New Confederacy Hates Tariffs As Much As The Old Confederacy
The so-called “New Confederacy of California,” a term used by some conservative commentators to describe California’s aggressive legal resistance to federal policies, has launched a high-profile lawsuit against the Trump White House in April 2025, challenging the president’s sweeping tariffs on imports. Governor Gavin Newsom, alongside Attorney General Rob Bonta, announced the suit on April 16, 2025, at an almond farm in Ceres, arguing that Trump’s 10% across-the-board tariffs, alongside higher levies on key trading partners like China, Canada, and Mexico, are unlawful and economically devastating. California, the world’s fifth-largest economy and a major hub for agriculture and manufacturing, claims the tariffs disproportionately harm its $24 billion export industry, particularly almonds, dairy, and tech goods, echoing the economic grievances of the Southern Confederacy in the 1860s. Newsom called the tariffs a “wrecking ball” to America’s global reputation, asserting that Trump lacks the constitutional authority to impose them without Congressional approval, a stance that mirrors historical Southern objections to federal overreach.
In the 1860s, the Southern Confederacy decried tariffs like the Morrill Tariff of 1861, which raised duties on imports to protect Northern industry, as an economic assault that disproportionately burdened their agrarian, export-dependent economy. Southern leaders, heavily reliant on exporting cotton to Britain, argued that high tariffs increased the cost of imported goods they needed while inviting retaliatory tariffs from trading partners, shrinking their markets and profits—profits often tied to the slave labor system. They viewed these tariffs as a Northern scheme to exploit the South, with 90% of federal revenue coming from Southern ports being redirected to fund Northern infrastructure like railroads, fueling secessionist sentiment. Similarly, California’s 2025 lawsuit claims Trump’s tariffs threaten thousands of jobs and billions in revenue, with ports handling 40% of U.S. imports at risk, and retaliatory tariffs from China and others jeopardizing agricultural exports. The state’s legal argument hinges on the Constitution granting Congress—not the president—tariff authority, a parallel to Southern cries of federal overreach in the 1860s, though California’s fight is economic, not tied to slavery.
The historical parallel, while striking, has sparked debate, with some seeing California’s actions as a modern Nullification Crisis akin to South Carolina’s 1832–33 resistance to federal tariffs. Back then, South Carolina’s Ordinance of Nullification declared federal tariffs void within the state, nearly leading to military conflict until a compromise reduced rates. Posts on X have likened California to South Carolina, with Trump cast as a modern Andrew Jackson, ready to enforce federal will. However, California’s challenge lacks the secessionist undertones of the 1860s South; instead, it’s a legal battle rooted in economic self-preservation, not a defense of a morally bankrupt institution like slavery. Newsom’s suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, seeks to void Trump’s tariffs, arguing his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act oversteps his authority—a claim that, if successful, could reshape executive power over trade, much as the tariff battles of the 1860s reshaped federal-state dynamics.
