Mercantilism, What is it Good For? Abosolutely Nothing!

Economist Murray Rothbard defined the system of mercantilism as “a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state.” (Rothbard 1997)

One example of “monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state” can be witnessed in the history between Great Britain  and her colonies from the 1500s to 1700s. They imposed many regulations like the Navigation Acts, which brought restrictions upon British citizens living in the British colonies. If mercantilism was to benefit the British economy as a whole, like some scholars would claim, the colonies should have seen an increase in their wealth as well. However, these regulations and imposed tariffs forced the colonies to purchase goods at a much higher price through England, like sugar and molasses. They were also forced to buy manufactured goods from only England at inflated prices. These manufacturers in England had little to no competition thanks to these trade restrictions, so they could set their own prices.  

Mercantilism is the opposite of free trade, which benefits everyone. Protectionist tariffs imposed by a government only help special interest groups and these trade restrictions destroy competition. Competition in the market place is good for two reasons, 1) it drives market prices down for the consumer, and 2) it promotes innovation and development in new technologies.

The economic system of mercantilism promoted by the British Empire crisscrossed with the system of Imperialism for centuries. Today it is common for many people to mistakenly think that the system of capitalism and imperialism is one and the same. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Professor Stephen Davies, historian at the Institute of Economic Affairs, defined the two systems thusly 

Capitalism is a system of the free exchange of goods and services between individuals on a voluntary basis under the rule of law and in a system of private property rights. In other words, it is a system of voluntary exchange in which all parties to the exchange are better off. Now imperialism, by contrast, is a system of relations based upon power. Essentially, it’s a system in which certain groups of privileged people in one part of the world are able to extract unearned income from people in other parts of the world through the use of exploitative power relations, usually with the help of local collaborators. (LearnLiberty.org 2013)

            It is clear that the British were trying to create a “favorable balance of trade,” but in the favor of a few “privileged people” in England. By today’s standard we would call these privileged few by the title of “special interests groups.” It requires a special system of propaganda to persuade a people that such economic tactics which only benefit the special interests groups are for the best interest of the nation. According to Dr. Tom DiLorenzo (a professor of economics in the Sellinger School of Business and Management at Loyola College in Maryland) , when he was discussing the history of mercantilism, he said, “The public must be intentionally miseducated in economics in order for mercantilism to survive.”  (DiLorenzo 2002)

The public would not stay misinformed for too long. Well educated men like Thomas Paine, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Jefferson in the colonies would dispel the fallacies of the mercantilist system. A great revolution would free the colonies from this economic burdens and unfair taxes. 

Unfortunately for all their sacrifices, it would not take long for that same system of mercantilism to creep back into American government. Men like Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Abraham Lincoln would rename mercantilism as the “American System.” They would set up a a system with a central bank, promote corporate welfare, and push for internal improvement subsidies. Protectionist tariffs would manifest themselves again in our land. Government regulations and high taxes would once again destroy our economic wealth as a whole. The American Empire is growing as our individual freedoms and unalienable rights are dying.  

There is still hope for us. We just need to educate ourselves to see through the lies of the intellectuals and publicists who have been hired to confuse the public of their actual intentions. The plan is simple and has already been laid out for us. We just need to look back to the Constitution and restore our republic. 

Works Cited

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. "The Real Lincoln." 57. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002.

LearnLiberty.org. Capitalism Is NOT Imperialism. June 3, 2013. http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/capitalism-not-imperialism (accessed October 19, 2013).

Rothbard, Murray N. "The Logic of Action II." 43. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub, 1997.

The Empire States of America

This modern notion that Americans have that the United States is a single entity or one large nation is inconsistent with how Americans understood their citizenship in the 18th and 19th centuries. If we were to go back in time before the 1860s and ask a man from Virginia or New York to which country they were a citizen of, they would have respond with their respective State. When the Southern States seceded from the Union of States, they did not combine to create a new country; the States were already countries in their own rights and formed a confederacy, exactly like the founders did when they created the Union to fought British tyranny.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about the state of the Union in Democracy in America that

The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States; and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If once of the states chooses to withdraw for the compact, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so, and the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right. (Tocqueville 1945)

The Southern States declaring their independence and reclaiming their sovereign rights was not a radical or revolutionary thought in 1860. There were no documents restricting or denying any state the right of secession at that time and it was understood by Americans that secession was a right. The very Declaration of Independence was a document declaring to the King of England that the colonies were independent and free States.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. (Jefferson n.d.)

