I have a few questions concerning the Tariff of 1789.
My understanding is that figures like Washington, Hamilton and Fitzsimmons basically represented the interests of Northern businessmen while figures like Jefferson and Madison basically represented the interests of Southern planters.
Consequently, in 1789 Fitzsimmons wanted protectionist tariffs against British manufactured goods to counteract the abundance of cheap British manufactured goods in America while Madison merely sought revenue tariffs. Protectionist tariffs would have helped Northern manufacturers but harmed Southern planters who exported cotton to Great Britain because the tariffs would lessen demand for British textiles.
However, the Hamiltonians also wanted better relations and increased trade with Great Britain while the Jeffersonians wanted better relations with France along with retaliation against Great Britain for its trade policies that heavily disadvantaged the United States.
First, is the above correct?
Second, why did the Hamiltonians want to increase trade with Britain if that meant more competition against the Northern businessmen? I understand they wanted stable revenues, but didn't this work at cross-purposes with their protectionist aims?
Third, why did Washington, as a Southern planter, align with the Hamiltonians?
Fourth, I get the impression that the Senate in 1789 was skewed more towards the Hamiltonian faction given its stance on the debate over titles and its removal from the bill on tonnage duties of Madison's formula favouring France and penalizing the UK. Is that correct?
Fifth, why didn't Southern planters see the protection of Northern manufacturing as an opportunity to redirect their cotton to domestic factories, saving money on shipping and simultaneously punishing Britain?
Finally, did the law on tonnage duties impose duties on tonnage of goods or on tonnage of capacity? The law doesn't seem to state this clearly.
The tariff was enacted in the brief period between the ratification of the Constitution and the assembling of the new Federal government, under Washington; it was passed even before Hamilton had been nominated to head the Treasury. The primary purpose was to give the new government some money for operation, in the middle of what looked to be ( and was) an enormous foreign debt; something Hamilton would spend his first months in office calculating. A tariff was the only possible way to raise funds. There were still serious outstanding issues with Britain. The American Prohibitory Act of 1775 had been repealed in 1783, but there were still British tariffs on American goods. The US was therefore in a very weak position, generally. Madison wanted a straight 5 percent tax on imports ( not sure about your tonnage question) , with a few special categories taxed higher, and this pretty easily passed. It was his third proposal, that foreign-flagged ships pay a higher percentage than American flagged vessels, that was opposed by the Southerners. They feared that the such a measure would drive away foreign vessels, and put them at the mercy of Northern merchant shipping. There were also a number of Northern congressmen who feared that the higher tariff would create a trade war with Britain- always a risk when raising tariffs. Together those two interests blocked the passage of the third measure in the Senate.
This was also before the huge cotton industry grew in the South, and the British textile mills that depended on it. Because of that, in the 19th c. the issue of the tariff would become far more troublesome, pitting the interest of the export economy of the South against the interest of the manufacturing economy of the North. But not just yet.
This was also before Hamilton proposed creating a national bank, in 1791. Jefferson and Madison confidently expected Washington was, like them a Southern planter and so against expansive Federal powers, and so would veto such a Federalist idea. But Washington agreed with Hamilton that a strong central bank would be very useful for businesses: he may have loved the life of a Virginia planter, but Washington had already shown himself to be a developer ( notably his company to make the Potomac navigable) and was quite capable of siding with northern merchants.