English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-05-09 09:21:24 · 2 answers · asked by spoonciveg 1 in Arts & Humanities History

2 answers

No, they were pragmatists. The whole constitution was one big compromise. It was an attempt to satisfy everyone and in the long run really didn't satisfy anyone. And it left open two big questions that directly led to the civil war, slavery and states' rights.

2007-05-09 09:37:12 · answer #1 · answered by Elizabeth Howard 6 · 0 0

No, I don't think that's a fair characterization. Some may have shown tendencies in that direction, but this didn't really flower till the early 19th century when New Englanders wanted support for their young manufacturing industries.

In fact, in the years before the Revolution there was much COMPLAINT against protectionist practices by England, and advocating "free trade" with all nations. (The extensive smuggling to avoid tariffs is an indirect evidence of this ANTI-protectionist sentiment.)

Note the following grievance listed in the Declaration of Independence!

"For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world"
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

It is true that at first most of the federal government's revenues came from tarrifs, but this was NOT originally for protectionist purposes (and the rates were rather low at first).

It might also be worth noting that they decided early on (it's i the Constitution!) to remove all trade barriers BETWEEN the states (no duties to send something from Massachusetts to New York, etc)... an important anti-protectionist move (and healthy for the nation as a whole).

2007-05-13 01:25:16 · answer #2 · answered by bruhaha 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers