answersLogoWhite

0

John C. Calhoun argued that the tariffs violated equal rights. According to his perspective, tariffs not only favored the northern states, but also harmed the southern states. Imported goods hurt the income of all people in South Carolina. As far as Calhoun was concerned, helping support the northern industrial base was not the purpose of the federal government.

User Avatar

Coby Schumm

Lvl 13
3y ago

What else can I help you with?

Related Questions

What rights did John C. Calhon argue that tariffs violated?

John C. Calhoun argued that the tariffs violated equal rights. According to his perspective, tariffs not only favored the northern states, but also harmed the southern states. Imported goods hurt the income of all people in South Carolina. As far as Calhoun was concerned, helping support the northern industrial base was not the purpose of the federal government.


A government in power may argue that rights can be violated if what?

A government in power may argue that rights can be violated if


A government in power may argue that rights can be violated if?

Democrates


Why did Daniel Webster and john c calhoun of North Carolina argue about while serving in the us house of representatives?

They were arguing about the slavery and tariffs of the country. Webster opposed tariffs at first, but then came to like them for the industry


Why did the British argue that the banning of the opium trade by Chinese authorities in 1839 was wrong because it violated?

The British argued that the banning of the opium trade by Chinese authorities in 1839 was wrong because it violated the idea of freedom of commerce. They also argued that it violated the rights of Chinese citizens to do as they pleased.


What grounds did homer Plessy argue that his rights under the fourteenth amendment had been violated?

That separating the races implied involuntary servitude and inferiority rather than equality


What did anti-protectionists argue was a harmful effect of tariffs?

Higher prices of foreign goods


Should criminals have the vote?

This is a controversial topic with arguments on both sides. Some believe that all citizens should have the right to vote, regardless of their past actions. Others argue that criminals have violated the social contract and should have their voting rights revoked as part of their punishment.


Which act of the parliament caused the colonists to argue that the British had violated the principle of taxation with representation?

the stamp act


Why did Southerners argue states' rights were violated by abolition of slavery?

Southerners argued that the abolition of slavery violated states' rights because they believed that each state had the authority to determine its own laws and governance, including the legality of slavery. They contended that the federal government overstepped its constitutional boundaries by interfering in what they viewed as a state matter. This perspective was rooted in a broader belief in the sovereignty of states and a resistance to federal authority. Thus, they framed the abolition of slavery as an infringement on their rights and autonomy as states.


Those who favor protective tariffs argue that?

protecting domestic industries from foreign competition. all of the above (NovaNet)


John Locke did NOT argue that natural rights included the right to?

criminals do no not deserve to have rights