Is there some reason to think that he read List? Met him? Discussed his views with anyone? Can you find three consecutive paragraphs in Lincoln anywhere that demonstrate that he was thinking about the theory of tariffs at all?
I'll help. There's an extended section of speech notes in which he argues that tariffs make sense because importing things from far away which can be produced at the same cost locally is stupid, by the addition of the extra transport cost.
You can find it by searching here:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/l/lincoln/
using the search term " Fragments of a Tariff Discussion "
This analysis does not bother to refute Adam Smith's "comparative advantage" argument, and reveals Lincoln's profound ignorance of the theory of tariffs. I may be doing him a disservice here, but I don't see how to avoid it.
But you can't have it both ways. He was either a "student" of economic theory or he wasn't. If he was, there should be some evidence that he read books on the subject, attempted to theorize about it, etc. Instead, we have one speech fragment in which he makes an argument that might have been offered 50 years before the Wealth of Nations was written. He doesn't seem to have dipped too deeply in the waters of German theory, whatever Clay was doing.
But be that as it may, the Lincoln of the '50's shows no sign, at all, of thinking that these matters were crucial to the country. Why is this so hard to see?
Below I paste what he said in a speech to a Pittsburgh audience on his way to be inaugurated. It is the only remark he made on tariff policy, beyond the letters in this thread and a couple of utterly formulaic references to the 1860 platform in private letters, that I can find in the collected Lincoln. I just found another, from New Haven in March of 1860 -- he says this:
It is true that in the organization of the Republican party this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present. The old question of tariff---a matter that will remain one of the chief affairs of national housekeeping to all time---the question of the management of financial affairs; the question of the disposition of the public domain---how shall it be managed for the purpose of getting it well settled, and of making there the homes of a free and happy people---these will remain open and require attention for a great while yet, and these questions will have to be attended to by whatever party has the control of the government. Yet, just now, they cannot even obtain a hearing, and I do not purpose to detain you upon these topics, or what sort of hearing they should have when opportunity shall come.
For, whether we will or not, the question of Slavery is the question, the all absorbing topic of the day.
And here is the Pittsburgh speech excerpt on tariff policy:
Fellow citizens, as this is the first opportunity [4] which I have had to address a Pennsylvania assemblage, it seems a fitting time to indulge in a few remarks upon the important question of a tariff---a subject of great magnitude, and one which is attended with many difficulties, owing to the great variety of interests which it involves. So long as direct taxation for the support of government is not resorted to, a tariff is necessary. The tariff is to the government what a meal is to the family; but, while this is admitted, it still becomes necessary to modify and change its operations according to new interests and new circumstances. So far there is little difference of opinion among politicians, but the question as to how far imposts may be adjusted for the protection of home industry, gives rise to various views and objections. I must confess that I do not understand this subject in all its multiform bearings, but I promise you that I will give it my closest attention, and endeavor to comprehend it more fully. And here I may remark that the Chicago platform contains a plank upon this subject, which I think should be regarded as law for the incoming administration. In fact, this question, as well as all other subjects embodied in that platform, should not be varied from what we gave the people to understand would be our policy when we obtained their votes. Permit me, fellow citizens, to read the tariff plank of the Chicago platform, or rather, to have it read in your hearing by one who has younger eyes than I have.
(Mr. Lincoln's private Secretary then read section twelfth of the Chicago platform, as follows:)
That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government by duties upon imposts, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the imposts as to encourage the development of the industrial interest of the whole country, and we commend that policy of national exchanges which secures to the working men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.
Mr. Lincoln continued---Now, fellow-citizens, I must confess that there are shades of difference in construing even this plank of the platform. But I am not now intending to discuss these differences, but merely to give you some general ideas upon this subject. I have long thought that if there be any article of necessity which can be produced at home with as little or nearly the same labor as abroad, it would be better to protect that article. Labor is the true standard of value. If a bar of iron, got out of the mines of England, and a bar of iron taken from the mines of Pennsylvania, be produced at the same cost, it follows that if the English bar be shipped from Manchester to Pittsburg, and the American bar from Pittsburg to Manchester, the cost of carriage is appreciably lost. [Laughter.] If we had no iron here, then we should encourage its shipment from foreign countries; but not when we can make it as cheaply in our own country. This brings us back to our first proposition, that if any article can be produced at home with nearly the same cost as abroad, the carriage is lost labor.
The treasury of the nation is in such a low condition at present that this subject now demands the attention of Congress, and will demand the immediate consideration of the new Administration. The tariff bill now before Congress may or may not pass at the present session. I confess I do not understand the precise provisions of this bill, and I do not know whether it can be passed by the present Congress or not. It may or may not become the law of the land---but if it does, that will be an end of the matter until a modification can be effected, should it be deemed necessary. If it does not pass (and the latest advices I have are to the effect that it is still pending) the next Congress will have to give it their earliest attention.
