Talk:American School (economics)/Archive 1

Top

I've removed the following:

The American System also emphasized the importance of the power of the human mind to innovate, as the most important topic of discussion for economists. As Abraham Lincoln himself put it, in a speech delivered on the stump in his 1860 campaign, "Man is not the only animal who labors; but he is the only one who improves his workmanship. This improvement he effects by Discoveries and Inventions."

The American System has been increasing ignored by historians and economics professors, but it is arguably the only approach that has been historically successful in bringing about the rapid economic progress of nations, as demonstrated by its success under the Lincoln Administration and its subsequent revival under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The two approaches which dominate the academic world today, Laissez-Faire and Marxism, have yet to produce substantial results, and nations which practice them seem to rely on the exploitation of other nations to survive.

The most outspoken proponent of American System Economics in the early 20th Century was Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Today, it is the American politician and economist Lyndon LaRouche.

These paragraphs strike me as increasingly POV as one goes on. The first paragraph I'm dubious about whether that's actually part of the "American System" or a later interpolation. The second paragraph is thoroughly POV. The last sentence of the third is just promotion for Lyndon LaRouche by a LaRouche enthusiast. AndyL 11:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Paragraph one: if you are uncertain as to whether Lincoln was an important spokesman for the American System, why on earth would you be editing this article?

• Paragraph two: I used the qualifier "arguably," and I think it is justified to discuss the track record of the American System approach, which is now virtually unknown in its country of origin, to the track record of the other two options, which are normally the only ones discussed. Feel free to cite a success story for Marxism or Laissez-Faire. However, I agree that this paragraph might be better couched in a "proponents of the American system assert a, and opponents respond with b" format. I won't attempt to edit it, however, until we get arbitration, because you, Andy, and your cohorts, are in the "revert, don't debate" mode.

• Paragraph three: simple statement of fact. Can you name another outspoken proponent of the American System, other than LaRouche? Remember, your dislike or LaRouche, or of the American System, is not at issue. And, just out of curiosity, what is your gripe against Sun Yat-Sen?--Herschelkrustofsky 20:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can you provide sources to back up your claims? Can you cite any economists etc who state that LaRouche is the "leading proponent" of this school?AndyL 02:24, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any economists who have even acknowledged that it exists. But then again, I can't think of any economists, with the sort of credentials that might impress you, that I would consider competent, based on the consequences of implementing their recommendations. Just look at what happens to Third World nations that take the advice of the IMF!

There are a few commentators, like James Fallows of the Atlantic Monthly, who are clearly aware of American System Economics, but beyond that, none that explicitly promote it. Like it or not, Andy, LaRouche has something close to a monopoly on advocacy of American System Economics. Now, you may denounce this school of thought -- I have the distinct impression that you and Adam are British Liberals/Laissez-Faire types -- but denying that an alternative school exists would be a bit over the top.--Herschelkrustofsky 06:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Off the top of my head, I can't think of any economists who have even acknowledged that it exists"

So LaRouche is the onlyi one who claimsthat this system exists as a distinct school?AndyL 07:15, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have nothing against Sun Yat-Sen in particular, it just seems to me that your statement is POV. I'd like you to back your statement up with citations. AndyL 14:55, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow! Andy, You really do hate the American System -- and evidently, you admire the British one tremendously, as shown by your links to the Libertarian Party and the Von Mises Institute. Is Roy Lieberman one of your credentialed academic experts?

You know, this debate would be a lot more productive if you would just come out and admit that you oppose LaRouche, because he is a leading proponent of the American System, and you prefer the opposite approach. Then Adam might find the courage to admit that he opposes LaRouche, because LaRouche is a leading opponent of colonial wars and the "Clash of Civilizations" doctrine, both of which Adam supports. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This debate would be a lot more productive if you would just come out and admit that you're a member of the LaRouche movement. AndyL 00:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reverts

Willmcw, you have reverted 3 recent edits.

1. diff You restored two links, one of which was a dead link, the other to a zany right-wing article which accuses Henry Clay of being a National Socialist.
2. diff You reverted my copy edit of the intro paragraph, making it once again awkward and difficult to read.
3. diff You eliminated material on the Centennial Exposition of 1876, claiming that it was "LaRoucheite-theory."

Please provide some rational justification for these edits, or I will be inclined to view them as Harassment. --HK 21:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Both links work. I see no reason to delete them, as they both directly address the topic of the article.

2. I think the original text was better.

3. The Exposition website doesn't even mention the American System. The depiction of it as the culmination of the American System is a view mostly held by LaRouche. If you have othre sources for that view, please add them.

Thanks, -Willmcw 21:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I will be presenting documentation shortly on the Centennial exposition. In the meantime, stop vandalizing my talk page, another instance (duly logged) of Harassment. --HK 15:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Leaving polite messages on your talk page is not vandalism, it is the purpose of a talk page. That you choose to erase all messages there is perhaps an indication of unwillingness to participate in a collegial manner. Regarding this edit, I still haven't seen any source which links the American System of economics to the Centennial Exposition, except for the numerous mentions in LaRouche publications. -Willmcw 19:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Following the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition, the ideas of the American System of political-economy spread in such places as Japan, Bismarck's Germany, Alexander II's Russia, and elsewhere.[1]
• The apologists for "globalization" proceeded in ignorance of the well-established lessons of European civilization's rise to global preeminence during the period since the great, shaping developments of the Fifteenth-Century Renaissance, the aftermath of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, and the worldwide impact of the success of the American System of political-economy: especially since the transformation which occurred during the 1861-76 interval culminating in our first, Philadelphia, Centennial exposition, the point at which Europe and Japan, and others, began to adopt the American System model.[2]
• The stunning achievements exhibited by the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial exhibition, which inspired the spread of key features of the American System into such locations as Bismarck’s Germany, Alexander II’s Russia, and Japan, during the immediate aftermath of that Centennial Exposition, typify this.[3]
• With the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia in 1876, where the fruits of this accomplishment of 1861-1876 were presented, many Europeans immediately adopted what was known as the American System of Political Economy, as the context for reforms in Europe. [4]
• Following the triumphant 1876 demonstration of the superiority of the American System of political-economy,[1] over the inherently predatory Anglo-Dutch Liberal, monetarist system of so-called "free trade," some nations from around the world, including Bismarck's Germany, Russia, Japan, and others, radically revised national policies according to the model of the world's leading 19th-Century economists, Alexander Hamilton, Friedrich List, and Henry C. Carey.[5]
• Bismarck, in 1877, adopted the policies of Friedrich List, his version of the American System, as policy, after seeing the results in the 1876 Centennial Exposition in the United States.[6]
• The model of industrial economy which spread throughout much of the world, including Germany, Czarist Russia, Japan, and others, during the last decades of the Nineteenth Century, was the 1861-1876 Lincoln-Carey model featured at the 1876 Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. This form of the Leibniz-based, Franklin-referenced "American System" of U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, the two Careys, and Friedrich List, is a form of political-economy based upon Leibniz's principles of physical economy, incorporating the Leibnizian conception of the machine-tool-design industry, the which was developed, and also introduced to practice by Lazare Carnot.[7]
• Notable are those pro-American System reforms of the economic policies of Germany, Russia, Japan, and others which occurred as reaction to the evidence presented by the 1876 U.S. Centennial exposition in Philadelphia, and the perceived threat, seen from both Europe and the financier-oligarchical faction inside the U.S.A., that Franklin Roosevelt's leadership during the 1939-1945 period of warfare, and Roosevelt's 1944 design of the Bretton Woods system, would mean a spread and consolidation of the American System of political-economy through U.S. policies of support for liberating the world's colonies to become sovereign nation-states.[8]

Based on these eight quotations from LaRouche sites, most by LaRouche himself, the connection between the American System (economics) and the Centennial Exposition appears to be an important theme of LaRouche's. Thus far, the editor who inserted the information into this article has not been able to find any other source asserting such a connection. Therefore this appears to be an instance of inserting "material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche" into an article. -Willmcw 04:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw, there is nothing collegial about your conduct. You have shown no previous interest in this article; you have made no effort to improve it. It appears that your decision to edit it would be yet another instance of the WikiStalking which has aroused frequent complaints, and is now the subject of a requested ArbCom hearing.

The material you reverted this time was documented with original source material, specificly an address to the U.S. Congress by President Ulysses S. Grant, in which he identifies himself as a supporter of the American System.

Your attempts to insinuate that my edits are somehow promotion of LaRouche are specious. If you do a Google search of the sort you are fond of doing, you will find that the majority of all articles on the internet that pertain to the American System of economics come either from LaRouche publications, or from the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which opposes the American System as vigorously as LaRouche supports it. It does not follow, however, that LaRouche therefore invented or has proprietary rights to the idea; he merely took note of something of historical importance, which others neglected. If it is your contention that any discussion of the American System is ipso facto promotion of LaRouche, I would suggest that you campaign to have this article deleted (which would be preposterous). Otherwise your objection would appear to be baseless, in addition to being a sort of veiled personal attack, or more precisely Harassment of myself, and I would ask you to desist. --HK 22:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Grant: what is the connection between Grant's address to Congress and the Centennial Exposition? It appears to be a very tenuous connection. If we allow that then maybe we should include include every progam of the Grant administration in this article.

Regarding LaRouche and the Centennial Expo: You have added this material three times and have provided no other scholarly evidence to show that this isn't an original concept of LaRouche's. I have amply demonstrated that the connection betwen the two is a repeating them of LaRouche's and is therefore a LaRouche theory. The LvMI and the LaRouche Movement are not on equal footing in Wikipedia, as two arbitration cases have determined. You may not insert LaRouche material into articles. The ArbCom has determined that when you do you shall be blocked from editing for 1 week, and the ban shall be reset for one year. I have given you multiple opportunities to conform to the ArbCom decision and you have chosen not to. -Willmcw 22:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

I find the recent edits by User:Northmeister to be generally helpful and productive. However, I am making one modification. I don't think that it is necessary or appropriate to change "American System" to "American System of capitalism." If you follow the link to the article on Capitalism, you find the following: "Capitalism has also been referred to by the terms free market economy, free enterprise system, and economic liberalism." This is hardly consistant with the American System. The American System is generally thought of as an alternative to either Adam Smith or Karl Marx, and when most people think "capitalism," they think Smith. --HK 01:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have a question: what is the basis for listing Teddy Roosevelt as a supporter of the American System? --HK 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Teddy Roosevelt was a firm believer in the tariff (he forwarded the idea that a tariff exist to protect wages from lower wages elsewhere!), built the Panama Canal (which was needed to ship goods coast to coast), etc. If you have any evidence otherwise I am willing to listen. -Northmeister

I'm not certain that support for the tariff is equivalent to support for the American System. TR's penchant for an imperial foreign policy would seem to conflict with the ideals put forward by Carey and others. --HK 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good edits on the American System page. I am working on better links to this systems creator's and books so people can check further on the sources. I still contend Teddy Roosevelt, though he talked tough, acted quite in line with the American System as it was extended outward into foreign policy. He for example protected Venezuala from German intrusion due to debts they owed when he was President. President T. Roosevelt also sided with American 'mine workers' against their corporation in a dispute at the time, one of the first President's to do so and used the 'bully pulpit' of the White House to pass the Pure Food and Drug Laws, Anti-Trust laws to ring in the monopoly men of the time such as Rockefeller. He was in many ways the precusor to F.D.R. and his New Deal. With that said we have to consider whether the American System was just an economic policy of 'promoting the general Welfare' as the preamble states or whether it extended elsewhere into foreign policy. It seems to me that the extension into foreign policy argument could only be made when considering our attempts as a nation to pass on the knowledge so to speak during those days so others could build their nation as we did. The most important thing is to get it right when presenting the American System as far as the facts in a neutal manner. I am a partisan of the system and always have been, being very much into history, especially of my country, and believing history (when we know the facts thereof) is the greatest teacher as it reveals the winners and losers of theory and philosophy by the results produced. The American System in practice from Lincoln until 1900 surely produced a rapid growth of the country and standard of living, as it did afterward until the Depression. FDR reinvigorated the system through his New Deal which gave us our 1950's-1960's industrial capacity until the Nixon administration and the disasterous decisions made then. All this is based on my study of our nations history and the results policy has made. Sorry for the long 'talk'. Again, good edits. I think much more needs to be done (what do you think?) on the history behind the American System and where Hamilton derived his basic policy from. Was it simply Mercantilism as practiced by Britain before the Corn Law repeals etc., or was it from the Cameralist, Colbert school. A good historic background would add to this page with links to the individuals who helped to inform Hamilton in his "Report on Manufactures". What do you think on this? Further, in the links would it not help to list modern adovocacy links who reflect the American System today? - Northmeister

In your comments it sounds like you are suggesting we should decide whether TR was an advocate of the American System. To do so would be going beyond our authority as encyclopedia writers. Our job is simply to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. So if notable critics of TR have called him an American System advocate then we should mention that. But to decide on our own would be original research. -Will Beback 18:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Northmeister

LaRouche

If you are thinking about mentioning LaRouche, be advised that Wikipedia is dominated by a clique that insists that LaRouche may only be referenced in a derogatory fashion. Edits which mention LaRouche in non-derogatory terms, regardless of how germane or well-documented they may be, are suppressed. --HK 07:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

See:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2

to discover why the above statement by User:Herschelkrustofsky should not be taken with a grain of salt, but a Costco-sized bag. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton

What's our source for Hamilton being the founder of the "American System"? Clay and Carey are usually considered the founders. -Will Beback 05:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton isn't the founder of the American System of Economics, he was the pioneer. --Northmeister 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It states clearly:

"The American System was an economic philosophy pioneered by Alexander Hamilton..."

"The American System of economics represented the legacy of Alexander Hamilton, who in his Report on Manufactures argued that the U.S. could not become fully independent until it was self-sufficient in all necessary economic products."

"The name, "American System," was coined by Henry Clay to distinguish it as a school of thought from the competing theory of economics at the time, the British System represented by Adam Smith in his work Wealth of Nations."

This is all public knowledge. Never in the article is Hamilton mentioned as the 'Founder' but the 'Pioneer' which means different things. He set the course with his three reports including the 'Report on Manufactures', which later Henry Clay picked up on (among others in the Whig, original National Republicans of J.Q. Adams, Federalist Party who followed Hamilton (as opposed to those who broke away and ruined their party at the Hartford Convention)) and named "The American System," which is also clearly stated in the article.

