This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Taxation (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation

Is this tariff still valid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.85.170 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Machinehead61 wrote:

I understand your concern about the size of the section that I added (Economic Conditions Prior to Passage) but please note how the article before I edited it had removed any reference to Section 1 - " . . .and the encouragement and protection of manufactures . . ." This omission I suspect was not by oversight. Historians of the "free trade" bias have consistently throughout U.S. history attempted to portray the founding fathers as being for "free trade" and opposed to "protection" and try to paint the Tariff Act of 1789 as merely a revenue tariff. I see this bias present here. I quote founding fathers and manufacturing groups present at the time that the legislation was drafted to show that more than just revenue was the concern (I didn't even mention the drain of specie from the 13 states due to the trade deficit with England and the impact that had on events such as Shays Rebellion).

This bias also exists in the other articles, i.e. "Tariffs in United States history". There the authors went so far as to ignore the first (Tariff Act of 1789) and only refere to the revised Tariff of 1790. Also note that article also attempted to portray the first tariff as simply a revenue tariff. It also only refered to the U.S. Constitution where it grants Congress power to tax but completely avoided "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations . . ." all of which I just added and am waiting to see how long it takes before they start getting removed.

It took me over 3 years of this kind of biased censoring to get the Smoot-Hawley Tariff article to achieve some small degree of balance (for some specific examples see the Smoot-Hawley talk page). The entire section, "Tariff levels" in the Smoot-Hawley section is mine and has been quoted in debates on U.S. trade policy on the net - with caution - as Wiki has a poor reputation for accuracy - which I personally can attest to.

This pro-free trade bias is dominant here among Wiki editors to the point of slanting articles to include unfounded pro free trade dogma and exclude documented protectionist history.

If you wish for me to cut down the size of the quotes I can agree to that. I'd prefere to leave them as evidence of the true situation that the pro-free trade biased editors would be more than happy to have Wiki users not know anything about.

I personally never remove material. I'm here to inform - not censor. Let the reader decide.Machinehead61 (talk) 00:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Machinehead61 - Thank you for your thoughtful remarks and measured arguments. This is appreciated, and it is my pleasure to respond.

It appears to me - and I believe I can find support for this among other wiki editors - that you contribute to this article under a misapprehension. Allow me to explain.

Your personal research and knowledge on this topic appears to be extensive. However, the material that you offer must be "vetted", so to speak, by secondary sources. A publisher may print a speech by "Black Dan", but whether a portion of that speech is worthy of inclusion in the article needs to be supported by a published, mainstream historian, selected by that historian for inclusion in his/her book. Yes, WR allows some leeway here, but I think that is the best approach. This is what creates a level playing field for the contributors to Wiki.

For example, you admit that "I quote founding fathers and manufacturing groups ...", but from which author, researcher or historian?

I believe you when you imply that there is historical truth - but it must to limited by the available sources, and strictly adhered to. That may seem unjust, but these are the limitations. Nor do I object to a didactic approach when it is conveyed by a reputable historian. This is why your quotes from Webster are offensive: they have not been obtained directly from quotes in a published history on the topic.

Your comments indicate that YOU are arguing the points, rather than arguing that historian X, or researcher Y, makes the argument. This is surely a red flag for original research.

Can you find an author - or two - who supports the conclusions that you have come to on the topic of the Tariff of 1789? I am not setting up a medieval ordeal to test you, but can you provide complete quotes from the text of your sources?

36hourblock (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

As for an author that supports this view of the period and used the Daniel Webster quote (this is where I became aware of it) plus quotes from the first five U.S. Presidents - https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=oCnaIgvEge8C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en If you can't open it, "American Tariffs from Plymouth Rock to McKinley" by Daniel G. Harriman. American Protective Tariff League, 1892. The Daniel Webster quote is found on page 12.

For another, "The Great Betrayal" by Pat Buchanan also supports the view that the founding fathers passed the Tariff Act of 1789 for protective purposes.

Also, http://archive.org/stream/jstor-1819831/1819831#page/n1/mode/2up which is also the 3rd footnote in this article that I cited (3. William Hill, Protective Purpose of the Tariff Act of 1789, The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 2, December 1, 1893, p. 54 ).

