Economists were far more divided on free trade and protection than they are now. It was still a living question, not a settled matter or fixed dogma. And the very association of free trade with plantation slavery, drove many who desired freedom towards protection as an alternative. I don't fault them for making that decision.
The prominence of economists among today's Confederate apologists is striking. They confidently insist that they have the answers, but they aren't always asking the same questions that people asked then or considering the state of knowledge at the time. The devotion of 21st century economists to 19th century slaveholders would be quite comic if it weren't so chilling.
As I've said, our approaches are so much at odds that there's no point in continuing. We aren't asking the same questions. If anyone's been following the discussion this far and wants to continue, Gabor Boritt's book "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" looks worth reading.
And once again, Ricardan trade theory has been around since the 1820's and pro-free trade policies had been in place for the decade prior to the war. It is simply INDISPUTABLE that many people living at that time were aware of free trade theory and believed it to be the best policy. Why you are intent upon arguing against that fact on the grounds that there were also protectionists at the time who subscribed wholeheartedly to an economic theory of fallacy that was known as fallacy both then and today is beyond me.
Economists were far more divided on free trade and protection than they are now.
So what's your point? That there were more of them out there doesn't mean the protectionists were right. It is a huge stretch of historical fact, BTW, to consider Henry Carey an economist.
It was still a living question, not a settled matter or fixed dogma.
Truth does not depend upon when it was settled in consensus. That truth was uncovered in Ricardan theory. Naturally, there were many people then who subscribed to falsehood just as there are some today. But that does not change the truth of trade dynamics.
The prominence of economists among today's Confederate apologists is striking.
It shouldn't be. Economists tend to be aware of trade dynamics, rational choice politics, and above all else, the tendency of money matters to play major roles in the events of human history and especially warfare.
They confidently insist that they have the answers, but they aren't always asking the same questions that people asked then or considering the state of knowledge at the time.
You still have not demonstrated in any way, shape, or form that the people of 1860 knew nothing of the economics of trade that we know of today. You have not provided any reasons, only a few narrow anecdotal and hypothetical excuses for the beneficiaries of protectionism that were as invalid back then as they are today. Considering that the entire basis for trade theory, the Ricardan model, has been around since the 1820's, you have quite a task at hand proving it was not understood in 1860.
As I've said, our approaches are so much at odds that there's no point in continuing.
That may be so, but it does not change the fact that your promoting protectionist myths and excuses to otherwise irrational and unreasonable ends. In other words, you are defending the indefensible in action.
I find it ironic as well that so-called Libertarian economists like DiLorenzo takes the cause of the slaveocracy that had no respect or for free labor or free markets. The southern economic order was a Feudal form of socialism where a small number of very large plantations controlled the economic, social and ultimately political destiny of every thing and every one in their orbit as opposed to the dynamic free market system advocated by Adam Smith or Hamilton. In the southern order, economic power inevitably concentrated in fewer and fewer hands while in a free market the process of creative destruction assured that neither wealth or power could become highly concentrated. One is very orderly and predictable, the other very unpredictable but highly productive.