Further, read any legitimate biography of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln and there you will find that both men rooted their economic principles in what Hamilton wrote and thought, thus he was the pioneer, not the FOUNDER of the system, Henry Clay was a advocate for it, and Lincoln was the one who implemented its full ranging ideas while President with a national rail program, college program, Homesteader program, Tariff's on foreign manufactures, etc. all from the theories and ideas of Hamilton as opposed to Adam Smith for example and the article states that as such. --Northmeister 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's some reading:

Life and speeches of Henry Clay (vol. 1) Greeley & McElrath, New York : 1843. pg. 259 (mentions Hamilton per the System).

Clay, Henry. The Papers of Henry Clay, 1797-1852. Edited by James Hopkins, Mary Hargreaves, Robert Seager II, Melba Porter Hay et al. 11 vols. University Press of Kentucky, 1959-1992.

I believe in doing as Davey Crockett (A Henry Clay Whig) advised: "Make sure your right, then go ahead." I will be updating this article with citations and links from source material as well including the above. --Northmeister 13:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So which source calls Hamliton the "pioneer" of the American System? Or are we making that assumption on our own? Will Beback 19:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no assumption here, do your research and read the sources above I already gave, in particular pg. 259 of the first source. Why do you keep asking the same question? --Northmeister 19:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

1843? I doubt that edition is still in print. What does Clay say about Hamilton? Does Clay say that Hamilton was the pioneer of the American System? -Will Beback 20:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The only online sources I can find which directly link Hamilton and the American System are those of Lyndon LaRouche. Unless we get a modern source for this material I'm going to revert it back. We also need a source for ""Supporters of the American System". The linkage of the Centennial Exposisoin to the American System has already been discarded from Wikipedia as a Larouche theory. -Will Beback 20:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback's use of the passive voice obscures the truth of the matter, which was that the linkage of the Centennial Exposition to the American System was discarded solely by Will Beback (AKA Willmcw), as you can confirm by examining the debate earlier on this talk page. Be advised that he has been given admin powers, and may ban you if you contest this. --HK 23:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And unless we can find a source which links the Expo to the American System, it should not be re-instated. Likewise for the other info. LaRouche theories do not have a place in Wikipedia articels that are not about him. -Will Beback 00:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Still looking for a source calling Hamilton the "pioneer" of the AS. -Will Beback 01:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been called...

• It has been since called the "American Policy", "Protective System", "Protection Policy" and usually by its critics "Protectionism" which alludes to the tariff policy of this system of economics.

So now it is the same as protectionism, and only has one core value, tariffs? According to whom are the platforms of the McKinley and Roosevelt campaigns representative of the American System? Please give some cites so we can restore this info. -Will Beback 00:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• WE? Tell me who we is? Who makes you the sole champion of truth? That information is direct from the source with clear language where the expression of similarities are. This page is about the American System and its impact throughout American History and to take out my edits because you failed to read my edit right or because you do not want to check my sources I list is clearly wrong. I just cited primary sources for the above and stated that 'protectionism' is often used by critics because they only concentrate on the tariff policies therein. The platform links shows the other cocentrations in line with the American System of Clay. So why did you just take that out? This is a page to show the American system, its roots, its policies, and those who followed such policies; in a similar vain to the page on Smith or Communism. You are more than over the line in taking out accurate information in an attempt to hide historic fact relating to this page. --Northmeister 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

What critics call AS "protectionism"? Where do those platforms mention AS? They seem to focus on tariffs, not building roads or creatoing a national bank. We need sources for these assertions. -Will Beback 01:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Again READ THE LINKS I PROVIDED! To the Republican PLATFORM! They contain more than tariffs but internal improvements, railroad programs etc. etc. all in line with Clay and the system he coined, and all in line with Hamilton's philosophy, which is why Hamilton is the historic root! Look and you continue to make my edits into a Larouche edit when they are NOT! I am not a Larouche associate and I take offense at the accusation of something I am NOT! I edit because I am a historian and love the study of history and other subjects. I do not edit for political reasons even if I disagree or agree with the points. I expect this to be an encyclopedia with factual information. I am trying to provide that, but every time I correct information which is verifiable to the ninth degree you edit it out or revert the page. You might want to deny history or maybe your just not up to par our America's past politics, but I am and I wish to contribute what I know with the sources I continue to provide (PRIMARY AND SECONDARY) but you continue to parse words and phrases...you took out the Lincoln quote, who is someone who called himself a "Henry Clay Tariff Whig" at one point and much loved Henry Clay and implemented several measures during his presidency...Goto the Library of Congress if you don't believe me (its online for you to study) that were in line with the American System. Why do you continue to both insult me and my intelligence and honor? --Northmeister 01:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Also one of Lincoln's first measures among many was to pass a national banking act creating a system that though tinkered with here and there lasted until the Federal Reserve System of Wilson came into effect! --Northmeister 01:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

No one disputes that Lincoln favored the AS as proposed by Carey. But that doesn not mean that every speech by Lincoln is about AS. As we've already established, AS has three core beliefs, not just high tariffs. Regarding the party platforms, I don't see any mention of railroads or national banks in them. The closest is the Panama Canal, which is only an internal improvement by a virtue of a colonial policy. Again, we need sources. The sources you've provided don't say the things you are claiming. Either that, or I'm missing it and if so I invite you to correct me by quoting the relevant excerpts here. -Will Beback 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

All Right, point taken in so far as a matter of discussion. Let us go another route and stop the insanity of deleting or reverting all my edits as you have done. First, right now I am focused on this page because I want the page to be accurate and right. Second, I have numerous online references to the American System ready to put into the References section and throughout the article. Third, What parts of my additions on THIS PAGE, do you question. That will give us a start so I know what your talking about. Fourth, lets have a civil dialogue here and get to the heart of the matter (which is important to me) which is FACT and TRUTH regarding this system you have disparaged as only linking to LaRouche. Fifth, Larouche is not like I see here and by persons with questionable intentions. The articles on him often are one sided without the other point of view being offered. The man can't even defend himself or his supporters defend him which just isn't right. Such attacks are not professional no matter the arbitration offered. I read all that and it was very one sided from the start. That said, this article is not about the man, it is about a system that really existed and should be presented fairly. So lets start there... Answer my question on what parts you need further info on that you are unclear on. Let's have a real dialogue and not attacks on me or labeling me as trying to insert material from Larouche as you've done. So ask away and I will present and if I can't present then agreed, we take it out of the article. --Northmeister 06:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm always happy to spend time on talk pages resolving article issues. By all means, let's make sure that this article is accurate and right, by which we mean that it verifiably summarizes reliable sources using the neutral point of view. All Wikipedia:Reliable sources are welcome. Not all sources are reliable. The theories of Lyndon LaRouche are detailed in several articles, and it's the decision of the community to limit them there. Nobody is attacking anyone. Thanks for being civil. Cheers, -Will Beback 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Please provide sources to support these points:

• 1. What's our source for Hamilton, (w/ Washington, et al.) being the pioneer of the American System? A single mention of Hamilton by Clay in a speech is not sufficient to establish that link.
• 2. What's our source for the relationship of the Expo to the American System?
• 3. What's our source for singling out as examples of the American System the campaign platforms of McKinley and T. Roosevelt?
• 4. Who calls F. Roosevelt a supporter of the American System?
• 5. Where did Clay call for innovation as part of AS?
• 6. Why are links being removed?

Thanks, -Will Beback 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am will be occupied for about a week, maybe less, so I will not be editing for that time. I will however respond to you on each question above in that timeframe. I will respond as best as possible with online sources if I can find them as most of my sources are here with me at my home. You may remake your edit (of the above questioned things) until I respond, thats fair enough. Unless another User re-edits then that is out of my hands... until then. --Northmeister 00:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

ANSWERS

"1.What's our source for Hamilton, (w/ Washington, et al.) being the pioneer of the American System? A single mention of Hamilton by Clay in a speech is not sufficient to establish that link. "

• I will start by reiterating the philosophy of Report on Manufactures is the same as Clay's 'American System' per historical evidence. That said Hamilton even alludes (pioneer) to Clay's future support thereof with such a coinage per support of the United States Constitution in Federalist 11 on Commercial policy: [9]. Also see the following extraction from "Appleton's Encyclopedia" [http://famousamericans.net/alexanderhamilton/]: "Rapidly, effectively, and successfully were all these varied matters dealt with and settled, and then in the succeeding years came from the treasury a report on the establishment of a mint, with an able discussion of Coins and coinage; a report on a national bank, followed by a great legal argument in the cabinet, which evoked the implied powers of the constitution; a report on manufactures, which discussed with profound ability the problems of political economy and formed the basis of the protective policy of the United States; a plan for an excise; numerous schemes for improved taxation; and finally a last great report on the public credit, setting forth the best methods for managing the revenue and for the speedy extinction of the debt."[http://famousamericans.net/alexanderhamilton/].
• Hamilton and Clay linked to one system of economic policy by Carey -[10] and also here [11].
• Congressman Andrew Stewart, a supporter of the American System, who's book of the same name about speeches on the U.S. Congress indicated Washington's inherent support thereof: [12].
• Congressman Stewart writing of the American System also links Hamilton, President Adams (J.Q.), President Monroe, President Madison, and President Washington through direct quotes to the policy of protecting and encouraging manufacturing: - [13] - which is at the heart of what Clay termed "American System" calling for encouraging manufacturing in the same way as Hamilton and the above men, thus they are pioneers and founders (especially Hamilton) of the system later given a direct name/coined by Clay and supported by the Whig Party.
• Here is Carey on linking Hamilton, Washington, and Jefferson (see later) to the American system ideals: [14].
• Here in the same letter Carey links Colbert, Franklin, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton again: [15]
• Washington again linked to Hamilton by Carey: [16].
• Here Carey links Washington, Hamilton, Hancock, Franklin to one and the same system: [17].
• Here we have Congressman Stewart on the American Systems reliance on Internal Improvements and how this was the policy was linked to Jefferson per the Cumberland Road project (an internal improvement by government) that came under attack by opposers of the American System (who did not believe in internal improvements): [18] and here: [19] and here [20].
• The internal improvement and tariff are together linked as part of the American System, thus government support for infrastructure (whether modern High Speed Rail or Lincoln's Rail program) combined with protection and thus promotion of Manufacturing are inherent to the American System economic philosophy and policies. [21]
• Clay himself tells of where his philosophy is rooted in his speech here: [22].

"2. What's our source for the relationship of the Expo to the American System? and 3. What's our source for singling out as examples of the American System the campaign platforms of McKinley and T. Roosevelt?"

I will answer the above questioned in this unified answer:

