs and bills, this article should be titled under the formal name of the act, Tariff of 1828, rather than under a perjorative nickname, Tariff of Abominations. And so I moved it for that reason. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How much was the tarrif?

Added... --Palundrium 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

James Campbell, "Tariff, or Rates of Duties, Payable after the 30th of June, 1828" (New York: Edward B. Gould, 1828), by the customs collector at New York, has a very detailed list of the duties, including those on good competing with Southern industry.

It's online at https://books.google.com/books?id=CkkOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=tariff+rates+1828&source=bl&ots=po-tENCLjV&sig=-jKlkZs4Im_fIxhmNY8I--iNthk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK7Nna6eXJAhWK1CYKHal1DW0Q6AEIQjAG#v=snippet&q=cotton&f=false

--Al-Nofi (talk) 16:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not The Highest in US History...

The American Pagent 12th Edition writes "[The tariff] It turned out to be the highest protective tariff in the nation's peactime history." in regards to the Hartley-Smoot tariff. It would be a more accurate and still equally meaninful statement to say that the tariff was the highest so far; instead of the highest in history. --Frozenport 00:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In reading/scanning through Taussig's text on tariffs I see some major problems with the present article. The following I'm stiking because it appears both inaccurate and the citation given is not from an authoritative source on the matter:

It came to be known as the "Tariff of Abominations" because it was the highest tariff in U.S. history, enacting a 62% tax on 92% of all imported goods

First, I don't believe it is accurate. Second, the Buchanan quote is not what I would call a credible reference. Buchanan is a political figure and as such has a strong POV, writing to persuade rather than document/inform. He is not an historian. Third, in reading how complex the tariff structure was, particularly the minimum valuations and what was/was not covered I realize that such a precise statement requires an equally precise peer reviewed or at least widely accepted source. Red Harvest (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Change it for neutralities sake

This happens to be way to neutral and messes up the bias of most of the articles on the civil war. People might find there way to this page and end up looking for a neutral source of the history that pertains to the civil war. We really don't want that truth to get out so rewrite this in a way that makes the south look like greedy and immoral slave holdersSerialjoepsycho (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move: → Tariff of Abominations

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Evidence confirms this falls under WP:POVTITLE, especially since this is a historical subject. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Tariff of 1828 → Tariff of Abominations – This ngram shows that in modern times "Tariff of Abominations" is about three times more common than "Tariff of 1828". (If you expand the time period, you can see that in the 19th century this subject was usually called "Tariff of 1828".) See also Skrabec's The 100 Most Significant Events in American Business (2012), which uses "Tariff of Abominations" as a chapter heading. Kauffner (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose according to our article, the proposed title is a POV-title. -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 04:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The proposed form was certainly POV in the 19th century. But modern historians treat it simply as the name of the tariff. Kauffner (talk) 07:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support, per analysis of preponderance of sources, above. — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Effects of the Tariff

The following claim is made in the first paragraph under "Effects of the Tarriff": Despite the sufferings of the South, the US experienced net economic growth with US GDP increasing from $888 million in 1828 to $1.118 billion by 1832 largely due to growth of the Northern manufacturing base.[8] The claim is not verifiable for it's accuracy and relevance on various grounds.

The reference link is to a site about tax revenues. I was unable to find any GDP numbers on the site or even from other sources using a cursory google search. Can these numbers be verified at all? Furthermore, it is normal for the economy to experience growth. When growth stops for a relatively short period of time, this is called a recession which is considered unusual and bad. Stating the economy grew does not begin to tell whether the tariff retarded economic growth from the growth rate that prevailed during that period of economic development. Thus even if the statistics could be verified, they prove absolutely nothing without proper context. Finally, are these inflation adjusted numbers or constant dollar? Which dollars - 1828, 2009, or when? If not constant dollar, the entire amount of "growth" could be due to inflation caused by the increasing price of imports and the increased price of US goods facing less foreign competition, or even unrelated monetary effects. 165.156.39.19 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The totally unsupportable claim that there are export and interstate tariffs is repeatedly being made in the opening paragraph and also that the 1828 tariff taxed southern cotton sold to the Northern states. Rundstedt (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rundstedt (talk • contribs) 02:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)