I might add, just for fun, that Frank Taussig stated here: http://mises.org/etexts/taussig.pdf on page 9,

The general range of duties was by no means such as would have been thought protective in later days; but the intention to protect was there.5

5 On the act of 1789, see the monograph by William Hill, "The First Stages of the Tariff Policy of the United States,” in Publications of the American Economic Association, vol. VIII., No. 6. This valuable paper has led to a modification of the account of the act of 1789 given in previous editions of the present book.

Even Tausssig had been indoctrinated in the myth of the Tariff Act of 1789 being soley a "revenue" tariff and had to change his book (reluctantly, Taussig was a free trader but had the intellectual honesty of admitting his previous mistake - I admire him for this).

Also, Charles Beard: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=P9QpAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en on page 42-47 which below is just a sample:

The first of these petitions was from Baltimore in particular and Maryland generally, and was communicated to the House of Representatives on April 11, 1789, a few days after that body had settled down to business. The second was laid before the House a week later by a committee rep resenting the mechanics and manufacturers of New York. On May 25, 1789, the shipwrights of Philadelphia laid their pleas before Congress ; and on June 5, the tradesmen and manufacturers of Boston put in their appearance. These petitions for protection from the four great trading and shipping centres of the country, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, which had been most zealous in securing the establishment of the new government, are in themselves eloquent documents for the economic interpreta tion of the Constitution.

The first of these, from Baltimore, bears the names of two members of the federal Convention from that state, Daniel Carroll and James McHenry, and the names of two or three hundred other citizens of that community, the analysis of whose politico-economic connections would doubtless repay the detailed scrutiny which the painful labor would entail. The petition cites the sad state of decline in which manu facturing and trading interests have been since the close of the Revolution and the ineffectual attempts of the states acting alone to remedy the evils. "The happy period having now arrived," the memorialists exultingly exclaim, "when the United States are placed in a new situation; when the adoption of the General Government gives onesovereign Legislature the sole and exclusive power of laying duties upon imports ; your petitioners rejoice at the pros pect this affords them, that America, freed from the com mercial shackles which have so long bound her, will see and pursue her true interest, becoming independent in fact as well as in name ; and they confidently hope that the en couragement and protection ,of American manufactures will claim the earliest attention of the supreme Legislature of the nation." The Maryland petitioners are conscious of no narrow motives in asking for relief at the hands of the government : "the number of her poor increasing for want of employ ment ; foreign debts accumulating ; houses and lands depreciating in value ; trade and manufactures languishing and expiring" — these are the evidences of need for the expected legislation. They, therefore, ask for duties on all foreign articles that can be made in America, which will give "a just and decided preference to their labors." And lest Congress might not understand the precise character of the relief for which they ask, they append a long list of articles, which are, or can be, manufactured in Maryland, and on which protection is needed — including ships, hard ware, clocks, boots, shoes, saddles, brushes, food-stuffs, and raw iron, to mention only a few. . . .

If you prefere that I quote these secondhand through Beard, is a matter of taste. I prefere going straight to the source, which was itself a very reputable volume found in the NIU library in DeKalb by my home. (National State Papers of the United States, 1789-1817, Part II Text of Documents, Administration of George Washington, 1789-1797, 1st Congress, 1st Session, Volume I, March 4, 1789 – August 28, 1789 Michael Glazier, Inc., 1985, ISBN 0-89453-153-0)

Machinehead61 (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 36hourblock:

Until I hear back from you I wish to return the article to include my section on economic conditions.

I think that I will work on creating a new Wiki article on the U.S. depression of 1783-1789 to cover the history that is now in this article, and submit it. If accepted then I can remove a bit of the material from the Tariff of 1789 article and just refer or link to the new article on the depression of 1783-1789. If you would like to collaborate on the new article let me know. If you wish to cut down on the size of the quotes or other history in my section I would be quite happy to do that. Hope your weekend has been nice.

Steve

Machinehead61 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About your Third Opinion request: The 3O request made in regard to this dispute has been removed because there has not been thorough discussion of this matter as required by the 3O project. If the dispute cannot be resolved through thorough discussion, you may then reapply for a 3O or for some other form of content dispute resolution. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two usernames overlap on this article: "2001:558:6033:E8:44CA:A066:29F0:4612" and "Machinehead61". Are these the same person?

A reminder. Make sure that reversions do not exceed 3 per 24-hour period. 36hourblock (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]