• First it is well documented the linkage of the National Republicans of J.Q. Adams to the Whigs of Henry Clay [23].
• Second, it is well documented the linkage of the defunct Whig Party elements who opposed slavery creating with others the Republican Party of Lincoln [24][25][26].
• Third, it is well documented that Lincoln and the Republican Party when in office during 1861-1865 together passed: Pacific Railway Act of 1862, Homestead Act of 1862, Morrill Tariff Act of 1862 [27] and the National Banking Act of 1863 [28][29][30][31][32] all in line with the Ameican System of encouraging Industry, making Internal Improvements, and public credit through a national bank.
• Fourth, it is well documented that Grant was a Republican, and that the Republican Party did not end but continued Lincoln's program and support for Protective Tariff, National Banking, and Internal Improvements to Infrastructure (Roads, Canals, Railroads, Homesteads, Schools etc).(see planks below).
• Fifth, The Expo in Question was held after Lincoln and during Grant's administration and showed the progress America had made in the short time since Lincoln and under the tutelage of the Republican Party's leadership in Congress and the White House as Grant comments upon: [33] and as is shown the Expo link [34] which shows the impressive progress of America from the time of Lincoln to the Expo compared to previous progress when the American System was stopped by President's Tyler, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan who opposed it.
• Sixth, the Republican Party continued the tradition of Grant, per Lincoln, per Clay, per Hamilton in the following platform planks quoted:
• ON THE PROTECTIVE TARIFF FROM GOP PLATFORMS (1860-1908)
  • "12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence." [35]
  • "Seventh. The annual revenue, after paying current expenditures, pensions, and the interest on the public debt, should furnish a moderate balance for the reduction of the principal and that revenue, except so much as may be derived from a tax upon tobacco and liquors, should be raised by duties upon importations, the details of which should be so adjusted as to aid in securing remunerative wages to labor, and to promote the industries, prosperity, and growth of the whole country." [36].
  • "Seventeenth. It is the duty of the general Government to adopt such measures as may tend to encourage and restore American commerce and ship-building." [37].
  • "8. The revenue necessary for current expenditures and the obligations of the public debt must be largely derived from duties upon importations, which, so far as possible, should be so adjusted as to promote the interests of American labor and advance the prosperity of the whole country." [38]
  • "Our foreign trade increased from $700,000,000 to $1,115,000,000 in the same time, and our exports, which were $20,000,000 less than our imports in 1860, were $265,000,000 more than our imports in 1879. (AND) 5. We affirm the belief, avowed in 1876, that the duties levied for the purpose of revenue should so discriminate as to favor American labor" [39]
  • "It is the first duty of a good government to protect the rights and promote the interests of its own people. The largest diversity of industry is most productive of general prosperity, and of the comfort and independence of the people. We, therefore, demand that the imposition of duties on foreign imports shall be made, not "for revenue only," but that in raising the requisite revenues for the government, such duties shall be so levied as to afford security to our diversified industries and protection to the rights and wages of the laborer; to the end that active and intelligent labor, as well as capital, may have its just reward, and the laboring man his full share in the national prosperity." [40]
  • "We are uncompromisingly in favor of the American system of protection; we protest against its destruction as proposed by the President and his party. They serve the interests of Europe; we will support the interests of America. We accept the issue, and confidently appeal to the people for their judgment. The protective system must be maintained. Its abandonment has always been followed by general disaster to all interests, except those of the usurer and the sheriff. We denounce the Mills bill as destructive to the general business, the labor and the farming interests of the country, and we heartily indorse the consistent and patriotic action of the Republican Representatives in Congress in opposing its passage." [41]
  • "In support of the principles herewith enunciated we invite the co-operation of patriotic men of all parties, and especially of all workingmen, whose prosperity is seriously threatened by the free-trade policy of the present Administration." [42]
  • "We reaffirm the American doctrine of protection. We call attention to its growth abroad. We maintain that the prosperous condition of our country is largely due to the wise revenue legislation of the Republican congress." [43].
  • "We renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence, and the foundation of American development and prosperity. This true American policy taxes foreign products and encourages home industry. It puts the burden of revenue on foreign goods; it secures the American market for the American producer. It upholds the American standard of wages for the American workingman; it puts the factory by the side of the farm and makes the American farmer less dependent on foreign demand and price; it diffuses general thrift, and founds the strength of all on the strength of each. In its reasonable application it is just, fair and impartial, equally opposed to foreign control and domestic monopoly to sectional discrimination and individual favoritism." [44]
  • "We renew our faith in the policy of Protection to American labor. In that policy our industries have been established, diversified and maintained. By protecting the home market competition has been stimulated and production cheapened. Opportunity to the inventive genius of our people has been secured and wages in every department of labor maintained at high rates, higher now than ever before, and always distinguishing our working people in their better conditions of life from those of any competing country. Enjoying the blessings of the American common school, secure in the right of self-government and protected in the occupancy of their own markets, their constantly increasing knowledge and skill have enabled them to finally enter the markets of the world. We favor the associated policy of reciprocity so directed as to open our markets on favorable terms for what we do not ourselves produce in return for free foreign markets." [45]
  • "**"We replaced a Democratic tariff law based on free trade principles and garnished with sectional protection by a consistent protective tariff, and industry, freed from oppression and stimulated by the encouragement of wise laws, has expanded to a degree never before known, has conquered new markets, and has created a volume of exports which has surpassed imagination Under the Dingley tariff labor has been fully employed, wages have risen, and all industries have revived and prospered." [46]
  • "Protection, which guards and develops our industries, is a cardinal policy of the Republican party. The measure of protection should always at least equal the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad. We insist upon the maintenance of the principle of protection, and therefore rates of duty should be readjusted only when conditions have so changed that the public interest demands their alteration, but this work cannot safely be committed to any other hands than those of the Republican party. To intrust it to the Democratic party is to invite disaster. Whether, as in 1892, the Democratic party declares the protective tariff unconstitutional, or whether it demands tariff reform or tariff revision, its real object is always the destruction of the protective system. However specious the name, the purpose is ever the same. A Democratic tariff has always been followed by business adversity: a Republican tariff by business prosperity. To a Republican Congress and a Republican President this great question can be safely intrusted. When the only free trade country among the great nations agitates a return to protection, the chief protective country should not falter in maintaining it." [47]
  • "Under the guidance of Republican principles the American people have become the richest nation in the world. Our wealth to-day exceeds that of England and all her colonies, and that of France and Germany combined. When the Republican Party was born the total wealth of the country was $16,000,000,000. It has leaped to $110,000,000,000 in a generation, while Great Britain has gathered but $60,000,000,000 in five hundred years. The United States now owns one-fourth of the world's wealth and makes one-third of all modern manufactured products. In the great necessities of civilization, such as coal, the motive power of all activity; iron, the chief basis of all industry; cotton, the staple foundation of all fabrics; wheat, corn and all the agricultural products that feed mankind, America's supremacy is undisputed. " [48]
  • "Upon this platform of principles and purposes, reaffirming our adherence to every Republican doctrine proclaimed since the birth of the party, we go before the country, asking the support not only of those who have acted with us heretofore, but of all our fellow citizens who, regardless of past political differences, unite in the desire to maintain the policies, perpetuate the blessings and make secure the achievements of a greater America. " [49]
• ON INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM GOP PLATFORMS (1860-1908)
  • "Resolved, That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean by the most central and practicable route is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country, and that the Federal Government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction, and as an auxiliary thereto, to the immediate construction of an emigrant road on the line of the railroad. Resolved, That appropriations by Congress for the improvement of rivers and harbors, of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of our existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of the Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens." [50]
  • "13. That we protest against any sale or alienation to others of the public lands held by actual settlers, and against any view of the free-homestead policy which regards the settlers as paupers or suppliants for public bounty; and we demand the passage by Congress of the complete and satisfactory homestead measure which has already passed the House." [51]
  • "15. That appropriations by Congress for river and harbor improvements of a national character, required for the accommodation and security of an existing commerce, are authorized by the Constitution, and justified by the obligation of Government to protect the lives and property of its citizens." [52]
  • "16. That a railroad to the Pacific Ocean is imperatively demanded by the interests of the whole country; that the federal government ought to render immediate and efficient aid in its construction; and that, as preliminary thereto, a daily overland mail should be promptly established." [[53]
  • "9. Resolved, That we are in favor of the speedy construction of the railroad to the Pacific coast." [54]
  • "First. During eleven years of supremacy it has accepted with grand courage the solemn duties of the time. It suppressed a gigantic rebellion, emancipated four millions of slaves, decreed the equal citizenship of all, and established universal suffrage. Exhibiting unparalleled magnanimity, it criminally punished no man for political offenses, and warmly welcomed all who proved loyalty by obeying the laws and dealing justly with their neighbors. It has steadily decreased with firm hand the resultant disorders of a great war, and initiated a wise and humane policy toward the Indians. The Pacific railroad and similar vast enterprises have been generously aided and successfully conducted, the public lands freely given to actual settlers, immigration protected and encouraged, and a full acknowledgment of the naturalized citizens' rights secured from European Powers. A uniform national currency has been provided, repudiation frowned down, the national credit sustained under the most extraordinary burdens, and new bonds negotiated at lower rates. The revenues have been carefully collected and honestly applied. Despite large annual reductions of the rates of taxation, the public debt has been reduced during General Grant's Presidency at the rate of a hundred millions a year, great financial crises have been avoided, and peace and plenty prevail throughout the land. Menacing foreign difficulties have been peacefully and honorably composed, and the honor and power of the nation kept in high respect throughout the world. This glorious record of the past is the party's best pledge for the future. We believe the people will not intrust the Government to any party or combination of men composed chiefly of those who have resisted every step of this beneficent progress." [55]
  • "Under its administration, railways have increased from 31,000 miles in 1860, to more than 82,000 miles in 1879." [56]
  • "The principle of public regulation of railway corporations is a wise and salutary one for the protection of all classes of the people; and we favor legislation that shall prevent unjust discrimination and excessive charges for transportation, and that shall secure to the people, and the railways alike, the fair and equal protection of the laws. We favor the establishment of a national bureau of labor; the enforcement of the eight hour law, a wise and judicious system of general education by adequate appropriation from the national revenues, wherever the same is needed. We believe that everywhere the protection to a citizen of American birth must be secured to citizens by American adoption; and we favor the settlement of national differences by international arbitration." [57].
  • "We reaffirm the policy of appropriating the public lands of the United States to be homesteads for American citizens and settlers—not aliens—which the Republican party established in 1862 against the persistent opposition of the Democrats in Congress, and which has brought our great Western domain into such magnificent development. The restoration of unearned railroad land grants to the public domain for the use of actual settlers, which was begun under the Administration of President Arthur, should be continued." [58]
  • "In a Republic like ours, where the citizen is the sovereign, and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign—the people—should possess intelligence. The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us a free Nation; therefore, the State or Nation, or both combined, should support free institutions of learning sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land the opportunity of a good common school education." [59]
  • "We earnestly recommend that prompt action be taken by Congress in the enactment of such legislation as will best secure the rehabilitation of our American merchant marine, and we protest against the passage by Congress of a free ship bill as calculated to work injustice to labor by lessening the wages of those engaged in preparing materials as well as those directly employed in our shipyards. We demand appropriations for the early rebuilding of our navy; for the construction of coast fortifications and modern ordnance and other approved modern means of defense for the protection of our defenseless harbors and cities; for the payment of just pensions to our soldiers; for necessary works of National importance in the improvement of harbors and the channels of internal, coastwise, and foreign commerce; for the encouragement of the shipping interests of the Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific States, as well as for the payment of the maturing public debt. This policy will give employment to our labor, activity to our various industries, increase the security of our country, promote trade, open new and direct markets for our produce, and cheapen the cost of transportation. We affirm this to be far better for our country than the Democratic policy of loaning the government's money, without interest, to "pet banks."" [60].
  • "The construction of the Nicaragua Canal is of the highest importance to the American people, both as a measure of National defense and to build up and maintain American commerce, and it should be controlled by the United States Government." [61].
  • "We favor the creation of a National Board of Arbitration to settle and adjust differences which may arise between employers and employed engaged in inter-State commerce. We believe in an immediate return to the free homestead policy of the Republican party, and urge the passage by Congress of a satisfactory free homestead measure which has already passed the House, and is now pending in the senate."
  • "Public movements looking to a permanent improvement of the roads and highways of the country meet with our cordial approval, and we recommend this subject to the earnest consideration of the people and of the Legislatures of the several states." [62].
  • "In further pursuance of the constant policy of the Republican party to provide free homes on the public domain, we recommend adequate national legislation to reclaim the arid lands of the United States, reserving control of the distribution of water for irrigation to the respective States and territories." [63]
  • "We favor the construction, ownership, control and protection of an Isthmian Canal by the Government of the United States. New markets are necessary for the increasing surplus of our farm products." [64]
  • "We have passed laws which will bring the arid lands of the United States within the area of cultivation." [65].
  • "We have a vast domain of 3,000,000 square miles, literally bursting with latent treasure, still waiting the magic of capital and industry to be converted to the practical uses of mankind; a country rich in soil and climate, in the unharnessed energy of its rivers and in all the varied products of the field, the forest and the factory. With gratitude for God's bounty, with pride in the splendid productiveness of the past and with confidence in the plenty and prosperity of the future, the Republican party declares for the principle that in the development and enjoyment of wealth so great and blessings so benign there shall be equal opportunity for all." [66].
  • "Upon this platform of principles and purposes, reaffirming our adherence to every Republican doctrine proclaimed since the birth of the party, we go before the country, asking the support not only of those who have acted with us heretofore, but of all our fellow citizens who, regardless of past political differences, unite in the desire to maintain the policies, perpetuate the blessings and make secure the achievements of a greater America. " [67]
• ON THE NATIONAL BANK OR NATIONAL BANKING SYSTEM ALREADY ESTABLISHED UNDER LINCOLN, GOP PLATFORMS (1860-1908)
  • "10. Resolved, That the National faith, pledged for the redemption of the public debt, must be kept inviolate, and that for this purpose we recommend economy and rigid responsibility in the public expenditures, and a vigorous and just system of taxation; and that it is the duty of every loyal state to sustain the credit and promote the use of the National currency." [68]
  • "Thirteenth. We denounce repudiation of the public debt, in any form or disguise, as a national crime. We witness with pride the reduction of the principal of the debt, and of the rates of interest upon the balance, and confidently expect that our excellent national currency will be perfected by a speedy resumption of specie payment." [69]
  • "...It has raised the value of our paper currency from 38 per cent to the par of gold. It has restored upon a solid basis payment in coin of all national obligations, and has given us a currency absolutely good and equal in every part of our extended country. It has lifted the credit of the Nation from the point where six per cent bonds sold at eighty-six to that where four per cent bonds are eagerly sought at a premium." [70]
  • "Upon this platform of principles and purposes, reaffirming our adherence to every Republican doctrine proclaimed since the birth of the party, we go before the country, asking the support not only of those who have acted with us heretofore, but of all our fellow citizens who, regardless of past political differences, unite in the desire to maintain the policies, perpetuate the blessings and make secure the achievements of a greater America. " [71]

"4. Who calls F. Roosevelt a supporter of the American System? 5. Where did Clay call for innovation as part of AS?"

• As to Question four, it is not a matter of who calls him this or that, it is a matter of whether he followed the American System of: Internal Improvement [72] - he did and with regard to Banking he did [73][74], on tariffs he maintained high rates compared to today and passed Trade Agreements Act of 1934 that allowed him to reduce tariffs based on other nations doing so and approved by Congress. So what is the point of this question? As to Question five, I am unsure of what you mean?

"6. Why are links being removed?"

• • One of the links [75] I removed is a polemic against Henry Clay and does not fit on the American System page. It is a fringe view held by extreme libertarians who are located a political site Von Mises Institute. Calling Henry Clay a NAZI (National Socialist) is very irresponsible and at the fring wing of thought. That article might best be linked from the Conspiracism page I question, or the Libertarian page(s). As for the other link, it is again from the extreme right-wing libertarian organization and offers no positive benefit to the reader as to why it needs to be on this page. I am willing to include that one in a list of links on critics to be fair.--Northmeister 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Now I am going to restore the last version of the page before the reverts as it is evidential that the American System is not only linked to Hamilton, phrased by Henry Clay, and practiced by the original GOP and Lincoln, but that its distinct Economic belief in government action toward promotion of industry, internal improvements, education of the people, and so on were picked up as major themes of the New Deal of Roosevelt. I will hear your thoughts. I will also update my last revision with all the proper cites, and for clearity, and as my original intention to make it Factual, accurate, displayed properly, neutral, display its critics in the modern age and its supporters.--Northmeister 00:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of this research. However I'm not sure you have actually answered my questions

• 1. I don't see any of your references which clal Hamilton the "pioneer of the American System". Instead I see original research by you documenting why you think that Hamilton was was the pioneer. Several of your references include Hamilton is lists of other people, giving him no more primacy than the others. Unless we can find an actual source directly calling Hamilton the pioneer of the American System we should not depict him as such. doing so violates the core Wikipedia policy, WP:NOR.
• 2. Again, I don't see a single reference listed that links the Expo to the American System. Instead I see you tryig to make a connection through original research.
• 3. Again, no references that call the 1900 or 1904 Republcian platform examples of the American System, only your own original research.
• 4. You are deciding on your own that Roosevelt's tariff policy marks him as a supporter of the American System. That's original research.
• 5. "5. Where did Clay call for innovation as part of AS?" You wrote, "The American System also emphasized the importance of the power of the human mind to innovate, as the most important topic of discussion for economists." Please show where Clay emphasizes the importance of innovation to the American System.
• 6. The LvMI is a legitimate ans well-known think tank. There ideas are not mainstream, but that does not mean that they cannot be reported. Please do not remove legitimate links.

