"On October 11, 1859, Lincoln wrote Dr. Edward Wallace: "My dear Sir: [Y]our brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff view, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject than any other. I have not since changed my views" (emphasis added). Lincoln was establishing his bona fides as an ardent protectionist."
But this paragraph is among the most intellectually dishonest claims DiLorenzo makes (no mean accomplishment). Look at the rest of the letter below. How can an honest man possibly read this letter as an effort by Lincoln to "establish his bona fides as an ardent protectionist? He says he used to think about this issue a lot, that he was a Clay Whig on the subject, and hasn't rethought the matter. He says that if America could have a moderate protectionism that wouldn't be occasion for political strife, it would be the best economic policy.
He goes on to say that he is entirely content, and advises his correspondent, to let the matter slide until opponents of the tariff, on their own, from the merits of the case, decide to advocate it. He says, literally and directly, that those sharing his views have been beaten on the question, and shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until precisely those who oppose protectionism decide to support it.
Then he closes by saying, in effect: "Because I think we should wait until anti-protectionists realize that a tariff is in the national interest, please don't comment on my views publicly. I do not wish the matter discussed."
I cannot imagine a more completely false and distorted reading of a letter, than to clip the portion DiLorenzo does and claim that it represents Lincoln seeking to establish his bona fides as an ardent protectionist. He was seeking toestablish nothing -- the information is requested from him, and he requests that his reply be kept confidential. He distinctly denies that he wishes his views made public -- so much for establishing bona fides on anything. And he is exactly the opposite of "ardent." What more moderate, un-ardent position on any issue is possible than to say "I have a view, but am content not to pursue it until my opponents, on their own, compelled by facts and reality, decide that I was right all along."
Here is the complete letter:
Dr. Edward Wallace: Clinton,
My dear Sir: Oct. 11th. 1859
I am here, just now, attending court. Yesterday, before I left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquire for my tariff views; and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I was an old Henry Clay tariff whig. In old times I made more speeches on that subject, than on any other. I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a moderate, carefully adjusted, protective tariff, so far acquiesed in, as to not be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles, charges, and uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still, it is my opinion that, just now, the revival of that question, will not advance the cause itself, or the man who revives it. I have not thought much upon the subject recently; but my general impression is, that the necessity for a protective tariff will, ere long, force it's old opponents to take it up; and then it's old friends can join in, and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the old whigs, have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question; and we shall not be able to re-establish the policy, until the absence of it, shall have demonstrated the necessity for it, in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it.
With this view, I should prefer, to not now, write a public letter upon the subject. I therefo[re] wish this to be considered confidential.
I shall be very glad to receive a letter from you. Yours truly
A. LINCOLN
The rest of the article argues, in effect, that since one crucial group made tariffs their central issue, therefore Lincoln "owed his election" to this issue and it is the key to understanding his First Inaugural, the purpose of the war, etc. But really, is this reasonable? Of course there were protectionist Republicans. There were also anti-slavery Republicans, pro-homesteading Republicans, anti-Southern political hegemony Republicans (many of them former Democrats who had concluded that the Democrat party was dominated by the Southern slave block), etc. The argument that because an interest group played a crucial role in one state, and in the nomination, that you can simply characterize the political project as dominated by that issue is simply fatuous. It is not conclusive of anything without further evidence that the issue really was central to Lincoln, to the national party, and to his governance once elected. There are a lot of people on the Christian right who could tell you a few stories about this dynamic as they look at the Bush Administration.
And the actual letter, as discussed above, makes it absolutely clear that Lincoln was NOT interested in pursuing this issue as a matter of policy in his political efforts.
This letter, by the way, is one of two on the subject from 1854-1860. The other one, as I recall, is equally disappointing for those who think Lincoln was eager to play Whig economic czar.
"another article, eh, Mr. DiLorenzo? Always scribble, scribble, scribble, eh, Mr. Dilorenzo?
Well, DiLorenzo has had the links to some of these FR threads e-mailed to him, and this is how he responds. Thanks for posting this.
Walt
Thanks for digging out that letter and proving once again that DiLorenzo is a shameless fraud.
Funny how the Confederates said next to nothing about tariffs in their declarations of secession. DiLorenzo must think that they were just joking when said that their position was "thoroughly identified with slavery."
What's your problem. Lincoln was a big time protectionist out of the Friedrich List school of economic thought. List became good friends with Henry Clay while living here in the 1820s and 30s. In 1841 he published the book "The National System of Political Economy" . The thesis of the book is, [A] war which promotes the transition from the purely agricultural to the mixed agricultural-manufacturing state is therefore a blessing for a nation. . . . Whereas a peace, which throws back into a purely agricultural condition a state destined to become industrialized, is a curse incomparably more harmful than a war.Sounds familiar doesn't it. List set down the framework for National Socialism.