Quantcast
Connect with us

How America’s Founding Fathers felt about tariffs

Published

on

President Donald Trump’s trade wars have sparked fierce debate about the role of protectionism versus liberalism in U.S. trade with other countries.

This debate is hardly new. It dates all the way back to America’s founding.

ADVERTISEMENT

As a political economist interested in the historical foundations of modern U.S. trade policy, I think it’s worth revisiting that history.

Freedom and free trade

The Declaration of Independence, written in 1776, contains a long list of grievances against King George III.

The most famous refers to taxation without representation – although that exact phrase doesn’t actually appear in the text. Less well-remembered is the complaint that he “[cut] off our trade with all parts of the world.”

There was plenty of trade during the Colonial period. But none of it was free. England, like all colonial powers at the time, maintained exclusive control over valuable goods like sugar, cotton and tobacco that the Colonies produced.

ADVERTISEMENT

To the founders, this arrangement left the Colonies poorer. They had goods other countries wanted. English rule prevented the Colonies from capitalizing, quite literally, on those opportunities.

Given the declaration’s statement, you might conclude that the founders were ardent free traders, influenced by John Locke’s ideas about property rights, Adam Smith’s criticisms of mercantilism and even Montesquieu’s argument that trade promotes peace.

ADVERTISEMENT

This simple characterization, however, is wrong, although it has been repeated and abused throughout American political history, most recently by the Tea Party, which reduced the founders to pro-market purists.

Free trade isn’t just about which countries you trade with. It also implies limited or no government intervention in the market. This includes limited or no tariffs.

By that standard, the founders can’t easily be called free traders.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Founding Fathers placed tariffs on candles, cheese, coal, coffee and many other imports.
Vyacheslav Svetlichnyy/Shutterstock.com

A history of protection

On July 4, 1789, the United States passed its first significant piece of legislation: a tariff.

More precisely, a long list of tariffs around 5% and higher. Just sticking to the letter C, goods on the list included candles, cheese, coal and coffee.

That might sound surprising given the declaration’s complaint about free trade. But the newly formed country had more immediate worries. The United States was broke. It needed revenue.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Tariff Act of 1789, sponsored by James Madison, was designed to address three pressures facing the United States:

  1. it was suffering under the debt accumulating by waging war against England.

  2. the government needed a revenue source moving forward. Even if there had been no war debt, it wasn’t obvious in America’s early years how the government was going to fund its activities.

    ADVERTISEMENT

  3. America had yet to experience its industrial revolution, and nascent producers were being crushed by imports from Europe.

So, the United States was amassing debt and being flooded by imports. That sounds awfully familiar. In fact, things weren’t so different back then, and the same arguments took place then as today.

To many founders, tariffs looked like an attractive solution to these pressures. After all, just as we’ve heard from Trump, tariffs protect domestic producers from competition. And they raise revenue without directly taxing citizens. It sounds like a good deal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Hamilton disagreed with the other Founding Fathers about trade.
U.S. Government, CC BY

Hamilton takes things further

The founders didn’t all agree on the Tariff Act – but not because they were against trade protection.

Alexander Hamilton, the individual perhaps most responsible for shaping America’s early economic policies, wanted to take things further.

In 1791, Hamilton laid out his vision in his Report on the Subject of Manufacturers, an important statement on trade politics.

ADVERTISEMENT

Hamilton cautioned against taking protectionism too far. The founders were wary of raising tensions with foreign countries.

Yet, Hamilton did advocate for a diversity of government interventions in the market. This included tariffs, but also subsidies, which he called “premiums.” He thought the government could invest strategically in domestic industries to spur industrialization and reward innovation.

He mentioned a wide diversity of other policies, from import bans to the creation of production standards. These ideas went on to shape U.S. trade policies for years to come.

ADVERTISEMENT

Openness is relatively new

The hesitation the founders felt concerning market openness was consistent with the broader isolationist sentiment of the time.

George Washington’s farewell address is perhaps best remembered for warning against entangling the United States in “the toils of European ambition.” The idea the United States should mind to its own affairs was widespread at the founding.