According to my political education, I am inclined to believe that the people in the various sections of the country should have their own views carried out through their representatives in Congress, and if the consideration of the Tariff bill should be postponed until the next session of the National Legislature, no subject should engage your representatives more closely than that of a tariff. And if I have any recommendation to make, it will be that every man who is called upon to serve the people in a representative capacity, should study this whole subject thoroughly, as I intend to do myself, looking to all the varied interests of our common country, so that when the time for action arrives adequate protection can be extended to the coal and iron of Pennsylvania, the corn of Illinois, and the ``reapers of Chicago.'' Permit me to express the hope that this important subject may receive such consideration at the hands of your representatives, that the interests of no part of the country may be overlooked, but that all sections may share in common the benefits of a just and equitable tariff. [Applause.]
In any event, this is very true:
My problem is these massive superficial generalizations with no supporting evidence. Lincoln wasn't "schooled" in economics at all. He supported the Whig economic policy actively in the 1830's and 1840's, and quite obviously, from all the evidence anyone has bothered to look at, found other issues much more important in the 1850's. The letters I have posted on this thread as much as say -- "I have spent the 1850's thinking that economics is not an important issue right now."
Is there some reason to think that he read List? Met him? Discussed his views with anyone? Can you find three consecutive paragraphs in Lincoln anywhere that demonstrate that he was thinking about the theory of tariffs at all?
Most supporters of protection took the views they did because they viewed it as a means to economic development and to prosperity. They did not seek to create a massive federal bureaucracy.
There were limits to the revenue that could be gained through the tariffs and trade-offs between protection and revenue. There were limits to the scale of bureaucracy and redistribution that tariff-based policies would produce. Over time, tariffs did redistribute resources to protected manufacturers, but at the time, the supporters of protection viewed this primarily as a redistribution from foreigners to Americans. And no one in 1850 or 1860 could have foreseen the massive growth of wealth and industry that would follow the war. It was also possible that Southerners and others could benefit from tariff protection if they developed their own industries.
There were also good reasons for the nation to safeguard and develop its infant industries in an age when great powers throttled weaker competitors. And protectionist movements aimed at creating a freer, more unified national market, which the free trade party would break up and balkanize. It would be a major historical mistake to assume that generations of Republicans actually aimed to produce what Democrats have created since the New Deal. Or to assume that List's works were widely read and circulated on the Illinois frontier. Matthew Carey might be a better bet, but even here, most people decided such issues on the basis of what they saw around them, not theoretical books.
The Rockwellites are convinced that Mises has given them the key to economics and therefore to history. Whether or not this is true, Mises's key doesn't unlock other people's minds. The motivations of historical actors have to be understood on the basis of their own ideas and actions, not forced into the Misean scheme. Whether or not the tariff was the path to prosperity can long be debated, but it was taken as such by many people at the time and their arguments and beliefs shouldn't be so arrogantly pushed aside.
If on another thread, Di Lorenzo was accused of "Marxist economic analysis" that was wrong in the literal sense, but one can understand why such terms come to mind. Di Lorenzo does seem to view economics as lying at or near the foundation of political ideas he disagrees with. But that's an oversimplification.
When we explain our own beliefs and policy preferences we stop on what seems to us to be a comfortable and secure ground. When we try to explain the beliefs of our opponents we keep going until we reach something that will be entirely discredited, unworthy and malign. The protectionist equivalents of Rockwellites charged that their opponents wanted to leave the country impoverished, defenseless and under the thumb of Britain. You can still see these arguments in the LaRouche cult. But there's no reason to take those reductive arguments, or Di Lorenzo's seriously.
Take Lincoln's early career as an example. I really doubt Lincoln was elected to Congress because of the tariff. Other possibilities are that his area was Whig because of ethnocultural and historical reasons or antipathy to Democratic politicians or populations or long standing good relations with Whig politicians. In other words, support for the tariff may have been a result of Whig sentiments, rather than the primary cause for them. Illinois politics were shaped more by the mutual antipathy of Yankees and Southerners than be the practical benefits or theories of free trade and protection. And I believe that the Springfield area was loyal to the Whig politicians who had won the state capital for it.
Similarly, I doubt Buchanan was a convinced protectionist. More likely, he was trying to accomodate both the freetraders who dominated his party and the protectionists who were so powerful in his native state. There were limits on who much free trade or protectionism he would support.
Pennsylvania was a marginal constituency that both parties had to woo to some degree, but arguably Lincoln carried the state because the Democrats were split and Pennsylvania had no favorite son in the race. The fact that Lincoln was able to carry Indiana suggests that Pennsylvania would have gone for him in any case with or without the tariff. Indeed, protectionist manufacturers might make a display designed to impress others, but where they going to go in 1860? Who else would they have voted for? They may well have been the tail, rather than the dog. New Jersey's votes were split and not essential for Lincoln's victory. Local concerns over the tariff shouldn't obscure the great debates over slavery that dominated the election.
Di Lorenzo, Adams and others claim to want to get rid of simplistic devil theories of war over slavery. But what they offer is even more simplistic than what they oppose.
Thanks for finding the letters that refute this nonsense.