IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v43y2019i6p1439-1458..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lincoln’s well-considered political economy (the ‘American System’) trumped the Free Trade British System

Author

Listed:
  • Emir Phillips

Abstract

The Whigs could legitimately emphasise what Hamilton’s Report had not touched upon: urban labourers made unemployed by import competition could not shift to ‘collateral employments’ with the presumptive ease asserted by Free Trader Democrats. More than anything, it was the structural cyclical instability (Minsky moments) that engendered a new party (Republican) to exert political pressures for government involvement in the management of the economy (mercantilism). Economic beliefs played the most fundamental role in Lincoln’s career, and his mercantilist views, in conformity with Hamilton, Clay and the economist Carey, were key determinants in effectuating the Industrial Revolution within the United States through tariffs, government-supported macro-projects and structurally stimulating aggregate demand through a national currency. Permeating Lincoln's political economy was a fierce non-neutral view of money wherein banks created the funds to ignite the American System. Henry Clay, Henry Carey and Abraham Lincoln were seeking to supplant the Ricardo–Malthus long-term model of economic growth (emphasising distribution within a relatively stagnant economy) with one of expanding productive powers and rising wage levels. These interventionist issues are still quite relevant since US economics students are taught modernised versions of the doctrines of Ricardo and Malthus which were controverted more than a century ago by the American School, and more specifically by Abraham Lincoln.

Suggested Citation

  • Emir Phillips, 2019. "Lincoln’s well-considered political economy (the ‘American System’) trumped the Free Trade British System," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 43(6), pages 1439-1458.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:43:y:2019:i:6:p:1439-1458.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bez008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adams, Donald R., 1982. "The Standard of Living During American Industrialization: Evidence from the Brandywine Region, 1800–1860," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(04), pages 903-917, December.
    2. Adams, Donald R., 1968. "Wage Rates in the Early National Period: Philadelphia, 1785–1830," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(3), pages 404-426, September.
    3. Edwards, Richard C., 1970. "Economic Sophistication in Nineteenth Century Congressional Tariff Debates," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 802-838, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter H. Lindert & Jeffrey G. Williamson, 2016. "American colonial incomes, 1650–1774," Economic History Review, Economic History Society, vol. 69(1), pages 54-77, February.
    2. Peter H. Lindert & Jeffrey G. Williamson, 2012. "American Incomes 1774-1860," NBER Working Papers 18396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Lindert, Peter H. & Williamson, Jeffrey G., 2013. "American Incomes Before and After the Revolution," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 73(3), pages 725-765, September.
    4. Robert A. Margo, 2000. "The History of Wage Inequality in America, 1920 to 1970," Macroeconomics 0004035, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Allen, Robert C., 2014. "American Exceptionalism as a Problem in Global History," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(2), pages 309-350, June.
    6. Robert A. Margo, 1995. "The Farm-Nonfarm Wage Gap in the Antebellum United States: Evidence fromthe 1850 and 1860 Censuses of Social Statistics," NBER Historical Working Papers 0072, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Grant D. Forsyth, 2006. "Special Interest Protectionism and the Antebellum Woolen Textile Industry," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(5), pages 1025-1058, November.
    8. Nuvolari, Alessandro & Tortorici, Gaspare & Vasta, Michelangelo, 2023. "British-French Technology Transfer from the Revolution to Louis Philippe (1791–1844): Evidence from Patent Data," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(3), pages 833-873, September.
    9. Robert A. Margo, 1999. "The History of Wage Inequality in America, 1820 to 1970," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_286, Levy Economics Institute.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:43:y:2019:i:6:p:1439-1458.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.