Most arguments in this genre point to Jefferson’s qualified commentaries on the Tariff of 1816 as evidence of this claim, while also noting the law was signed by James Madison, his distinguished successor as president. These actions, the NatCons insist, demonstrate that the Founding generation converted to the interventionist economic program of the American System, first outlined by Sen. Henry Clay in a famous speech in 1824.
The NatCon’s historical narrative seeks to wrap their own present-day, pro-tariff arguments in the imprimatur of the American Founding. If protectionism worked for Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison, then it will also work for us today, they claim. While Hamilton, who died in a duel in 1804, did indulge protectionist arguments during his stint as Secretary of the Treasury, the rebranding of Jefferson and Madison as American System enthusiasts runs directly contrary to historical evidence.
Madison and Jefferson were both still alive when Henry Clay outlined his American System platform in 1824. Contrary to the NatCon claims, neither founding father approved of Clay’s proposals. In fact, both condemned it as a constitutional overreach by the federal government.
[This is an interesting historical argument, and I suspect that Magness has the better of it. Just how much relevance does this have to policy today, though? The US economy of the 18th and early 19th centuries could hardly be described as globalized, after all, and what we used in the US we primarily made for ourselves, especially in the Founders’ era. The “NatCons” may still be wrong on policy, but I don’t think that fighting over the approach used by Jefferson and Madison 220 years ago settles the issue. — Ed]
Join the conversation as a VIP Member