When it was declared at a Special Convention of the People of South Carolina “that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved and the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may or right do,” this declaration was not a radical idea. (Carolina 2008)

 

In fact, there were several instances prior to the War Between the States when secession was threatened. Both the northern States and southern States prior to 1860 felt at odds with the party in control of the Federal Government at various times and threatened secession. Events such as the Louisiana Purchase, the War of 1812, the annexation of Texas, and even the Mexican War stirred up anti-Southern State sentiments among Northerners. All these issues were considered to be in the best interest of the Southern States or in reality the Democratic-Republican Party or Jeffersonians (also known as Anti-Federalists as labeled by the Northerners).

With Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of the Louisiana territory from France, many New England leaders felt that Jefferson overstepped his authority as president and were contemplating secession from the Union. In a letter to John C. Breckinridge on August 12, 1803, Jefferson had this to say about secession:

“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.” (Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826. Letters n.d.)

New Englanders were again upset when President James Madison (a Jeffersonian) declared war against Great Britain on June 18, 1812 (the War of 1812); they met in 1814 at the Hartford Convention to discuss secession. In 1832, with high tariffs causing economic difficulties among agrarian states, South Carolina threatened to nullify the federal law or secede from the Union. 

No one cried out and said that the New England States or South Carolina could not secede from the Union in either instance, it was understood that it was their right to if the majority of the people of those individual States voted for it. 
 

As early as 1825, the right of secession was also taught at West Point as being acceptable. Textbooks on constitutional law referenced William Rawle’s right of secession in his book, View of the Constitution. Many of the generals who fought for the Confederate States of America were educated at West Point and would have been taught the following information about state sovereignty and secession in Rawle’s book.

It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.

            This right must be considered as an ingredient in the original composition of the general government, which, though not expressed, was mutually understood…. (Rawle 1829)

Rawle continues in his book to explain how a state would go about seceding from the Union.

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitution.

            But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal.

            To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner. (Ibid, 302)

Even Alexander Hamilton, who was a champion for centralized government and a man idolized by Lincoln, would have opposed the use military force to keep the Southern States in the Union. Hamilton made the following statement at the Constitutional convention.

To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised….What picture does this idea present to our view? A complying state at war with a non-complying state; Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another; this state collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its federal head. Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed towards a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself — a government that can exist only by the sword? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a government. (The Debates in the Convention of the State of New York, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution n.d.)

Regardless of the issues and the causes that brought the States to war with each other, the States had a right to secede. When Lincoln forced the Southern States back into the Union by buoyant point, he destroyed any reality of a “Union” between the States. Lincoln imposed his will and philosophy of a central government upon all the States. The Southern States opposed this form of government and attempted to continue to run their State governments based on the Constitution. The State’s lost their rights and their sovereignty as a result of this war. Lincoln destroyed the Union with his actions and created an Empire. He destroyed that very Union formed by our Founders and the people of the States.

Works Cited

The Debates in the Convention of the State of New York, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution. n.d. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ny.htm (accessed October 15, 2013).

Carolina, Government of South. The Avalon Project. 2008. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp (accessed October 15, 2013).

Ibid. "A View of the Constitution." By William Rawle, 302. Philadelphia: Philip H Nicklin, Law Bookseller, 1829.

Jefferson, Thomas. The Charters of Freedom. n.d. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html (accessed October 15, 2013).

—. Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826. Letters. n.d. http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=JefLett.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=156&division=div1 (accessed October 15, 2013).

Rawle, William. In A View of the Constitution, 296. Philadelphia: Philip H Nicklin, Law Bookseller, 1829.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. "Democracy in America." 381. New Rochelle: Arlington House, 1945.