In conclusion, you have not provided any answers that do not rely on your own original research. We have no historian who calls Hamilton the pioneer of the AS, we have none who calls FDR a supporter, and none who call the Expo or McKinley's platform as examples of the AS. The only source for these assertions is Lyndon LaRouche and the publications of his followers. -Will Beback 22:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

• No, this is not original research. This is all factual and backed up again and again by referenced to books by supporters of the American system, Clays speeches etc., this has nothing to do with Larouche or his theories, it has nothing to do with any theory of mine, but with historic evidence. You are covering up history when you do not display accurate information. I answered you in completeness and you still revert. Primary sources and secondary sources are well provided. You have no right to revert when this is done. Look up any of these sources both PRIMARY and SECONDARY and you will have your answer per above to the questions. This is the research of scholars...What is your source for any of the above coming from Larouche? Did I provide a link to his site? Are Congressman Stevens in the pay of Mr. LaRouche when he published his book on the American System? Or how about Henry Clay when he claimed in a speech his system was the same as Washington's, Hamilton's etc. before him? Or is Abe Lincoln somehow now a Larouche theorists because he believed in this system? Give me a break. Your reversion does not stand on credible ground. I am reverting back. --Northmeister 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Once more, can you name a single historian who calls Hamilton the "pioneer" of the AS? -Will Beback 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Again I have given you both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources are from the players in this system, such as Stevens. The secondary sources (some of which are not online) are references to scholars in the field. However, I will cite each of the areas you request with these sources. I would suggest you goto the Library of Congress where all this material is available or if you cannot do that then you goto your local library and look up any of the authors I put in the references. There you will find much of your answers. I did my part, you do yours and read the sources. Look up the defintion of 'pioneer' in any dictionary and then we will discuss what this word means and how it applies to Hamilton through his Report on Manufactures, Report on Public Credit I and II (national bank in II). Considering Carey was a leading scholar in economics, and considering the words of Clay himself, that is more than sufficient to put the word 'pioneer' into a description of Hamilton and Washington who both approved of the measures later adopted by Henry Clay as Clay says himself (sourced above). The cites will be added for your ease of understanding this. --Northmeister 02:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So if we don't have a source that calls Hamilton the pioneer of the American System then we can't say that he was. I've asked you several times and instead you've given a bunch of original research that attempts to prove that Hamilton was, but which doens'tshow that historians think so. We can't accept that. It's not rocket science. All we need is one reputable historian. -Will Beback 02:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Same Question, already answered throughly...again and last time:

• Henry Carey, economist: "The last of all qualities now demanded in men who are to represent the country abroad is that of being in policy truly and distinctively American disciples in that school in which Hamilton and Clay were teachers, and in which it has been always taught that political independence cannot be arrived at by means of measures calculated to perpetuate industrial dependence."[76]
• Appleton's Encyclopedia, "Rapidly, effectively, and successfully were all these varied matters dealt with and settled, and then in the succeeding years came from the treasury a report on the establishment of a mint, with an able discussion of Coins and coinage; a report on a national bank, followed by a great legal argument in the cabinet, which evoked the implied powers of the constitution; a report on manufactures, which discussed with profound ability the problems of political economy and formed the basis of the protective policy of the United States[http://famousamericans.net/alexanderhamilton/]
• Andrew Stewart, Congressman and author of a book titled in part "The American System": "General Washington, in his first message, delivered January 8, 1790, says: "The advancement of agriculture, commerce and manufactures, by every proper means, will not, I trust, need recommendation." Again, in his message of October 25, 1796, he says: "Congress have repeatedly, and not without success, turned their attention to manufactures, and the object is of too much importance not to secure a continuance of their efforts in every way that shall appear eligible;" he also recommends to Congress the establishment, by law, of agricultural societies, to grant "premiums, pecuniary aids, etc." [77]
• Henry Clay, Congressman, Speaker of the House, U.S. Senator on the American System in a speech to Congress on debate of it: "The principle of the system under consideration has the sanction of some of the best and wisest men, in all ages, in foreign countries as well as in our own-of the Edwards, of Henry the Great, of Elizabeth, of the Colberts, abroad; of our Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, at home." --Northmeister 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

and

All of the above statements indicate both Hamilton and Washington were believers in and pioneers of what would later be called the American System by Henry Clay. Further links are provided, but are not needed when primary sources are provided, especially Clay himself. Clay got his ideas somewhere and he tells us here. WHAT IS YOUR SOURCE TO DISPUTE THIS INFORMATION? Lastly, providing a link to the Von Mises Institute on an article that is a not a scholarly study but a rant against one of America's leading statesman comparing him to the Nazi philosophy which did not exist at the time is the same sort of mentality that links others to this philosophy or any philosophy to discredit them and dishonor their name. Further, without credible evidence to substantiate the claim made by the extremist fringe group at Von Mises, the article is not to be used on Wikipedia. It is also an attack on Henry Clay, so put it on that site as a criticism in the links section, but not on this site about the American system which Clay forwarded but did not entirely invent, as per his speech. --Northmeister 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to say that Clay identified "the Edwards, of Henry the Great, of Elizabeth, of the Colberts, abroad; of our Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, at home" as having ideas which inspired the American System then we're on firm ground. But you have not shown a single source for a historian which identifies Hamilton as the pioneer of the American System, nor have you found sources for the other questions I've asked. Again, please read WP:NOR. You are trying to make your own determination of the pioneers of the American System. I can provide you with many references which attributes the American System to Henry Clay. That is the conventional wisdom. The connection of Hamilton (and FDR) to the American System is common only in one place: among followers of Lyndon Larouche. We already cover LaRouche's threories in several articles, but his theories are not considered sufficiently reputable to incorporate in unrelated articles. Without sources which directly support your assertions we'll need to remove the text. You'll see that, in addition to the questions posted above, I've also marked some specific lines in the text which need citations too. -Will Beback 04:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Look it is getting late here. So I will rest for the night. We need to determine some parameters of this discussion first. I will give you the FDR notion at this point. You might as well remove him form supporters of the system. But I've shown credible evidence of the GOP supporting: Internal Improvements, Tariffs, and national banking in their platforms until modern times. That evidence is first hand and primary in nature. As to the other points you make I've also provided evidence in citations, and the books I mentioned give further indication. Now, you are fussing over the single word 'pioneer', WHY? What is your reason to fuss over that word but accept he 'inspired'? Isn't inspiration pioneering an idea for someone? Did not Hamilton support the American System of Tariffs, Internal Improvements, and Banking in each of his Reports? If this is what inspired Clay, then it is correct to connect the two together, because the American System was America's capitalist program opposed to the British System advocated by Smith. Hamilton is to the American System as Smith is to the British Free Trade System. Further Clay is to the American System as Cobden was to the British System of Free Trade, both took capitalism in different forms. Enough tonight..--Northmeister 05:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a tremendous difference between inspiring something and creating it. When you say that you've provided "credible evidence of the GOP supporting: Internal Improvements," etc, what actually you've done is performed original research wihch seeks to prove that what the Republican Party supported in 1900 was the same as the "American System". We're not here to "prove" anything. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Proving things is original research. There are ample sources which directly say that the American System was Clay's idea, and none which say that the Expo, the platforms, etc, are part of it. -Will Beback 05:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

BACKGROUND FOR STUDY ON AMERICAN SYSTEM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ECONOMICS TODAY

Below is my understanding of History from all I have studied about American history and economics pertaining to it. It is put here (or at top in at first) to give some indication of what the American System is and is not. Most Enclyclopedia's cover only Clay's plan, this article covers it's roots and it's implementation by the Republican Party per the three cardinal policies Clay advocated and which were alluded to in Hamilton's Report's. So skip the following if your reading the discussion, it is meant as a starting point for thought. --Northmeister 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The American System and Laizze Faire are two competing schools in capitalism; one built America and it was not the later by historic evidence presented by the credible sources listed under references. The American System of: protection, national development through internal improvements, and national banking to issue public credit dominated the policy of America, Germany, and originally under the name Mercantilism in Britain from Cromwell through Elizabeth I to the repeal of the Corn Laws not long after she embraced the philosophy of the physiocrats well documented in 'Wealth of Nations' by Adam Smith. America chose not to do this, though there was great debate. Hamilton lead the charge for a system rooted in German Cameralism, English Mercantilism, and French Colbertism, in his Report on Manufactures, Public Credit I, Public Credit II that was fought over afterward being supported by Washington, opposed by Jefferson (during his Presidency), opposed then accepted by Madison (after the War of 1812), accepted by Monroe (during Era of Good Feeling), supported by J.Q. Adams (here Clay enters center Stage coining the system proposed by Hamilton and debated after-wards the American System to distinguish it from the British System see earlier), opposed by Jackson (though he enforced the tariff laws during the Nullification crises) and Van Buren, supported by the new Whig's Harrison and Taylor, opposed by Tyler, Polk, Pierce, and Buchanan, supported by Lincoln, originally a Whig, and the Republican Party (see planks). This is all documented well in the resources I provided, the cites to links online I provide, and in such modern books as Buchanan's "The Great Betrayal" which speaks of this great debate in American history over which system we would adopt, the American one or the British one. We embraced Hamilton's system, through Clay's efforts, and then the Lincoln administration and every administration that followed him on through the Progressive era with Roosevelt, Taft, until Wilson reversed the tariff policy of the American System, adopting the Free Trade policy with his Underwood Tariff, then the 1920's and Harding, Coolidge, Hoover come to power embracing this system of capitalism, before the stock market crashes in 1929. Franklin D. Roosevelt embraces two parts of the system fully (internal improvements (TVA etc.) and national banking-reforms FED-FDIC-etc.) but abandons the tariff provisions in part through Reciprocity...this lead to the post-war Cold War era of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy (where the original WTO, the ITO was rejected) where tariffs stabilized, industry was protected by natural dominance, and we built Eisenhower's Highway System (Internal Improvements), Kennedy's Space Program (government promotion of industry), coupled with national banking through the FED...Then Nixon: off the stable dollar, great reductions in postwar tariff rates (Kennedy and later trade rounds ) where many concessions were given to others but not obtained from others, then Carter and Volcker (15% inflation), then Reagan (Depression level unemployment in early 80's) who: put Quotas on Foreign Imports, bailed out Chrysler, saved Harley Davidson with protectionist tariffs, saved the tool industry Craftsman, stimulated the economy through military buildup to out do the Russians used some of the American System..but then with Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II the Laizze Faire crowd through Free Trade, Privatization, NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, WTO not only gave up sovereignty but on the American System in all its forms. Today there are growing voices in favor of this system of capitalism again..Lou Dobbs (financial commentator), Pat Buchanan (political commentator), Lyndon LaRouche (economist), Ross Perot, Pat Choate (economist), Reform Party, many members of the Democratic Party, some in the Republican Party like Lindsey Graham, Eamonn Fingleton (economist), Alan Tonelson (economist), U.S. Business and Industry Council, Ravi Batra (economist) etc. --Northmeister 04:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Critics claim...

I have found a source which directly links Hamliton as the founder of the concept. However it is Thomas DiLorenzo, in THE ROLE OF PRIVATE TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICA’S 19th-CENTURY “INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS” DEBATE. He is harshly critical of the American System.

• every single instance where governments intervened to build roads, canals, and railroads during this period the result was corruption and financial debacle
• Henry Clay,... championed the Hamilton/Gallatin/Adams cause ... under the rubric of “The American System.”
• these projects were almost uniformly disastrous and led to the virtual bankruptcy of several states.

However DiLorenzo is not generally considered a mainstream scholar. -Will Beback 08:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I support the edits made so far. My intention is truth and accuracy. Off to work for now. Good job so far, there is much more to do to make this page accurate, factual, and readable. Will re-read edits tonight. --Northmeister 15:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources needed

• The American System as Henry Clay called the policy that Alexander Hamilton outlined in his Report on Manufactures has been since called the "American Policy", "Protective System", "Protection Policy" and usually by its critics, "Protectionism", which alludes to the tariff policy of this system of economics.
• Below are four extracts from the Republican Party Platform's supporting the policies outlined above of the "American System."

We need sources which confirm that "Protectionism" is the same thing as the "American System". Also that the listed party platforms exhibit the American System. Thanks, -Will Beback 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

First, as already well shown the Republican Party not only was protectionist, but believed in national banking ala Clay, and internal improvements (rails etc.). The planks show that. As far as the names all were interchangable and were used as such. Refer to the above where all the sources are given. I don't have to keep repeating myself with this constant mistreatment and abuse of my writing, intentions, and allegations of original research when most of what you want cited is common historic knowledge and the rest have had citations. Further cites will be added as I have the time to put them into the article, but the resources below and the links all give the indication to this. I have done my citations square and fair along the wayt and do not have to mark up this document as if it were a college paper, it is an encyclodia with further links, external links, references, resources, that people can read and learn what was written. --Northmeister 00:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection is very well covered in From Hayes to McKinley: National Party Politics, 1877-1896 a Book by H. Wayne Morgan; Syracuse University Press, 1969 Rjensen 00:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And are any and all forms of protection considered synonymous with American System? Was the Panama Canal an internal improvement? It seems we're taking policies which share details with the Amercian System and then appying that label. If Morgan says that the later Republican platforms were examples of the American system, then let's source it to him. If he didn't, then let's remove the platforms. -Will Beback 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's not, I've already given sources for this. These sources state that as such in the books I gave that are online to read. Read Stewart and Clay. --Northmeister 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Stewart and Clay were dead by 1900, so there is no way they could have said that the Republican platform of that year followed the American System of 1824. Unless there was some kind of seance. -Will Beback 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No they speak of the philosophy and its roots. Since you questioned this I gabve the cites. The platform planks speak for themselves. --Northmeister 01:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The platforms don't mention the "American System". -Will Beback 01:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

protectionmism = American system Rjensen 01:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So the internal improvements and national bank are not core principles of the American System? If that's the case then most of this material would be better moved to a topic like "protectionism". -Will Beback 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

When does Am System end? Internal improvements was a part of Am system down to about 1870, ending with the Pacific RR. After that it was not really an issue. National Bank was part of system and was firmly established by 1865. After that the debates shifted to gold and silver, which were not part of Am System. The Protective Tariff is a big issue as late as 1932 (but bot since then). The Smoot-Hawley protective tariff of 1930 was quite a disaster, and no one wanted to repeat. Rjensen 01:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The American System as policy ended in 1929 for sure. Yes the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariff was not so much a disaster but made the scapegoat for the Depression caused by the Stock Market and speculation therein (to many had to much invested without the protections later brought by FDR's reforms). Recessions happen in capitalism. FDR taught us partially who to deal with a recession, namely (Public Works and a permenant WPA to high unemployed workers until the private sector picks up and then release them to the private sector...in the meantime Dams, Roads, Canals, Bridges, Rail (God how we need to catch up here, high speed rail that is) etc.). Anyway that is not the discussion. It ended pretty much in 1929. FDR did do many internal improvements and also embraced national banking (through the FED), but did not follow the protective tariff (which, and yes Will Beback this is my opinon...I am convinced had he not repealed Smoot-Hawley it would not have harmed us as our economy was only 3% foreign trade dependent and it would of kept out some products that made it harder for smaller businesses to compete etc.). So FDR cannot be considered really practicing the American System, and that is why I took him out, even though his Reciprocity Treaties were fair compared to today's NAFTA and CAFTA agreements. The national bank issue was settled once Lincoln put that into effect, the internal improvements (rails, roads, canals, bridges, highways etc.) actually continued to be supported, and tariffs the hallmark of the system pretty much were continued until 1933 or so. Good work, Rjensen. As far as 1870 being the end, I wouldn't say that was the case, more like 1929 or even 1913. --Northmeister 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Since we describe the American System as having four key policies the Republican platforms need to have those four policies in them in order for them to adhere to the American System. High tarrifs alone are protectionism, not the Americn System. Or, if we say that "protectionism = American System" then we need to indicate that the other principles are not real parts of the system. -Will Beback 23:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Format

