Trump's Address, Lincoln, and Protectionism

After reading President Trump's full address to the United States Congress on 28 February 2017, I was struck by a particular quote he included:

"abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people."  President Trump was quoting President Abraham Lincoln, who he described as "the first Republican President."  What is interesting about this is that both are technically correct, Lincoln did indeed pen that quote, and Lincoln was the first Republican President of the United States.  However linking those two made it sound like that quote was representing a policy of President Lincoln in office, and that is not exactly the case.

President Lincoln in the 1860s did support a higher United States tariff, however the quote was taken from his writing on the subject in 1846, when he was about to enter Congress.  During his election for the Presidency Lincoln was a great deal more circumspect on the issue of the tariff, due to regional political issues and also the rising tension with the southern states, which remained broadly opposed to tariff protections.  More critically though, although the tariff was a means of protecting domestic United States industry at the time, it played a more critical role to the federal government in the early to mid 19th century - mainly as the primary source of revenue for the United States government.

Meet Hiram Barney, the Collector of the Port of New York from 1861 to 1864, President Lincoln's appointee to handle one of the key revenue points in the United States' federal revenue stream.  Prior to the legalization of direct income tax one of the key sources of non-borrowing revenue for the United States was tariff revenues, which were broadly collected across all goods imported into the United States.  The various tariff bills in the 1850s onward were oriented towards collecting uniform revenues whose purpose was to fund the federal government without favoring one area of the economy over another.

To put it more bluntly, the kind of tariff system designed to generate federal revenue, not to shield the United States economy from foreign competitive trade.  Because the economy of the United States in the 1860s was very different than the United States economy of the 1840s, when the quote President Trump is citing was written.

The debate on United States trade policy and the value of tariffs is a fine topic for debate and discussion, economists around the world have varying positions on the subject.  But it certainly should not be justified by a quote from 1840s Abraham Lincoln, talking about a fundamentally different way to organize the United States economy and its sources of federal revenue.

Sources:  Wikipedia entries on Hiram Barney and U.S. Tariff policy, Abraham Lincoln classroom on Lincoln and the Tariff, the University of Michigan library collected works of Abraham Lincoln (and quote source), and the transcript of President Trump's speech

U.S. Civil War, States Rights, and Slavery

A recent article in the Washington Post titled "Texas Officials: Schools should teach that slavery was 'side issue to Civil War" has, once again, shed light on a very old fight taking place on the core issues of the United States Civil War.  Historians almost across the board agree that slavery was the core issue of the U.S. Civil War, those that disagree will normally acknowledge that the "states right" that was being fought over was slavery.  I will touch on that, later in this post, but I first wanted to express in a more general tone why, to my eye, this particular issue on the interpretation of the U.S. Civil War is so critical and is still so violently fought over.

Since the close of the U.S. Civil War in 1865, and with the termination of Reconstruction in the late 1880s, the United States has seen a general move by its southern states, and portions of the northern states, to embrace the U.S. Civil War as a fight over the "Lost Cause."  This is a romanticized view of the U.S. Civil War, a re-imagining of the conflict as a battle fought by an outmatched foe (the South) against an aggressive dominating rival (the North.)  This view of the U.S. Civil War pivots the narrative into one of the Southern states fighting to defend more morally palatable issues for the United States of the 1880s forwards, issues of limited government, Constitutional balance, and yes, states rights.

States rights reaches to the issue of federalism, the balance between the states and the central federal government, and has been an issue of contention in the United States since its founding.  The initial divide between our two political parties reflects this, it is a divide which is rooted in the current debates shaping the United States today.

At its root the "Lost Cause" view of the U.S. Civil War was an effort to remake the war into something more noble.  It was also part of an effort by the north and south to reunify the country and close still strong sectional divisions in the early 20th century.  As part of this effort both sides agreed to a tacit cultural agreement, northern historians and cultural figures would accept the "nobility" of the southern cause and support that position, and southern historians and cultural figures would embrace Abraham Lincoln and the northern actions as necessary if regrettable.  I will admit this is just my opinion but I believe it was this compromise that really put an end to the idea that states had a moral right of secession as a mainstream theory about the U.S. Civil War, most people today may debate the legality of secession and when it could happen, but they've accepted the U.S. Civil War was necessary because it kept the United States a strong nation.

This compromise reached its height, in my opinion, in 1958 with the passage of U.S. Public Law 85-425 which granted the widows of Confederate forces the right to a pension from the U.S. government.  The actual law is limited to just this but it has since been taken in common culture as a taciturn recognition of Confederate veterans as having the same status as veterans of the U.S. armed forces in general.  For the purposes of this post the actual legality of that view is irrelevant, what matters is that since 1958 the accepted image of Confederate veterans in the south is that they were patriots, equal to U.S. veterans, not traitors or criminals.

But was the U.S. Civil War about slavery at its core?  Bottom line, yes, and also state's rights, and also regional power.  To see this though you have to go back to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which dealt with how to handle new states entering the U.S.  The issue was the admission of Missouri, whose residents wanted to own slaves.  The challenge was that the balance of power in the U.S. Senate balanced evenly between slave states and free states in 1820.  This balance of power was considered vital for the southern states because the more populous north dominated the House of Representatives and with the northern states there was growing resistance to slavery.  (Not due to any particularly strong moral issues, although that was part of it, rather to a blend of moral issues with good old-fashioned economic concerns.)

To deal with this Maine was admitted at the same time, as a free state, and the U.S. Congress drew a line across the lands of the Louisiana purchase marking off where slavery would end.  Both sides also understood that newly admitted states would have to maintain the Senate balance of power between slave states and free states.  To offset that balance was unacceptable to both sides - to the north loss of the Senate would make them bound to an unfair "slave power" in the U.S., which had economic interests violently opposed to the growing interests of northern industrial powers.  For southern states loss of the Senate would make them vulnerable to pressures that would harm their economic interests as a trading power engaged in a fiercely competitive global agricultural trade.

This balance remained in place until Stephen Douglas in 1854, in part of a bid to improve his political position in a run for the Presidency, in part to open land for railroad settlement, and also due to his political convictions came up with a new plan - scrap the Missouri Compromise and let the residents of each state decide if they wanted to be free or slave.  Hence the creation, and passage, of the Kansas-Nebraska Act which said "you local residents, you decide among yourselves if you want to be slave or free."

Now if slavery was not, by itself, a burning issue with deep roots to sectional conflicts, state position, and deeply held ethnic tensions in the United States, you might imagine that this would have been settled in a calm, collected manner.  It was not.

The image above is a "free state" poster regarding Kansas - give it a look - as you can see people were quite touchy on the issue of if Kansas would be a slave or free state.  Both sides on the issue flooded the territory with individuals and the issue was resolved with armed force.  This period was, and is, referred to as "Bleeding Kansas" and it basically pitted "free territory" settlers against individuals from Missouri who came to ensure that slavery would be allowed to expand into Kansas.  The situation wasn't really resolved until 1861 when Kansas was admitted as a free state to the union.  (By which point things had already reached the "Holy Hell" stage with South Carolina already pulling out of the United States.)

Allow me to close with this point - slavery as an issue in the United States from its founding through 1865 was a contentious issue, both on its own merits and for what it symbolized to the people of the United States.  From the 1850s onward though it became probably the central issue of United States politics, for better or for worse.  From the rise of the Republican Party out of the dead remains of the Whig Party, a new political organization with an avowed goal of shattering slavery in the United States ideally and at a minimum containing it in the southern states till it died out on its own against Southern leaders who with the Dred Scott decision made it clear they intended to bring slavery into free states and use the power of the federal courts to make slavery a default acceptable option throughout the United States.

If I had to summarize it I'd say that the U.S. Civil War was about slavery because it was a war about what shape the United States would take, what sort of nation it would be - one with slavery or one without.  Because within that issue was tied a whole host of other issues of what the United States would be:

• Predominately a strong agricultural exporter power with low tariffs or a strong industrial power with high tariffs and limited foreign trade
• A nation with a strictly enforced racial hierarchy empowered by law or one in which the racial hierarchy was more fluid
• A nation in which private property was sacrosanct or one in which the federal government had the right to redefine, seize, and modify property based on Congressional laws
• A nation in which the federal government or the individual state governments would hold the strongest position of power

It is an ugly truth today but in the end it all really did come down to the issue of...slavery

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on Bleeding Kansas, Lost Cause, Kansas-Nebraska Act, and the Missouri Compromise

19th Immigrants to America - the wrong message for a modern election

So the image above has been making the rounds on Facebook and appears to be showing a queue of immigrants, either in the late 19th or early 20th century, passing through Ellis Island or an equivalent port of entry into the United States.  The tagline at the bottom says that these immigrants "never burned our flag, respected American culture, cared about America."  With the top line it implicates that immigrants entering the United States in the 21st century, illegally, don't equal the same "higher quality" immigrants from a cultural protection perspective than these older immigrants.

First off, wow, the levels of cultural perspective shift held in that image, especially considering the widespread anti-immigrant feelings in the United States in the early 20th century specifically targeted at the above groups of immigrants is shocking.  But I am going to let that go for now, because the reality behind this text line is also wrong.

This image if from 16 September 1920, and is from the bombing of Wall Street, an act of revolutionary violence which was, most likely, carried about by Anarchists attempting to disrupt the United States economy and political system.  Although the United States government never formally determined who was responsible for the bombing attack, most evidence at the time and in later investigations points to a group of Italian immigrants, the Galleanists, a dedicated revolutionary group of Italian anarchists and followers of Luigi Galleani.  This group was mostly made up of Italian immigrants and most certainly did not respect United States culture or care about America as it was in the 1920s, it was dedicated to the overthrow of the United States government and American society.