It wasn’t until the 1930s that the United States made a significant course correction by delegating congressional authority over trade to the executive branch. And it wasn’t until after World War II that the United States took a lead role encouraging economic globalization.

ADVERTISEMENT

Now we hear a lot about how the global economic system – the system America helped build – is under attack. There’s supposedly a populist backlash against globalization. Backlash or not, Trump’s presidency represents a significant break from 75 years of presidential politics on trade.

From a historical point of view, these debates are nothing new. American trade policy has always been shaped by debates over the appropriate level of protectionism.

[ You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter. ]The Conversation

ADVERTISEMENT

Jeffrey Kucik, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Arizona

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and legal efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We’ve launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focused on issues, not tweets. And unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. We’re not part of a conglomerate, or a project of venture capital bros. From unflinching coverage of racism, to revealing efforts to erode our rights, Raw Story will continue to expose hypocrisy and harm. Unhinged from billionaires and corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click to donate by check.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. Like you, we here at Raw Story believe in the power of progressive journalism — and we’re investing in investigative reporting as other publications give it the ax. Raw Story readers power David Cay Johnston’s DCReport, which we've expanded to keep watch in Washington. We’ve exposed billionaire tax evasion and uncovered White House efforts to poison our water. We’ve revealed financial scams that prey on veterans, and efforts to harm workers exploited by abusive bosses. We’ve launched a weekly podcast, “We’ve Got Issues,” focused on issues, not tweets. Unlike other news outlets, we’ve decided to make our original content free. But we need your support to do what we do.

Raw Story is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. We’re not part of a conglomerate, or a project of venture capital bros. From unflinching coverage of racism, to revealing efforts to erode our rights, Raw Story will continue to expose hypocrisy and harm. Unhinged from corporate overlords, we fight to ensure no one is forgotten.

We need your support to keep producing quality journalism and deepen our investigative reporting. Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Invest with us in the future. Make a one-time contribution to Raw Story Investigates, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you.



Report typos and corrections to: [email protected]. Send news tips to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Facebook

Water bacteria cancels Tokyo 2020 paratriathlon test swim

Published

on

The swimming section of a paratriathlon test event for Tokyo 2020 was cancelled Saturday due to high levels of bacteria in the water, the latest in a series of difficulties over water quality and temperature.

Olympic organizers have won widespread praise for their preparations but extreme summer heat and poor water quality have brought headaches at practice events, with less than a year to go until the opening ceremony.

The International Triathlon Union (ITU) shelved the swimming leg after tests showed levels of e-coli more than double the acceptable standard.

Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

Psychoanalyst says Trump’s ‘mental pathology’ means he ‘hates reality’

Published

on

Donald Trump is a living, breathing national emergency. Our president has repeatedly encouraged violence against his perceived enemies — and at least some of his supporters are following his lead. These are not isolated incidents. There are dozens of court cases where Donald Trump has been cited for "inspiring" acts of violence and other crimes.There are also the most odious examples such as the recent white supremacist terror attack in El Paso in which the alleged mass murderer wrote an online "manifesto" that almost verbatim channeled Trump's threatening rhetoric towards nonwhite people.

Continue Reading
 

Facebook

‘He’s crazy’: MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace says Trump’s confused behavior is getting ‘impossible’ to ignore

Published

on

MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace argued Friday on "Deadline: White House" that the signs of Trump's frazzled and sometimes disjointed mental state are becoming "impossible" to ignore.

She first pointed to a passage in the New York Times report on his Thursday night rally, which said:

His speech was at times a greatest hits album of favorite lines, replaying the 2016 campaign against Hillary Clinton and bashing the news media, Democrats and America’s allies in Europe. Typically rambling, veering on and off script seemingly at random over an hour and a half, he repeated points he had already made earlier in the evening as if he did not remember already making them.

Continue Reading
 
 

Thank you for whitelisting Raw Story!

As a special thank you, from now until August 31st, we're offering you a discounted rate of $5.99/month to subscribe and get ad-free access. We're honored to have you as a reader. Thank you. :) —Elias, Membership Coordinator
LEARN MORE
close-link
close-image