Why did southerners resist the icreased tariff in 1829, argueing it should be nullified?

Southerners resisted the increased tariff in 1829 primarily because they believed it benefitted one section of the country, particularly the Northern states and their industrial interests, while harming the agricultural economy of the South. Here are some key reasons behind their resistance and the argument for nullification:

1. **Economic Impact**: The South was predominantly agrarian and relied heavily on the export of crops like cotton. They argued that high tariffs increased the cost of imported goods, making it more expensive for them to purchase what they needed while they received little benefit from the tariffs.

2. **Sectionalism**: The tariffs were viewed as favoring Northern industrialists at the expense of Southern agricultural producers. The Southerners felt that the government was prioritizing Northern economic interests, which bred resentment and a feeling of political disenfranchisement.

3. **Nullification Doctrine**: Many Southern leaders, most notably John C. Calhoun, advanced the idea of nullification—the belief that states had the right to nullify federal laws they deemed unconstitutional. They argued that the 1829 tariff was unjust and harmful to their economy and therefore should not be enforced within their borders.

In summary, while there were several arguments presented, the prevailing sentiment among Southerners was that the tariff imposed an unfair economic burden on them and that it favored Northern industry, leading them to seek ways to nullify it.

are you sure?

Yes, I can clarify further. The resistance of Southerners to the increased tariff in 1829, which is part of the broader context of the Tariff of Abominations (1828), can be understood through several key points:

1. **Economic Disadvantages**: The South primarily produced agricultural goods, while the North was becoming increasingly industrialized. High tariffs on imported goods meant that Southern consumers had to pay more for items they could not produce themselves. This was perceived as economically disadvantageous to the South, which did not have the same manufacturing base to benefit from protective tariffs.

2. **Political Discontent**: Many Southerners believed that the federal government was overstepping its authority and favoring Northern interests. This sentiment contributed to a growing divide between the North and South, leading to an increased sense of sectional identity in the South.

3. **Nullification Theory**: The idea of nullification, strongly advocated by figures like John C. Calhoun, posited that states had the right to invalidate federal laws that they deemed unconstitutional or harmful. Calhoun and others argued that the tariff was an overreach of federal power and should be nullified by the states.

4. **Fear of Economic Dependency**: The South relied on exports of cotton and other agricultural products, and many Southerners feared that high tariffs could lead to retaliatory tariffs from other countries, damaging their export markets and increasing their economic dependency on Northern products.

In summary, the resistance was rooted in economic concerns, regional identity, political beliefs about the distribution of power between state and federal governments, and fears about the implications of tariffs for their agricultural economy. This context explains the arguments that led to calls for nullification.