The Constitutional Battle Over Free Trade
A lifelong Democrat breaks with his party's tariff stance, citing the nation's founding documents.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
George Ticknor Curtis, a distinguished constitutional lawyer and lifelong Democrat, has written to the American Economist stating that he cannot follow current Democratic leaders in pronouncing Republican protectionism unconstitutional. Curtis, whose father served on the U.S. Supreme Court, argues that party leaders are falsifying history and facts. He contends that the interpretation of the Constitution by Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Jackson supports the use of tariffs for purposes beyond mere revenue. He characterizes the modern Democratic tariff platform as a return to the nullification-era policies of John C. Calhoun, which he argues were rooted in a desire to protect the agricultural interests of the slave-holding South at the expense of Northern industrial growth.
“I cannot, at the bidding of these gentlemen, unlearn the lessons of my whole life.”
This debate highlights a recurring American political fault line: the tension between free-market globalism and domestic protectionism. Just as in 1892, contemporary trade policy remains a volatile subject, with politicians once again debating how tariffs affect the everyday American worker versus the national economy.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.