Import Duties Quotes
This same argument was used before and since to justify protecting domestic manufacturing from foreign competition until it can mature sufficiently to compete in a global economy. One difficulty occurs if protective tariffs are imposed for this reason. The manufacturers protected never seem to reach the point where they can compete without the subsidy.
Note that in the beginning of the 20th century, the Democrats were the free traders opposing protectionism while the Republicans advocated strong protectionism to protect American companies. By the end of the 20th Century, both parties had flip flopped and taken the other’s position.
1st Earl of Beaconsfield
In addition the companies that are being protected suffer by not getting competitive and not utilizing the most modern and most efficient techniques. Even construction workers are hurt as protected companies do not modernize their facilities as often and build new plants.
See {634234} and {634238} for more of his arguments at the Ratification Convention.
Most Republicans at the time were beholden to corporations and business who then demanded high tariffs and other protectionisms so they could maintain high prices and not have to compete with British and European imports. Roosevelt and a few other reform Republicans were free traders along with most Democrats. Roosevelt had so many other reforms in the fire that he decided not to take this one on at the same time and thought that the benefit would not be good enough for the nation to offset the open civil war of the Republican Party that would ensue. In the latter half of the 20th century, large American companies had opened or invested in foreign corporations and/or were manufacturing many of their products abroad. So they then advocated free trade. When they did, the Republican Party flip flopped and adopted free trade as one of its basic principles. Meanwhile, the Democrats who were free traders in the early 20th Century had become protectionists by the end of the 20th century as labor movement wanted to protect American jobs.
South Carolina did not like the protectionist measures that Congress had passed. Although the Federal Government clearly had the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate and international commerce, South Carolina, led by John C. Calhoun, took the position that any state could nullify a Federal law’s application within their state. Clearly, that was a vision of a nation that would have very different from our history where the Federal Courts were the only institution that could nullify an act of Congress anywhere.