The above bombing by the way killed a total of thirty-eight people and was done with a massive explosive device planted in a horse-drawn carriage.  It was detonated at noon to ensure maximum carnage.  (The physical damage to the Wall Street building was left in place and can be seen today.)

The center point of this particular movement is pictured above, Luigi Galleani, an anarchist from Italy who was expelled from multiple European nations, and the Middle East, before arriving in the United States.  He traveled the U.S. East Coast with a goal of motivating other anarchists, spreading revolutionary fervor among the working class, and supporting striking workers.  He was a believer in "propaganda of the deed" - carrying out revolutionary violence to inspire others to join in.  His followers are responsible for waves of assassination attempts (some successful), bombings, mass poisonings, and building a support network for anarchist activists through the early 20th century.  (His newsletter was also a source of an early form of "doxing" - printing home addresses of leading capitalists to inspire his readers to direct action.)

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it came to immigrant activism, throughout that period Socialists, Communists, and other political dissidents came to the United States to spread their ideas and make a strong attempt at revolution within the United States.  The Anarchists happen to stand out  in United States history because they were more colorful than other efforts and far more aggressive in the use of violent tactics.

But broadly there is no magical period of dutiful, loyal immigrants who came to the United States that can be contrasted with the immigrants of today.  Even in the late 19th through early 20th century immigrant boom in the United States you had efforts within that community to deliberately destroy the society and government of the United States, with any eye towards forging something new.

Sources:  Wikipedia articles on the Wall Street bombing of 1920 and Luigi Galleani

American Eccentrics of Note – William Walker

Handsome fellow – and also one hell of an original American Eccentric.  Walker started out life in Tennessee, got his first college degree at fourteen and his medical degree at the age of nineteen.  He practiced medicine, studied the law, ran a newspaper, and did some time as a reporter. Geographically he bounced around from his home state to New Orleans, LA and then on to San Francisco, CA.  When he got out west Walker found his passion – conquering land south of the current borders of the United States to establish new American colonies in Latin America.  We all have to have ambitions in life and Walker’s was building new nations or conquering existing ones.  What makes him stand out is that he was actually somewhat successful at it.

In 1853, at the tender age of twenty-nine, Walker recruited a total of forty-five men and set out to into Baja California with the goal of establishing a new republic – one built around the ideas of Manifest Destiny, expanding slavery, and joining up with the United States through annexation like Texas had done.  Walker had started out attempting to convince the Mexican government to just give him the land to set up an armed colony against attacks by Native Americans – Mexico was uninterested in Walker’s plan though.  Most people would have given up at that point – Walker conquered a city in Baja and proclaimed a new republic – the Republic of Senora.  It didn’t last long though – the Mexican government decided that Walker’s new state was an unacceptable addition to the local Baja scene and crushed it militarily.  But from that Walker moved on to a greater dream – conquering a Latin American nation that was already established.

In 1855 Nicaragua was embroiled in a nasty civil war and Walker, leading a group of fifty-eight Americans nicknamed “The Immortals” Walker was able to ally with local military forces in Nicaragua and successfully defeat all opposing factions in Nicaragua – Walker initially ruled through a puppet president but then elevated himself to the office of President of Nicaragua.  He actually held the office for a year and eleven months, his government was formally recognized by the United States, US President Franklin Pierce provided that honor.  Walker lost power due to his ambitious, but failed efforts, to expand his holdings into nearby Costa Rica and was military defeated by an alliance of surrounding states.  Walker escaped punishment and capture by surrendering to a US naval warship in 1857.

He returned to the United States and by 1860 he had written a four hundred page tome explaining his actions in Nicaragua and his administration.  He was hailed as a hero throughout the southern United States.  Walker also in 1860 made another attempt to carve out a nation, he sailed secretly to Honduras to take advantage of some dissatisfaction brewing in Honduras among its wealthy, non-local residents.  Unfortunately for Walker his ambitions in the region raised concerns with the British government, who had a vested interest in Honduras staying stable, so when Walker arrived in Honduras a local British naval captain captured him.  Walker was then handed over to the government of Honduras, which promptly shot him.

I’ll be reading up for more information on William Walker – I might someday write a book collecting eccentric and oddballs of US history and he’ll be in that collection.  But Walker did impact history – his actions changed Nicaraguan history and modified how the US approached Central America in the early 20th century.  (Bad memories by the locals of US involvement in their country among other things.)


Sources: Wikipedia entry on William Walker, California Native Newsletter article on William Walker, article on William Walker produced for the Virtual Museum of the city of San Francisco, and finally Lester Langley’s The Banana Wars – An Inner History of American Empire, 1900-1934.