           

Lincoln's Hypocrisy

"Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people." - Abraham Lincoln

This statement by Abraham Lincoln, in his famous Gettysburg Address, demonstrates his hypocrisy and false accusation that his war was being fought to preserve a representative government. If he truly supported the idea of democracy and the will of the people being supreme, he would have listened to the voice of the people from the Southern States and allowed them to succeed from the Union. 
 

Lincoln had expressed his fears that representative government would “perish from the earth” if the South had left. His insistence on forcing the Confederate States of America back into the Union was in fact an attack on representative government. The people of the South had cast their votes and decided that the Federal government had infringed upon their constitutional rights; and in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” they decided to withdraw. 

Lincoln appeared to support the concept of representative government and the power of the people to “institute new Government” when it suited them better. But by not allowing the South to go free, Lincoln went against his own beliefs and words that he delivered to the House of Representatives on January 12, 1848, when he said

Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, and most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. (Lincoln 1989)

When Lincoln called for troops to invade the South, he sought to deny Southerners the right of representative government. H.L. Mencken stated clearly what each side was actually fighting for when he said

It is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination—that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederate who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves. The Confederates went into battle free; they came out with their freedom subject to the supervision of the rest of the country—and for nearly twenty years that veto was so efficient that they enjoyed scarcely more liberty, in the political sense, than so many convicts in the penitentiary. (DiLorenzo 2002)

When Lincoln started his war to “save the Union,” he in reality was destroying that very Union formed by the States over seventy years earlier. A “Union” is formed voluntarily by a group and cannot be forced together by gunpoint. With Lincoln’s invasion of the South to force them back into the “Union,” it ceased to be a “Union” and became an empire. This War Between the States and Federal victory in 1865 changed our constitutional republic, a “government of the people, by the people, for the people,” into a consolidated empire.

 

Selected Bibliography

DiLorenzo, Thomas J. "The Real Lincoln." 114. New York: Three Rivers Press, 2002.

Lincoln, Abraham. "Lincoln: Speeches and Writings 1832-1858." 167. New York: Library of America, 1989.

The Intolerable Act 1774 and Today

It would seem as if history is repeating itself. Watch this quick little video (1 min) and tell me if this does not sound familiar to similar acts today. 

• Do you feel as if the government is passing laws today that in a way punish its people?

• Do not our plethora of government regulations make living in America difficult?

• Is there not a build up of extra "troops" being sent out to "maintain" order?

 

• Are there not places being shut down by the government?

 

Let us hope and pray that we can settle these problems in America before the only solution the people feel they have is that which they decided on to implement in 1775.  

Know Your Unalienable Rights?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

What is an unalienable right? Can you list them? 

The founders did not list all of our unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson emphasized a few of them when he wrote "that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Here is a list of your unalienable rights:

• The right of self-government.
• The right to bear arms for self-defense.
• The right to to own, develop, and dispose of property.
• The right to make personal choices.
• The right to free conscience. 
• The right to choose a profession.
• The right to choose a mate.
• The right to beget one's kind.
• The right to assemble.
• The right to petition.
• The right to free speech.
• The right to a free press.
• The right to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.
• The right to improve one's position through barter and sale.
• The right to contrive and invent. 
• The right to explore the natural resources of the earth.
• The right to privacy.
• The right to provide personal security.
• The right to provide nature's necessities -- air, food, water, clothing and shelter.
• The right to a fair trial.
• The right to free association.
• The right to contract.       

I ask you, have the law makers infringed upon any of those unalienable rights listed above? Our Declaration of Independence was issued to a tyrannical government that was oppressing its people and infringing upon these rights that were given to us by our Creator. If there is any law today that infringes upon these rights, they are attacking the very foundation of our American government. If that is the case, then they are attacking your liberties. If your liberties are being attacked, then we have enemies that would do us harm. 

Americans, if you have pledged to defend our Republic, then step up and take your rights back. Use the system as created by our founders to protect our freedoms. Contact your elected officials and demand that they honor their oaths of office and support the Constitution of these United States. Educate yourselves, your children, your relatives, your neighbors and spread forth the message of liberty.