If you will work with me Rjensen or anyone else interested in making this page better formatted. I would like to go through each paragraph and format this article better for presentation at Wikipedia. It is important to get it right, which I've worked on, Herchovsky(sic), and others have in the past. Cites are important and extensive citation has been done and continues and will continue. The next step is reformatting, to ensure flow of information and words. One edit I will make is to redo the Policies section with the following which sums up what the System was all about more than any secondary source can from Congressman Stewart:

"While in Congress, it will be seen that Mr. Stewart served on several of the most important committees, among them as Chairman of the Committee on the Tariff, and the Committee of Internal Improvements, constituting together, what was well called by Mr. Clay, "The American System "-in the advocacy of which, Mr. Stewart commenced and ended his political life. This system, he always contended, lay at the foundation of the national prosperity-the one protecting the national industry, and the other developing the national resources. He called it the "political thermometer," which always had and always would indicate the rise and fall of the national prosperity. In concluding one of his speeches, he put this whole matter in a nutshell when he said: The true American policy is this:

• 1st. Protect and cherish your national industry by a wise system of finance, selecting in the first place those articles which you can and ought to supply to the extent of your own wants-food, clothing, habitation, and defence-and to these give ample and adequate piotection, so as to secure at all times an abundant supply at home. Next select the LUXURIES consumed by the rich, and impose on them such duties as the wants of the Government may require for revenue; and then take the necessaries of life consumed by the poor, and articles which we cannot supply, used in our manufactories, and make them free, or subject to the lowest rates of duty.
• 2d. Adopt a system of national improvements, embracing the great rivers, lakes, and main arteries of communication, leaving those of a LOCAL character to the care of the States; and on these expend the 8urplus revenue only; thus uniting and binding together the distant parts of our common country, and at the same time securing the most efficient system of defence in war, and the cheapest and best system of commercial and social intercourse in peace.
• 3d. Introduce enlightened economy in every branch of the public expenditures. Lighten the burdens, diversify the employments, and secure and increase the rewards of labor in all its departments. And,
• 4th. In your foreign relations follow the advice of the father of his country-" observe good faith and justice towards all nations-cultivate peace and harmony with all." Thereby illustrating the beauty and perfection of our Republican institutions, holding up a great example of "liberty and independence," for the nations of the earth to admire and imitate. This was the great and true American system which he hoped yet to see adopted and carried out. We owe a great example to the world-let it be given; this was the duty, as he trusted it would be the destiny of this, our great and glorious Republic." [78][79]

The recent additions of other elements of the American System are well documented by history and I think relevant to add as they are thoroughly documented (except I would take out the Kennedy part as that is irrelevant). Cites to each part added would be helpful. --Northmeister 18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Editions" or "additions"? We need a source for these "other policies". -Will Beback 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This is insane. Will Beback has continued to question legitimate material obtained outside of wikipedia (links provided on page and here because of his questions) and asks the same questions over and over again. I noted above cites are needed online since you wont do your homework and read the stuff not online that contains all you wish to know. --Northmeister 06:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Will will suggest what we SHOULD say and we can edit him. Rjensen 06:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Scope of the article

I think we are making more of the American System is accorded by conventional wisdom. For example, the contention that it is a political and economic philosophy that extends from Hamilton (or even Colbert) to Hoover or FDR. It also appears as if we're placing a philosophy under the name of a particular proposal. That's roughly analogous to having a lengthy coverage modern foreign aid under a discussion of the Marshall Plan. The broader philosophy may be Protectionism. Or perhaps the "Whig tradition in U.S. politics".

I refer editors to the straight-forward article in the The Reader's Companion to American History. While I'm sure we can do better than that I do notice that our article makes far more extensive claims about the topic than does that other encyclopedia's entry. It certainly does not mention the Expo or the Roosevelts. To imply a connection between the invention of the telephone and the American System seems tenuous, and if there's a source for it then we should attribute it. We also need to attribute the support of those post-Carey politicians who didn't describe their philosophy as "American System". If they didn't put themselves in that category then someone else did and we should attribute it. Unless protagonists, or later historians, link their ideas to the American System, we should not make that link ourselves.

At the same time I notice little mention of the actual history of the American System. What about the National Road? What about the history of immediately-related tariffs? Where are the distinctions between Clay's formulation and Stevens or Carey? We should extend this article by covering it more deeply, not by stretching it to cover other eras. -Will Beback 10:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree this article needs a section to display the Tariff's or to include mention of them. I never said my editing of the article anyone elses has ended. See the Cumberland Road for information on the National Road. That has been mentioned. Clay's policies are essentially the same as Stevens, one omission on Steven's part in that which I posted was the National Bank, which was a part of the overall philosophy that Lincoln fulfilled when the National Banking Act of 1863 was passed. The three Morrill Tariffs (see Morrill Tariff page) were further Lincoln's and the early Republican's implementing the High Tariff portion of the American System philosophy on economics and its protectionist part. The combination of the Pacific Railways Act of 1863 and Homestead Act were that administrations implementation of the Internal Improvements portion of the philosophy (ie. Government invests in infrastructure to speed commerce etc. See Stevens quote). The foreign polic aspect was to have commercial relations with nations with as little conflict as possible to avoid the disputes of the world, and to promote 'liberty and independence' and this system of economics to others, so they could prosper as we did. In that part we were not much successful, except to Germany mostly, which under Bismarck (through List who called the same system National System in his book of the same name). This article does not cover other areas. The American System is its only coverage. That is why I took out FDR who's domestic program in the New Deal was much in line with the American System the GOP abandoned, but whose trade policies conflicted with this sentiment. The expo took place in 1876 and showcased how America had prospered and progressed since the Lincoln Administration. A prior expo in the 1840's had been disappointing to the United States and this was a remarkable achievement. Since it came throughout Lincoln and the American System, it deserves treatment. The Lincoln quote on innovation is accurate for Lincoln, and I would agree that it needs taking out without a proper link displaying its connections other than through Lincoln alone; since linking every sentence to an online source seems to be the criteria you are using here, unfairly since book sources are provided, I put the link provided and left a need for citation in, if that does not come, then I agree it must come out. The other policies are linked to the American system and I put a citation in, and left citation needed to let the person who put them back to answer with a citation before it is just removed. I have tried to be fair here and allow for persons to obtain their 'online' links, since it is obvious that a more stringent policy is used here than on other pages (see References and other Sources...here answers can be found, but alas they are not online and you haven't read them or you wouldn't be asking the same questions over and over). You would know about the National Road or Cumberland road for instance or the Erie Canal or other such internal improvements.--Northmeister 14:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Supporter and Critics

I added supporters and critics to the page. Any input on this addition would help to get it right, especially on layout and conformity to wiki style. I wish to add External Links beyond the two I added from modern day critics, any suggestions? If you do not agree with my additions let me know and we will work on them. Just be nice. --Northmeister 01:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This all seems to be original research. Please provide sources that call each of these individuals supporters of the American System, or of all of its core principles. -Will Beback 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Which individuals that did not support national banking, protectionism, and internal improvements do you have in mind, that have not already been listed with a note? Historic fact is not original research, the books and references already given above and on the page are primary sources (and secondary sources) of information on the above policies and their supporter's. Again Which? --Northmeister 04:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the list down to Clay and Carey unless you provide sources for each and every one. Calling George Bush (either one) an "American System" critic is absurd. -Will Beback 05:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

They support protectionism, internal improvements, and central banking? Did not President Bush recently lash out in his state of the Union against this? I can provide that if you like. I did not call them anything. Once again, the sources are provide above for each and every one. I provided links to each source page and site online to indicate their stances, I provided explanations as to how they differ. I can agree to discuss material and take things out that are reasonable. But you have not been reasonable with me, as indicated in this talk page and other things discussed elsewhere. --Northmeister 05:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush criticized the American System in his speech? Gee, I was listening and I never heard it. Yes, please do provide the your source for this and for the rest. -Will Beback 05:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you not read what the American System is? --Northmeister 06:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, Hmains, Herchovsky: what do each of you think about the Critics and supporters. I do not trust the motives of Will Beback from what he has done in the past and continues to do. He offers no help here only criticism and reverts. Your opinion is important to me because you've edited this page and both corrected me and added material that is vital to get it right. I am not perfect so a consensus here would help. --Northmeister 07:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's simple: until you show direct proof, saying Bush is a critic of the American System doesn't describe his views, it's your interpretation of his views. Find a cite showing him explicitly mentioning the American System by name, or your interpretation remains just that -- yours -- stays out. --Calton | Talk 07:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Understandable...I will redo the Critics and Supporter's pages with that in mind, especially pertaining to the above idea. Thanks. --Northmeister 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the critics and supporter in modern era as not relevant for this article, Calton and after observation of this. I also removed Lincoln quote as I could not find valid source that he was engaged in talking specifically about American System economics or its parts (protectionism, internal improvements, national bank) after giving original contributer time to get the source. --Northmeister 15:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Good Job

Good job folks. This page is looking better. Thanks for correcting some of my mistakes and formatting the page better. Wikipedia is all about collaboration and cooperation in getting it right and I think we did a fine job. The recent edits make sense, thanks. --Northmeister 22:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I added links to the Centennial expo, added critic link, reworded some sentences and added for clearity. --Northmeister 05:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We still need link that connects the Expo to the American System. I've asked many times for this, and even removed the material a couple of times, but you keep re-adding it and yet never providing a reference to justify its inclusion. -Will Beback 06:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Useful links to books at Cornell University

Added links to books and journals pertaining to the American System, the different names used for it, its connection to the Republican Party (early until 1933), that is 1861-1933. --Northmeister 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Woodrow Wilson

I have removed this sentence because I believe it to be incorrect: "The Democratic Party, which had long fought the elements of the American System, began to change under the influence of the populist movement spearheaded by William J. Bryan and then under President Woodrow Wilson's administration embracing internal improvements and national banking (see Federal Reserve System) while rejecting the third cardinal policy of protection." I don't know about Bryan and I would like to see examples of Wilson embracing internal improvements, but more importantly, the Federal Reserve system was in fact a repudiation of National Banking, placing the power in private hands. FDR financed his infrastructure programs and revival of industry by a number of ingenious tactics to outflank the Federal Reserve, which opposed him. --HK 15:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much of a difference between the Federal Reserve System and National Banking. If you could enlighten me here I would like to know how they were different? I understand the changes made, mostly for the better, and personally would support more control over their decision making (approval of President of rate hikes or lowering for example) but I'm not convinced that it was all that different. On Wilson, whom I am not much of a fan-which doesn't matter for an article like this-, I will concur with you. After re-reading the material I have on Wilson, that would not fit him (internal improvements). He was more about encouraging competition through the Clayton Antitrust Act and the establishment of the Federal Trade Commission which I feel he was in spirit right about (competition is important to keep prices lower and to prevent concentration in a few hands -the wealth of a nation) though he would add Free-Trade to this I would not, as it is important the ownership of the nation can be passed on to our children and Wilson is not alive to today to see what 'Free Trade' does to that. Edit good enough though to get it right. --Northmeister 18:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This page was vandalised, I reverted to Rjensen, Northmeister, Herschelkrustofsky,JM and others efforts. Do not vandalise the efforts of other editors, or delete without sufficient and credible reasons. --Northmeister 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

My edits were not vandalism. I moved the pictures into more appopriate locations. I removed the assertions that are original research, and for which no sources have been provided. George Bush is not a critic of the American System. The only modern published source that calls him that, and the only one that directly links the American System to the Centennial Expo is the LaRouche movement. You are engaged in edit warring over the insertion of LaRouche material. -Will Beback 02:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking Good

The present edition of this article is looking well. I support Rjensen's recent edit as reasonable. This article looks like a wikipedia article should, neutral, just tell facts, backup with primary (preferred) or secondary sources, keep it honest and don't try to critic the subject matter with point-counter-point. That is what an encyclopedia article is all about. Good job folks. --Northmeister 01:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, -Why did you change Carnegie to a British-American, as far as I know he was American particularly a Scotsman, no need to hyphenate unless he was a dual citizen, which I am certain he was not. ? --Northmeister 01:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

He spent half his time in Scotland and was considered Scot/British. He OPPOSED McKinley in 1900 and probably should not be used here. Rjensen 01:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but he immigrated into the United States and then would be considered an American, I don;t see the need to use a hyphen with his name, but that is rather a small issue. The larger issue is whether we should use Carnegie. I may have gotten it wrong that he supported McKinley, I thought he did. I don't think he support Bryan in 1900 but maybe I am wrong. I will have to re-read the literature on this. His statement on the Republican Party has a point and was added for clearity due to questions concerning whether the Republican Party was linked to the American System or the policies thereof after Lincoln. It is clear from all the literature that they were. Though the monetary debate over the Gold Standard became a major issue later on and then progrssive causes per Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson. I feel the addition correctly represents what the Republican Party was, an extension of Clay's Whigs for the most part until later years. The article has many citations, even though references are provided, due to questions raised. Otherwise I would not have felt the need to put them in as the answers lie in the sources already provided. --Northmeister 03:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnegie voted for Bryan in 1900, as I recall (because of imperialism issue). I'm not sure why he is cited here anyway. Rjensen 03:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

His quote indicates what the Republican Party was in 1900, plus he immigrated to the USA in 1848. Since another editor questioned the material I edited and whether the Republican Party believed in internal improvements, protectionism, and national banking; I felt the need to find a quote indicating this from a primary source; since said person I suppose believes that the Republican party stood for Free-Trade, no internal improvements, and was against national banking; that was the other party mostly if the platforms are read. He also fails to understand the use of historic words like "Protection Policy" or "Protectionism" and what they meant. Per McKinley or Bryan, Mr. Carnegie states it firmly here, that though he disagrees with McKinley on the Philippines (Imperialism in general and likes the Democrat's stand on those issues) situation he would stay with the Republican Party.