Overheard Misuse of History – Opinion

Yesterday while walking around the city I overheard two young students engaged in a debate over their ideal visions of the role of the US government in the lives of its individual citizens.  What struck me in this classic debate was the comment made by one student, a young man dressed in sweat pants, sweat shirt, and ball cap, that in his ideal vision of the United States: “the federal government would let me live my life they way I wanted to live it, let me do what I wanted, like in the 19th century, before the US government became all Socialist in the 20th century.”  It is a rare moment in my life when I want to walk up to a fellow human being and smack them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper while exclaiming “Bad human, tell me who taught you this drivel so that I may strike them as well.”

The problem with this young man’s outlook on the role of the federal government in the 19th century is that it is, quite simply, incorrect on many levels.  First off there is no ideal period in the 19th century in which the US government on a federal level did not pass legislation that directly impacted or curtailed elements of an individual citizens “freedoms” – doubly so if that citizen was from a minority segment of the population or female in gender.  A simple examination of the major ideological battles of this period refutes the young man’s argument, the controversy over slavery, in fact the very institution of slavery, negates the idea of minimal federal involvement in the lives of individual citizens.  (For example the admission of new states to the Union was fraught with controversy and federal action to maintain the Free/Slave balance of power.)  The institution of the National Bank of the United States, in its various incarnations, was seen as a direct force intervening in the daily lives of citizens across the nation and was directly linked to the US federal government.

Even the “golden” period of non-intervention in private lives by the federal government from the late 1860s through the 1890s, the Gilded Age, actually featured regular federal statues regulating immigration, interstate commerce, and direct intervention by the federal government in numerous labor disputes and moments of civil insurrection.  In fact this period featured a US effort to suppress anarchists movements and insurrections throughout the United States, as well as federal regulations prohibiting the distribution of pornographic or dangerous materials through the US mail system, a direct assault on freedom of speech and publication by the federal government.  (To remind people this was the period in which the US government directly prohibited the distribution of educational material on contraception and the distribution of contraceptive devices through the US mail.)

Never mind the fact that the period of late 1860s through the 1880s was also the height of Reconstruction, a period of incredible direct intervention by the federal government in the lives of southern US citizens.  When Reconstruction ended the Progressive movement was gaining influence among the citizens of the United States, leading to reformist (or probably for this young man “Socialist”) legislation such as the various Anti-Trust Acts, Food and Drug Purity Acts, and regulations to curb the abuses of industry throughout the United States.

But from other comments that I overheard this young man making I quickly gathered that his comment centered upon the institution of federal income tax, collected by the federal government and redistributed/spent by the federal government.  This young man wished to return to period when the US government did not directly tax the personal income of its citizens, and in that regard he is mostly correct.  Efforts by the federal government to impose an income tax in the 1860s to finance the Civil War were ended in 1872 and future efforts to impose federal income tax in the 1880s through the 1910s were blocked by the Congress or the Supreme Court, on the grounds the power to impose such taxes was not Constitutionally permitted to the federal government.  This argument ended in 1913 with the ratification of the 16th amendment.

But this young man fails, in his understanding of history, to understand the system by which the US government raised revenue from the 1860s through the 1910s, excise taxes and import tariffs.  Excise taxes are taxes imposed upon the consumption of items by private citizens and import tariffs are taxes imposed upon items imported into a nation that are manufactured abroad.  Import tariffs are particularly critical to this equation because they artificially raised the cost of imported items that were cheaper to manufacture then US domestically produced items to give US produced items an artificial market parity or even edge over cheaper foreign imports.  What this meant was that the federal governments tax structure directly impacted your fiscal freedom in the 19th century in a manner incomprehensible to most modern Americans – imagine going to a store and finding that each pair of shoes, made in the US or abroad, cost roughly the same amount.  No competitive forces to lower costs and allow your money to go to the most efficient producer, instead efficiency in manufacture is not rewarded, the ability to bribe legislatures to impose duties is rewarded.  This issue was highly controversial in the 19th century and remains highly controversial today.  Excise taxes hold the same bane today, we argue about taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, in the 19th century citizens argued about taxes on recreational facilities, chewing gum, and heavy taxes on alcohol.  As well in the 19th century it was felt that excise taxes and high import tariffs hurt the poorer members of our citizen base more then the rich and a fairer system of revenue collection was needed.


What our young man sought was a system that simply did not exist in the 19th century and, honestly, has never existed in US history.  The nature of personal intervention into average citizens lives held by the US government has changed over the last two centuries, as well as the level of direct intervention, but there has been no time in which the hand of the federal government of the United States has not directly touched some or all of its governed population.

Source: US Treasury Department Fact Sheet on Income Tax History