Thanks for the wrap-up. I’ll add that we are likely both in agreement as to the desired outcome on Tuesday!
The founders had differing views of trade policy. Jefferson and his agrarian Republicans favored the modern definition of free trade — no government regulation of commerce, no duties, and no trade agreements with foreign countries. “Our interest [is] to throw open the doors of commerce and to knock off all its shackles, giving perfect freedom to all persons for the vent of whatever they may choose to bring into our ports, and asking the same in theirs.” —Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XXII, 1782. ME 2:240.
Jefferson also believed in imposing tariffs, duties, and restrictions on trade with nations who did not embrace free trade. “Should any nation, contrary to our wishes, suppose it may better find its advantage by continuing its system of prohibitions, duties and regulations, it behooves us to protect our citizens, their commerce and navigation, by counter prohibitions, duties and regulations also. Free commerce and navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions and vexations, nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them... Principles... founded in reciprocity appear perfectly just and... offer no cause of complaint to any nation.” —Thomas Jefferson: Report on Foreign Commerce, 1793. ME 3:276.
Alexander Hamilton favored protectionist tariffs to offset the subsidies of exports by other nations. George Washington philosophically in favor of free trade, but he signed the first tariff bill in 1789 to protect US industry and raise revenue for the new indebted US government. From Washington’s time to the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 (income tax), the federal government was almost completely funded through the imposition of tariffs and duties on imports.
As interpreted by the Supreme Court today, the commerce clause has virtually no limits. Personally I favor a more narrow interpretation of the commerce clause as I too perceive it was primarily intended to deal with regulation of commerce between the states and to allow the federal government to intervene if a state’s unilateral action threatened commerce with foreign countries. However, until we have an amendment to the Constitution restricting the scope of the Commerce Clause, it is likely the Supreme Court will continue to uphold the right of Congress to regulate almost any aspect of business under a very loose interpretation of the clause.
I too wish you a good weekend FRiend. I hope we can both celebrate the election of a president who at least understands the free enterprise system and commerce, whether or not he believes in regulation of commerce.
Wow, thank you for the specific statements by Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington. Great men all.....It looks like my instincts were aligned with these statements that you posted for me! As I stated earlier, I am in agreement with how I am reading their statements in that I agree with restricting trade in a way that mirrors a specific country. If they tarrif us, we tarrif them. If they manipulate currency or subsidize industries, then I am in agreement with instituting tarrifs to offset that unfair manipulation of the market.
Jefferson stated it much better than I can...as you posted:
“Free commerce and navigation are not to be given in exchange for restrictions and vexations, nor are they likely to produce a relaxation of them... Principles... founded in reciprocity appear perfectly just and... offer no cause of complaint to any nation.”