"Party of...is not to be deserted for its failure so far to perform this same sacred duty to the Philippines. On the contrary, the party which has been for a generation the guardian of our country, and whose wise legislation has secured its present commanding position, may wisely be trusted to find the lost path and return to it, thus retrieving its error. This the writer believes is to be the certain and not remote result, and for that end he shall continue to exert whatever influence he may possess or acquire, within, not without, the party for which he cast his first vote and for which he hopes to cast his last, and in this he is proud to follow Ex-Speaker Reed, Senators Hoar, Hale, Mason, ex-Senator Edmunds and others, statesmen eminent alike for party and personal service and for personal character." -ANDREW CARNEGIE.[80] --Northmeister 03:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Carnegie is pretty self interested given that the tariff protected his steel. I recommend not using him. Rjensen 04:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. However, he does point out that the Republican Party believed in: Protective Tariffs and Internal Improvements as late as 1900. I added it to show this connection as the connection was challenged. The American System meant three cardinal policies put together; apart they would not be Clay's envisioned American System. If the Republican Party represented through laws they passed (as under Lincoln), platforms in favor of (as shown above in discussions), and through supporter's statements thereof (as seen by my most recent edits); then they were practicing the American System. When this stopped they were not. Looking at this, it is quite right FDR was not practicing the American System despite claims to the contrary. It is also quite right, that this system seemed to be abandoned by the GOP sometime around the 1920's-1940's period. The GOP became more conservative, losing progressive elements to FDR's New Deal Democratic Party and thus by 1964 became very much a party of Free-Trade, Laizee Faire, and small government -what the Democrats were prior to FDR. The Democrats have grown increasingly the opposite way it seems. Neither practices the traditional American System and its three cardinal principles as they are represented historically. Both party's have from time to time supported internal improvements and national banking (well through the FED system), so the issue would be protective tariffs or at least promoting and protecting industry-especially manufacturing to concur with the American System again. The Republican's today have moved farther away from doing this and the Democrats are moving closer to this view; with appeals to 'fair trade' and subsidies to industry becoming effectively the new protective way (which I approve of - as it would have the same positive effect in my opinion-as is the case with modern Japan). As to the Expo question - it was held over ten years after the three point American System policy was implemented by Lincoln's administration (without repeal). It showcased considerable improvement over 1851 (after eight years of Tyler and Polk -anti-American System policy). It should be included as long as such policies were in place as the economic program for the country. --Northmeister 13:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Many events occured in 1876 but that does not mean that the happened because of the American System. It is original research to ascribe a connection unless you have a reputable source which does so. I know of only one modern "historian" who makes this connection, Lyndon LaRouche. Unless you can proivide another source you are in violation of an ArbCom decision banning edit warring over the insertion of LaRouche theories into Wikipedia. -Will Beback 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

A few discussion points on the Federal Reserve

The decision to implement the Fed, by Wilson et al., was a major shift towards a British System approach; it was explicitly modeled on the Bank of England, a privately held bank, and the philosophy behind it was that monetary policy should not be "politicized," i.e., placed in the hands of elected officials, but instead should be determined by a benevolent private oligarchy that was "above politics." The consequence was the wave of speculation called the "roaring twenties" and ultimately the Great Depression. The promoters of the Fed have always held that using credit and monetary policy to promote industry and infrastructure (a dirigist policy) was a bad thing, and that one must not differentiate between productive and speculative investment, but rather be "impartial." Whenever that philosophy is accepted at face value, credit will tend to go toward the fastest return, which will be speculation, and productive enterprise will be credit-starved. --HK 15:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The Fed was indeed modeled on the Bank of England. But the person who did the work was Republican Senator Nelson Aldrich -- whose daughter married John D Rockefeller. The Fed did not engage in speculation., The private sector did that in 1920s. Rjensen 15:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct. The Fed does not engage in speculation; it does, however, refuse to give preferential lending to productive forces over speculative ones, an approach which would be consistent with the National Banking policy of the American System. When there is no dirigistic intervention to steer credit into long term investments, it will tend to follow the fast bucks, as it did in the twenties, the eighties, and the nineties. One of the hallmarks of the American System is that the private sector must behave responsibly and do nothing to harm the principle of the General Welfare which is enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution. The purpose of the National Bank is to ensure that credit goes to those who are carrying out activities which are in the national interest; the Fed is an entirely different sort of critter. --HK 23:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not a LaRouche supporter and am Sick of being accused of one!

User Will Beback stated above:

Many events occured in 1876 but that does not mean that the happened because of the American System. It is original research to ascribe a connection unless you have a reputable source which does so. I know of only one modern "historian" who makes this connection, Lyndon LaRouche. Unless you can proivide another source you are in violation of an ArbCom decision banning edit warring over the insertion of LaRouche theories into Wikipedia. -Will Beback 01:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• I AM NOT A LAROUCHE SUPPORTER, once again.

"The promotion of LaRouche takes the form of the deletion of material unfavorable to LaRouche; the addition of material favorable to him, either with no references or with reference only to LaRouche publications; the creation of articles intended to serve as a platform or showcase for LaRouche material; and attacks on Wikipedia editors who stand up to them. "

• NOT ONCE HAVE I INCLUDED LINKS TO LAROUCHE PUBLICATIONS. I HAVE CITED MY SOURCES CONCERNING THE CENTENNIAL. OTHER EDITORS BESIDE MYSELF HAVE BEEN EDITING THIS PAGE AND HAVE NOT CONTESTED THIS OTHER THAN YOU. I DID NOT VIOLATE THE ABOVE. WHERE HAVE I SUBMITTED MATERIAL WITH REFERENCES TO LAROUCHE?

"In August, there was an Arbitration Committee ruling, which stated: [26]

Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche; Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles; Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense; If an article is protected due to edit wars over the removal of Lyndon-related material, Admins are empowered (as an exception to normal protection policy) to protect the version which does not mention Lyndon LaRouche.

• I AM NOT A SUPPORTER, I'VE STATED THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I PROTESTED ABOUT THIS TREATMENT TO WIKIMEDIA AND TO A MEDIATION COMMITTEE THAT IS YET TO LOOK INTO THIS CASE. I HAVE NEVER ADDED REFERENCES TO LYNDON LAROUCHE DIRECTLY AND IF I WERE, THIS ARTICLE PERTAINS TO A "HIGHLY RELEVANT" SUBJECT SINCE MR. LAROUCHE IS A STAUNCH ADVOCATE OF THIS SYSTEM OF ECONOMICS, BUT AGAIN NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN USED FROM LAROUCHE ASSOCIATED SITES. I HAVE NEVER PROMOTED THE MAN ON THIS PAGE, IN FACT I DELETED REFERENCES TO FDR AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE MATERIAL AS THAT IS ONE OF MR. LAROUCHES IDEAS, THAT FDR WAS A SUPPORTER OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. NONE OF MY EDITS ORIGINATE FROM LYNDON LAROUCHE WEBSITES. NONE OF MY SO-CALLED 'ORIGINAL RESEARCH' HAS BEEN FROM LYNDON LAROUCHE WEBSITES OR RE-INSERTIONS FROM THERE. I HAVE PROVIDED CONSIDERABLE CITATIONS FOR THE CENTENNIAL INCLUSION IN LIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM CORE PRINCIPLES UNDER LINCOLN. WHERE IS THE PROOF THAT I VIOLATED ANY OF THE ABOVE?

Jimbo Wales, founder stated about the Arbcom cases and rulings:

"The ArbCom can not and should not (and in my opinion has not ever) attempted to subject certain points of view to extra restrictions. There was some confusion about this in the case of LaRouche, but I think this was an unfortunate wording and misinterpretation. "

• Just because I may insert material that Larouche himself might agree with is not in anyway a cause for you to challenge my insertion or to continue to call this edit a "LaRouche" material edit, or to make accusations to the same. You cannot use the Arbcom rulings to put certain POV to extra restrictions beyond the level or normalcy. Your constant allusions to the fact my edits are "LaRouche" oriented is a violation of the spirit of the Arbcom cases and violation of the spirit of Wikipedia as an open medium for presenting factual material from many contributors from many backgrounds. I have not simply added material, I have added citations and background within the text for the inclusion with further citations, all to Primary Sources which is particularly encouraged by Wikipedia over Secondary sources. You insist on modern scholars, there is not such policy that limits citations to modern historians or scholars in fact.

• Last my favorite President outside of Lincoln is Theodore Roosevelt, the Rough Rider. I have studied American History and Political Science and have a B.A. degree in that area. I am opposed to Mr. LaRouche's ideas concerning President Roosevelt, to his idea that FDR was practicing the American System (after reconsideration of the material), to the idea that the Federal Reserve is not a national banking system, to the idea that the Eurasian Landbridge is a good idea, to the idea's he has reportedly been promoting concerning the British Monarchy and conspiracy to control the world, to the idea that the American System is not a form of capitalism, and so on. I would never vote for such a man, let alone join his organization. I respect his view and his supporters right to express those views in the spirit of Jefferson and Liberty. I denounce any statement he has made that has been anti-semitic or anti-gay or anti-woman (if that be the case). My politics (which should not be a subject of constant accusation on a forum like Wikipedia) are progressive and patriotic. I am fervently opposed to the idea of linking me to LaRouche and wish to have the above editor provide credible proof to the same! This is harrassment of the highest form, I call it McCarthyism because I am being labeled falsely and upon a reading of the Arbcom ruling that is wrong per Mr. Wales. The editor who accuses me of this and continues to label my edits is out of order and out of touch with history. He has wiki-stalked my edits and continues to pursue a constant barrage against my credibility and honesty. You should provide evidence to the same or cease and desist in your badgering of me and vandalistic practices towards this important page to American History.

--Northmeister 03:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So you still have no source, other than Lyndon LaRouche, for your assertion that the Centennial Expo is associated with the American System. -Will Beback 09:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE PROVIDED CONSIDERABLE CITATIONS FOR THE CENTENNIAL INCLUSION IN LIGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM CORE PRINCIPLES UNDER LINCOLN. --Northmeister 13:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey fellas--let's call a truce on the Centennial business. It really happened and it's legit, and it does not hog the article. Does Larouche like it? Who cares. It can stay with no harm done. Rjensen 14:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to be a peacemaker. However this is not a minor issue. User:Northmeister/User:Herschelkrustofsky is/are exhibiting the exact same behavior that has been censured by the ArbCom previously. The addition of LaRouche's pet theories, harmless or not, into Wikipedia has been sanctioned.

• Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche
• If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2

Since the connection of the Expo to the American System is a LaRouche theory it is justifiable to remove it. Since Northmeister began editing here by digging up obscure text which Herschelkrustofsky had added months ago, and since he seems remarkably familiar with obscure elements of Herschelkrustofsky's ArbCom cases, it further appears likely that he is a sock of Herschelkrustofsky, which is another violation of the ArbCom remedies. -Will Beback 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You made me familiar with the case because of your rabid McCarthism. Your out of line once again accusing me falsley. Where is the evidence that I am a sockpuppet? Your not worth it and you can fly go fly a kite for all I care. Your actions border on harrassment, defamation of my character. You have not answered my questions, you continue to accuse with no evidence. MY first edits were not HK's material or the centennial, the proof is in the edits. You continue to try to find ways to discredit my editing and your blantant deception above is not worthy of an editor here. False accusation after false accusation. Where is the evidence. There is specific criteria for determining sock-puppetry. I do hope you have followed all those procedures before you accuse, since you have not followed wiki-ettique in the past you most likely did not. Your no longer credible and continue to whine, like I said you border on defamation of character. --Northmeister 00:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be in a bit of a cul-de-sac here, because in fact, Will Beback considers the American System to be a LaRouchian policy, as if LaRouche somehow invented it, retroactively. See this edit. --HK 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Clay (and others) developed the American System 175 years ago. No one besides LaRouche sees it as a contemporary economic or political philosophy. -Will Beback 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't state it as a 'contemporary' issue per the name. It is the policies of protecting/promoting industry, internal improvements by government, and national banking that stimulate productive enterprises that are the systems cardinal policies. It was America's system of economic's prior to 1929; thereafter in part (the Trade Agreement's Act changed this as it was Reciprocity instead of protection, though subsidy is the same as protecting American enterprise or promoting it). The philosophy combines that of protectionism, government initiative to promote the economy through internal improvements and banking. It simply is not true that LaRouche is the only one advocating this. Look at the Reform Party platform (honestly), read Perot's books from the 1990's. Read some of Choate's stuff. Read Buchanan's stuff on this. They all agree. The difference with LaRouche is that he gives it the old name, namely American System and that his other views (which don't matter per the economic system) are not important for this article. But the point is that it is indeed discussed today like it was way back when, when Clay gave it a name (or helped to do this) to distinguish it from the British System of speculation, free trade, etc. advocated by Say, Smith, Quesnay, the physiocrats of France etc. --Northmeister 07:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Legacy and renewed interest

I was uncomfortable with this: "Today this system is generally ignored in the academic world, where the dominant theories are the British system of Smith and the Communist system of Marx. Some conservative economic isolationists have revived interest in the American System approach in varying ways. They include Ross Perot, Pat Choate, Patrick J. Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, and James Fallows. (Liberal isolationists do not like the pro-business slant, and spend their energies attacking NAFTA.) " ...and I have reverted to this: "Today this system is generally ignored in the academic world, where the dominant theories are the British system of Smith and the Communist system of Marx. Some commentators and activists have revived interest in the American System approach in varying ways. They include Ross Perot and his Reform Party, Pat Choate, Patrick J. Buchanan, Lou Dobbs, Lyndon LaRouche, and James Fallows." My reasoning is that it is POV to classify or characterize supporters of the American System as either liberals or conservatives; the beauty of the American System is that it addresses the national interest from a standpoint somewhat higher than the usual liberal-conservative squabbling. Also, in economic terms, "liberal" is associated with laissez-faire, so the terminology can be confusing. I also dispute the view that the American System has anything to do with isolationism.

One other thing which I think should be changed is the "British system of Smith and the Communist system of Marx." Technically, they were both "British systems," developed in the U.K. I think that I will change it to "two systems of British origin, the Laissez-Faire system of Smith and the Communist system of Marx." I welcome further discussion on this point. --HK 15:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki has to tell users where people come from-- that is a necessity not a POV Rjensen 15:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the description should be accurate. Buchanan and Dobbs I suppose could be called conservative. I'm not so sure about Perot, and I have no idea who Choate is. LaRouche and Fallows are not conservative nor isolationist. And anyway, is it really necessary or relevant to add liberal/conservative labels? --HK 15:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Choate was Perot's running mate. Perot was pretty conservative when he ran in 1992-96--I have not heard much from him in recent years. Fallows does not seem to fit Am Sys very well. LaRouche is not Wiki-credible. We need to identify people's POV -- the article does that for dozens of historical figures, after all. Rjensen 15:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to weigh in I agree here with HK, in so much that 'isolantionists' is foreign policy word that does not reflect an economic tradition on display here. It is true Buchanan leans toward 'isolationism' but Perot does not. Dobbs would not consider himself that either. Conservative's generally are Free-Trader's today with few exceptions like Buchanan. Since this sentence is the point of contention, to get it accurate maybe a compromise can be formed without the word isolationist (a loaded word) and simply include the word 'conservative' somewhere in the sentence regarding Buchanan. The best option, would be to simply say conservative Buchanan, "" Larouche (HK you know his philosophy best so fill in the blank), commentator Dobbs, and economist Fallows or what not. I wouldn't descrine Perot as conservative in the sense of social policy if that is what you mean. He was neutral here and supported a woman's right to choose for example. He was more of a populist or moderate here. Choate is an economist and much like Perot -moderate on issues. --Northmeister 15:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

the solution is to write one-two sentences for each person explaining how they support AmSys. Rjensen 15:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that would be best, as long as it is one or two sentences and not a paragraph. I think HK can handle LaRouche (who should be included if only because he promotes this system so much), I can offer sentences on Buchanan, Perot, Choate (if you like) or you can take up sentence on one of those fellows. What do you think HK? --Northmeister 15:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. BTW, I added Fallows because of his fairly comprehensive articles on the American System in the Atlantic Monthly. As far as Buchanan, Dobbs, Perot et al are concerned, do they explicitly advocate the American System, or just oppose Free Trade? --HK 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Buchanan in his book "The Great Betrayal" has called for a new 22% tariff, a living wage for Americans, and other measures to restore the industrial base of the country. In that book he outlines the history of the tariff debate et. al. the American System debate. Perot in his book written with Pat Choate warned of the NAFTA deal and how it would be a "Giant sucking" sound sitation which it became for my homestate of New York; where typewriter companies and others in Central New York closed down and went to Mexico laying off my fellow citizens who once had decent family supporting jobs, many are now working for Walmarts for much less money and have to work two jobs each just to keep their family going. Alan Tonelson, is the head of the U.S. Industry and Business Council who has advocated that the present Free Trade mentality is wrong, and he gives statistics showing this. I believe he is an economist like Choate. Each of these individuals invcluding Lou Dobbs on CNN have raised concerns about what's happening to America. Look at the recent sale of our ports to the UAE. My argument for these folks and the last section of the article is that they are part of a rising tide, though small now, that are sounding like old Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln let alone McKinley. It is rising tide of protectionism, whether they favor internal protection like Japan or external like Buchanan and Clay. It is the reason why Free-Trader Bush said what he said in his State of the Union. Now, Internal Improvements are generally ingnored now. Why don't we have a High Speed Rail system like France or Japan? God we need it for a variety of reasons. In the 1950's Eisenhower's Highway system were Internal Imrovements and much funding goes into this today to maintain the system. On the issue of national bank, the FED pretty much fullfills that role. I agree with you they need to focus on production and not speculation; the President or Congress need final approval on their major decisions and someone like Greenspan does not deserve to remain in power literally for years without true scrutiny, but the FED resembles the First and Second Bank of the USA. So the issue really is a return to protectionism (internally or externally) and a full return to internal improvements (which is greatly needed) to our transportation system like rail, our ports, etc. The country is moving in that direction and the men I mentioned earlier reflect a leaning in that direction. The tide is rising again is my whole point and the voices of the past (Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln, McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt) are being heard little by little. If you forget history your condemned to relive it; we've forgotten the debate long ago that was won by the American System men when Lincoln came in and the GOP ran the country pretty much from 1861-1929. --Northmeister 06:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If the American System was active to 1929 then perhaps we should include a section on the Stock Market crash of that year. Like the Centennial Expo, (according to some editors) it followed a long stretch of American System dominance, therefore must have been caused by it. Oh, and how about the Spanish American War? The Indian Wars?  ;) -Will Beback 07:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Indian Wars had nothing to do with economics or the results of economic policy; they are analogous to the present Israeli/Palestinian situation IMHO in some ways. Two civilizations with different views of land ownership etc. and the constant attacks back and forth that sometimes lead to atrocity on both sides. The Spanish-American War started with the blowing up of the Maine in Cuba. It was also an Indepedence War for the Cubans to throw off the Spanish yoke; and for the Philiipines. It had nothing to do with the economy philosophy of the USA. It was foreign policy and belongs on a page dedicated to American foreign policy. The Centennial Expo reflected over ten years of American System practice and is legit for inclusions to show the increased productivity of America under the system and how impressed the Europeans and other continents were with our advance since 1851 where we had a poor showing; it was all about economics and was a proud day for my country (we were considered upstarts and backwards by the so-called nobleheads of Europe). The Stock Market Crash according to many historians was caused by speculation on Wall Street, and not by the American System policies (in fact the Great Depression reverbeated throughout the world-it was severe and caused by numerous factors)..Hoover didn't understand how to deal with it, FDR did and responded. I am a fan of this President and feel he did a good job responding, except his tariff legislation. WE were only dependent on foreign trade then by about 3% I believe (Rjensen you chould check my statistics here), so the policy of protection really wasn't the issue; internal improvements through pubic works projects (which were fully done under FDR); nor the national banking system of the FED were concerns causing the Depression (although banking reform by Roosevelt helped to alleviate the practices of unsound banks). --Northmeister 07:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Gentleman, I've changed the sentence in question (I agree the preceding sentence was to POV and should be left out) to the following:

• Some commentators and activists have revived interest in the American System approach in varying ways. They include businessmen like Ross Perot and his resulting Reform Party, economists like Pat Choate, Alan Tonelson, and James Fallows, commentators like Lou Dobbs and controversial politicians like paleo-conservative Patrick J. Buchanan and Lyndon Larouche.

I think this is best. What is your opinions? Let's work on it step by step to get it right. --Northmeister 08:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

good! that tells the POV of various advocates better to call Buchanan an isolationist I think.... Rjensen 08:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything particularly wrong about it, but it overlooks the fact that Perot, Buchanan and LaRouche were all presidential candidates; also, Buchanan, LaRouche, Fallows and Dobbs are all journalistic commentators. I frankly think that you would be better off just calling them all "activists and commentators," and the fact that they are all for one form or another of the American System makes them unconventional, in a way that is more noteworthy than other views they may have. You could mention that they differ strongly on issues such as immigration (LaRouche is for it, Buchanan generally against it, I don't know how the others line up,) but then again, how relevant is that to the article? I am of the opinion that labels like "liberal" and "conservative" obscure more than they illuminate. --HK 15:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree liberal and conservative stereotypes are not productive. Immigration is not really a subject of the American System, so it doesn't matter. We could mention presidential runs, but readers would know this by clicking on the mens names. I think we all agree this is best and suits the purpose of summary and legacy. --Northmeister 03:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

A short note on the ports controversy

This issue does highlight the renewed interest in American System issues. Some of the politicians who are objecting to the sale of the port management facilities to a Dubai-based firm are doing so from an idiotic Islamophobia standpoint, but the Clinton-Menendez bill would ban, as I understand it, any foreign management of US ports, and it is important to note that the ports in question are presently being run by a British company. What I find more interesting than any of this, though, are the comments by California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who said that she believes all port facilities should be publicly run, as they are in California. Whether consciously so or not, this reflects a resurgence of American System thinking. --HK 15:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Way to go Ms. Feinstein. It is a sad day when our children won't even be able to own their own ports. I don't put much stock in pyscho-babble anyway. The fact is, neither our borders or our ports are guarded well and Mr. Bush is doing nothing about it, quite the contrary. --Northmeister 16:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, since you obviously get the point with respect to public control of ports, I'm surprised that you don't get the analogous point with respect to the Federal Reserve. It is privately held and mostly privately controlled, although the President does appoint the chairman (but not the governors). If it is important to have public control over transportation infrastructure, it would seem all the more important to have public controll over the emission of currency and credit. --HK 07:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Critics of the American System

I think we should be sparing as to whom we include as supporters or critics. Rjensen has now included FDR as a "critic," which is way off base. He may have opposed interstate highways -- I frankly don't know whether he did or didn't -- but he was one of the preeminent "internal improvements" presidents. Take, for example, the Tennessee Valley Authority. --HK 00:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I misread Rjensen's edit. He was merely removing FDR as a supporter. --HK 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless he criticized the "American System" by name, he is not a critic of it. For us to decide if he agreed with its principles is original research. -Will Beback 00:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• • FDR opposed all elements of the American system. TVA is a possible exception but the debate at the time was whether TVA should be PRIVATE (run by Henry Ford), or public, and FDR sided with Senator Norris to make it public. So what does that leave? Rjensen 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. FDR did not deem it expedient to go for a national bank, for example, but he devised all sorts of clever ways to do an end run around Wall Street in order to revive productive investment. Government contracts were issued to productive concerns that guaranteed the holder of the contract access to cheap loans, in the name of war production. And the list of "internal improvements" is a long one. Take, as another example, Rural Electrification. --HK 01:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If we want to say that later statesman have supported or opposed certian policies which were a part of the American System, then that'd be legitimate, though we that'd result in a very long list of people, each with a mention of which policies they supported or opposed and how. But supporting a certain tariff or infrastructure improvement in 2003 or 1933 does not make one a "critic" of an 1824 economic policy, it only makes one a supporter of that tariff or improvement. What is being attempted here is analogous to calling George Bush a critic of Jesus Christ because he supports lower income tax rates. -Will Beback 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thats a false analogy and doesn't make sense (Bush-Christ-income taxes). The intention of the last section for me anyway is to show the rising tide in favor of ideas in the American System. It is not a matter of opinion, just showing those who favor protecting American industry and promoting it, internal improvements, or national banking. National Banking really is not an issue because it exists through the FED, though HK is right about production versus speculation. Internal Improvements made by FDR were the TVA. FDR was a Free Trader through his Trade Agreements Act of 1934 and efforts of Cordull(sic) Hull. FDR's New Deal had a lot of positive advancements, this is just my opinion, including the NRA, AAA, CCC, banking reform, etc. and some of which still exists to help regulate that speculation (some of which has been changed or forgotten as a lesson-re. the massive investment in the stock market in the 1990's pegging retirements to the market much like the 1920's reliance on speculation). But, HK, FDR really didn't embrace protection or the mass of internal improvements. Maybe I am wrong and we are certainly willing to listen to what you have to say. This is an open forum for each of us. I don't care where the information comes from, it matters if it is backed up and right. So enlighten us to this if you want. Until then I agree with Rjensen on FDR. In some ways, Will Beback, that is your best post so far as far, in so much as what your concerns in this area are. I perfectly understand them. I don't want to see a long list. The last section is to show those who lean towards the American System principles, without comment on the historic program -it is the principles that matter. Clay coined the term, Lincoln enacted the stuff, and the original GOP maintained it until about 1929 (there is debate here between some economists and historians on the exact date). I think how it is now, is sufficient for a last paragraph informing the reader about the rising tide that way and letting it be that. The main purpose of this article is Clay's system, its roots, its implementation by Lincoln, it's maintenance by the original GOP, it's modern supporter's in part or in full or in a new way. --Northmeister 07:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are three principles to the American System. Those who agree or disagree with high tariffs alone are not critics or supporters of the AS, they are just supporters or critics of high tariffs. And again, for us to decide who belongs in such lists is original research. Unless they or legitimate historians have called them critics or suypporters we should not do so. -Will Beback 22:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Learn the difference between discussion and what is included in the article. Plus, there are three cardinal principles, which Andrew Carnegie and the Platforms show that GOP practiced and believed in well through 1900, and I dare say until 1929. That is not original research it's historic fact. History and what those men believed and said decide, not us and not you. --Northmeister 01:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the recent edits made to the legacy section were sufficient. I do agree this section needs some work for orderliness. The 'more original research' statement produced the above response from me to Will Beback, as none of this is original research. The statement on American System also being called...section is appropriate but might not fit where it is now. Not sure where to put it. I provided several examples of this occuring side by side. Bush's statement belongs there as a reaction to protectionism (one of three cardinal policies), the recent reaction to the UAE sale is another example of American System policy sentiment...who is to control our ports, build them, run them? American System would say US, the other system doesn't care, privatize them..like the roads in Texas...to the Spanish. Anyway, I redid the last paragraph as I feel it was not accurate as it stood. I am not sure why the compromise worked out above was taken out by ONE person, but I will leave it as it is, unless Rjensen and HK, who worked with me on that statement wish to protest this ONE persons change without consultation with the rest of us. --Northmeister 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the American System, a phenomenon of 19th Century politics. Please stop embellishing it. Bush just signed the largest transportation bill in history, yet you call him a critic of the American System. You can't even show he knows what the American System is. -Will Beback 02:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush doesn't know much at all or knows a lot and is the worst President this country has had since Buchanan ignored the South's leaving the Union. On the subject of this article...those three cardinal policies are what count, the name was given by Clay and the policies debated prior to him, during his time, and finally won in Lincoln's time to become our economic policy until Woodrow Wilson's two terms, the Harding-Coolidge 1920's restored the tariff Wilson had decimated, continued with such projects as Dams and other internal improvements, and maintained the FED. Our country has the FED (national banking), has done internal improvements under Eisenhower, Kennedy etc. to spur the economy, but had dropped the third cardinal policy and has been increasingly dropping the internal improvements and changing the FED policies since the late sixties especially...now speculation is the rule, not production as was the case with the early Banking system, now spending on transportation has so much in it that has nothing to do with internal improvements but pork barrel garbage. Read the bill. Combine all three and believe in all three and you have what Clay called the American System, what Hamilton called for in his three Reports, what Lincoln practiced, what Grant, Garfield, Arthur, Harrison, McKinley, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover all believed and practiced. It was unique, it was called many names including National System but it represented the same thing. It is akin to the present dominant schools of Marxism and Free-Tradism. That is historic fact. Bush is a terrible president, his administration is reckless and sinking the country with scandal, the recent sale/pending now as I write, to UAE represents their thinking and the thinking of the dominant economic theory of today associated with Free-Trade or Free Market whatever name it is given. American history runs in cycles, and we are going through a reverse cycle of the 20th Century; expect a return to American System in 2010's, a return to free marketism in 2020's then finally a full return to American System in the 2030's with a FDR/Jackson style President. I've gone off on a tangent...must be the professor in me. Sorry. --Northmeister 06:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Names of the American System

I see Will Beback, that you've edited out my summation of the names again. I provided links showing how accurate my description was. The American System was called many things, and America practiced it throughout the later half and early half of the 19th and 20th Century, with the exceptions of Cleveland and Wilson. It is not historically correct to make the change you made. But, instead of starting some sort of dispute here, I will accept the wisdom of the community working on this...Hmains, Rjensen, HK, Jmorrill, I am asking for your comments...Wiki is a collaboration, so it is important to work out a solution here. Which is more accurate, what are your thoughts. I will accept the verdict of the community on this; even if I disagree. --Northmeister 06:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The citations you gave for names of the AS were all from the 19th century, so I added that to the list. We cannot, by extrapolation, use that old usage to decide that therefore modern proponents of protectionism are proponents of the American System. -Will Beback 07:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You are right in the sense that we cannot attribute the American System to anyone or anyplace or any philosophy unless it fits that system: the three cardinal policies make the American System -protecting and promoting industry, investing in infrastructure improvement (internal improvements), and national banking that stimulates productive enterprises over speculation. Each of these three are translated in various ways..Japan for example is quite protective internally, America had many protections internally instituted under FDR and JFK to both promote and protect industry even though reciprocity was pursued (namely to defeat the Soviet Union). Only in recent years has rulings from the WTO, and trade agreements decimated this system of protection internally for the USA (this all began in yhe early 70's and has continued). So, yes your right...If the three policies cannot be attributes of a belief or policy of later men or nations then it does not apply. But the words American Policy and even Protective System were synominous with American System as can be seen by the citations. I attempted a compromise on this however, noting your assertions above in my rewording. --Northmeister 16:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro

There has been a lot of tweaking of the intro, perhaps because of some ambiguity in the way I formulated the sentence I added. I have rephrased it. There are two elements there, both of which I believe to be beyond dispute:

• The American System was distinct from either laissez-faire or Marxism. Carey attacked Smith and debated Marx.
• Marxism and laissez-faire are the dominant systems, and have been for the past century.

If anyone wants to dispute either of these points, please do so here. Note that I did not wish to imply that the American System approach to economics is a third contender for "dominant system" in the past century, because it clearly is not. --HK 15:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Laizzee Faire or Free Market economics has only been gaining prominence since the end of WWII and then not so until the mid sixties to early 1970's in America. In fact, Charles De Gaulle of France did not embrace either to rapidly build up France (he used Dirigisme, very similiar to American System approach), neither did Japan, neither did Germany in their post-war building. And even today many European nations have embraced the American System philosophy or combined it with elements of socialism (state run corporations added to it). America began its slow descent into Laizzee Faire under Nixon mostly, then under Reagan (although Reagan did use protective measures-one of the cardinal points of the system), and especially under GB I, Bill Clinton, and GB II. I changed the wording because it simply is not correct. Theodore Roosevelt was a Progressive and an American System guy, so was Taft (although he was less progressive, more conservative)...Harding and Coolidge followed the principles of the American System especially protective tariffs...but began to abandon through the FED and banking the stimulation of production and beginning the trend towards speculation that is the hallmark of today's FED. FDR, gave us a respite from this insanity, but through Hull and others took us off the protective system (mildly though) which remained in effect under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and most of Johnson's term. It cannot be said the American System principles were dominant from 1929 or even to some degree 1913 onward, but it can be said that they were in America literally from 1861-1913 and mostly from 1921-1929. --Northmeister 16:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Since we all agree that the American System ceased to be operative by no later than 1929, we should leave off mention of later events, people, and systems. I'm not aware of Harding and Coolodge's programs of internal improvements. -Will Beback 05:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Here I agree with you, except as to people or particular events in the legacy section that might indicate a return to such principles, such as Perot, Buchanan and the economists listed. Whereas the compromise I attempted with my Bush quote did not work, I feel my original wording was adequate to show how this President is emphatically diametrically opposed to those original principles of the American System, and how his inclusion of 'protectionsim' which is used a a pejoritive today by those who favor free-trade as it presently exists (NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, and WTO) was because of the rising tide in favor of 'fair trade' either through renewed tariffs, quotas (as Reagan used), or internal stimulation/protection as Japan and many European nations now do to get around the WTO stranglehold on sovereignty. That said, the changes made by HK are to the opening I concur with and taking out Marx by Will Beback was wrong. The whole point is that three economic systems developed, two in Britain with Smith and Marx, and one here with Hamilton-Clay-Carey..being implemented by Lincoln and original GOP. There are differences and similarities between all three, but to ignore the American System or Policy or National System is ignoring how America became the Arsenal of Democracy and the leading Industrial nation, it is to ignore a vital part of our History and an useful lesson for our citizens and the citizens of other nations. Japan hasn't ignored this, nor Germany. If Russia would adopt this system, considering her vast territory and resources, she would be on top of the world economocially in quite a short time. But that is neither here or there. This article is simply about history and we've done a great deal in presenting the facts. The Legacy portion needs to be expanded, in-so-much as my original content fit until the words were changed. --Northmeister 13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In that regard, the article needs some more material on how other nations began to emulate the American System in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This should include the work of Friedrich List in Germany, Sergei Witte in Russia, and Sun Yat Sen in China (as I recall, some of this has been in the article at one time or another, and probably removed for specious reasons). There is also the very interesting story of how Lincoln sent Erasmus Peshine Smith to Japan, to teach the American System at the time of the Meiji Restoration. --HK 15:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'll let you work on that for now, just present it here so we can look it over, with citations. I will offer my advice and corrections, if needed. That's a starting point. Once we have it right, then we will post it to the article. --Northmeister 01:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Laissez Faire

• We cannot know today if Marx and Carey took ideas directly from each other, but the protectionist, laissez-faire regime that Carey favoured and the socialist environmental model that Marx envisioned drew upon similar environmental analyses. "The Comparative Sociology of Environmental Economics in the Works of Henry Carey and Karl Marx" Michael Perelman* [81]

According to whom is laissez faire the opposite of the American System? This author claims that it is a part of it. -Will Beback 23:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The author doesn't have a clue. Whoever wrote that is out of touch with Carey and his Harmony of Interest. Pure B.S. Then a lot of B.S. is produced today. Marx and Carey might have had similarities, but to call Carey a Laizzee Faire is quite ridiculous. I give that paper an F for reality and truthfulness. --Northmeister 00:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So which author does have a clue? What's our source? If this author is clueless why are we using him as a source? -Will Beback 00:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I never included him as a source, you did above. His comparison is just false, although he makes interesting points. Since you provided the source I read it. It is just another example of defamation of American historic figures by idealogues. --Northmeister 00:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, HK added that source. So, who is our source for calling laissez-faire the opposite of the American System? -Will Beback 00:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright then, HK why did you include that source? Although the analysis is interesting, I find it is wrong per Laissee Faire, my main contention with the article. I cannot see how Smith's Hand's Off approach had anything to do with government involving itself in banking, internal improvements, and encouraging manufacturing through tariffs or other protections or promotions. --Northmeister 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If there's no source contrasting laissez-faire with the AS I'm going to remove it again. Likewise all of the inclusions in Statism, Dirigisme, etc. -Will Beback 00:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the American System and Laissez-faire are incompatible (the corrected intro says "distinct," not "opposites") is found throughout the literature on the subject, notably in Carey's writings. I spotted that error in what I considered an otherwise useful article, contrasting Carey's ideas with those of Marx. Will, what possessed you to use it as a basis for disrupting the article? Please consult WP:POINT before making any further edits. Can you point to a single edit you have made, in the history of this article, that has actually improved it? --HK 00:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing large amounts of original research improves the article. Can you point to some page in Carey's writing where he contrasts the American System to laissez faire? -Will Beback 01:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of 'original research' is specious at best. As I've stated in the past and shown through 'primary sources' since you don't accept the secondary sources already provided by myself and Rjensen, this is not original research. You have constantly disrupted the efforts of several editors here, who have attempted to get this article right, with your obvious ideological assertions. You have offered no credible material to this article. You have threatened to take out credible material elsewhere and continue to stalk all my edits. This is not proper to do without backup. You are abusing your privileges here to harass individuals who you and a small faction with you disagree with and label if you don't have credible arguments. Offer credible edits and back yourself up for your intrusions. To even claim that the American System is not different from Adam Smith's 'hands off' approach is ridiculous to the highest level. --Northmeister 01:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I haven't rejected any secondary sources that I recall. I've asked many times for sources and instead get the run around. No one has ever provided a source for the Centennial Expo, and no one has provided a source for laissez faire. Instead I get remarks like, "is found throughout the literature" - too bad no one can find a single instance of it. -Will Beback 04:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You are rejecting all the secondary souces that will answer your questions. You insinuate that material originated at LaRouche websites, you accuse people of being sock-puppets, LaRouche supports or whatever whenever you can't base your objections on legitimate points. Every editor, including Rjensen an economonist concur on the Centennial Expo, you, who are ignorant of history by your constant question are the one who needs to start providing your sources and affiliations. You stand on no ground, and your harassment is unwarranted. Any reader will find above example after example of the American System in platforms, statements, and books of the period in question. You continually disrupt this page with an agenda. It is time you stop. You asked a series of questions, I answered them, you don't accept primary sources, so I provide my secondary sources, you don't read them, so you continue to ask ignorant questions. It is all tiresome and loathsome. You need to read American history before you edit an American history article. --Northmeister 00:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Which secondary source have I rejected that calls the Centennial Expo an outgrowth of the American System? I'm not aware of any. -Will Beback 00:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Then you haven't read them and don't grasp history or this article well. --Northmeister 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Which secondary source are you referring to? -Will Beback 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Which sources connect the Centennial Expo to the American System? -Will Beback 07:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush

• In his 2006 State of Union address, President George W. Bush, who favors the Free Trade and Laizee Faire system of Adam Smith, stated: "In a complex and challenging time, the road of isolationism and protectionism may seem broad and inviting -- yet it ends in danger and decline." This may be seen as a reaction to the growing sentiment for protectionism, one of the three cardinal policies of the American System of economics.

What does this have to do with the American System? Why don't we also quote where he states he supports internal improvements? According to whom does he favor Adam Smith? Who says that Bush's line may be seen in a certain light? Is that our own original research, or just speculation? -Will Beback 04:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Bush's commitment to Free Trade is a matter of record. He has consistently promoted legislation such as CAFTA. (If Bush has made any comments promoting internal improvements, I would be skeptical about his intentions, given the fact that to date, nothing has been done for the region devastated by Hurricane Katrina.) I presume that the original reason for introducing this quote was to illustrate that while there is a resurgence of interest in the American System in some quarters, the leading institutional figures, such as Bush, still oppose it, as demonstrated by their denunciations of protectionism. This is not a complicated idea. I think that you could easily grasp it if you weren't so focussed on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

I might also add that your campaign against original research would be more inspiring if you would also practice it in articles where your bias runs the other way, such as in National Caucus of Labor Committees. --HK 14:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not disrupting to make a point. I am trying to see that the community prohibition on original research and the ArbCom prohibition on edit warring over the insertion of LaRouche theories are respected. Google "American System" "George Bush" to see how many people besides LaRouche connect the two. Or for that matter, who calls that list of individuals are actually interested in the American System, instead of just tariff policy? Anyone? If we're just making it up on our own then it's original research, and if we're getting it from LaRouche then it's worse. So, again, what is our source for calling Bush a critic of the American System? If we don't have one it should be removed. As for other articles, they are other articles, but I have in fact asked for sources at National Caucus of Labor Committees too. -Will Beback 18:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again you are out of line insinuating that this article is made up. You are obviously ignorant of American History. --Northmeister 00:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's just that none of my text books covered George W. Bush's support for the American System. When they do then I'll be happy to see that included here too. Meantime, Bush is irrelevant to this article. -Will Beback 01:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

According to whom besides you? --Northmeister 01:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

If Bush is not a critic, supporter, or commentator on the American System them why is here? -Will Beback 01:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

According to whom besides you? --Northmeister 01:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The article asserts that Bush is an opponent of protectionism. That is documented, and relevant. Although there are very few open proponents of the American System today, and certainly none of them are well liked by Willmcw/Will Beback, the fact that there is a debate over protectionism is evidence that the impulse for the American System has not entirely died out. For the article to take note of that is not original research. It is common sense. It ought to be obvious to anyone who is not obsessively committed to WP:POINT-style disruptions of the article. --HK 07:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The article asserts, with no sources, that Bush opposes protectionism, and then extrapolates, with no sources, that he therefore is an opponent of the American System. For some reason the article does not similarly assert that he is a proponent of internal improvements, though it could be asserted that he is, and therefore is a proponent of the American System. Which politicians that you or I like should be irrelevant. If this article were properly sourced then our opinions wouldn't matter. But since there are no sources for many assertions, and editors refuse to add those sources, that means that some of the assertions in this article are no more than editors' opinions. That doesn't violate WP:POINT, it violates even more fundamental Wikipedia policies. -Will Beback 20:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The quote which opens this section of the discussion, from Bush's 2006 State of the Union address, is an attack on protectionism. It is presently in the "Legacy" section of the article. Are certain that you want to continue to claim that "The article asserts, with no sources, that Bush opposes protectionism"? Perhaps you should take a few days to cool off before continuing the discussion -- Northmeister has been bending over backwards to accomodate you on sources, yet your demands grow ever more vociferous and nonsensical. The article does not extrapolate that Bush opposes the American System. It is of sufficient interest that he opposes protectionism. As for which politicians you or I like, I agree that it should be irrelevant, but after all, isn't it the entire basis for your invovement in this article? --HK 23:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Following ther quote by Bush it says that the quote "may be seen...." that is your speculation on an interpretation of the quote. This article is not about protectionism, so if that's the point of including it then it is in the wrong article. Northmeister has not provided any of the sources I've asked for - he has not sourced the Centennial Expo - the same assertion that you added previously and couldn't source either. I asked for a source saying that Laissez Farie and the American System are opposites - but he couldn't find one or didn't bother looking. I've asked for lots of sources but haven't received them. Instead the citation requests have been removed, and the LaRouche theories keep being re-added. I call them LaRouche theories because he is the only one who asserts them in modern America. -Will Beback 01:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"This article is not about protectionism?" Indeed it is, when combined with internal improvements and national banking per the history of the American System. When Bush made his quote he was speaking of one of the cardinal points of this system, which if restored would restore the system as internal improvements and the FED (with minor tweaking to encourage production) are still accepted by both party's (although the present administration has abandoned the internal improvement part mostly as well). NORTHMEISTER HAS PROVIDED ALL THE SOURCES YOU ASK FOR, and NORTHMEISTER IS TIRED OF ANSWERING THE SAME QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN...You want an answer Will Beback, I refer you to our numerous discussions above and to the sources I provided. You do your own homework, I've already done mine. You are blantantly lieing above and I call you on it. Anyone can read my citations listed above in our previous discussions and in the article I have provided both as citations and as references. I need do no more, you need to do your reading and learn American History. Again, you have a serious problem with LaRouche, as he seems to be your demon you must exorcise out of every last drop of phrase and sentence. You need to seek attention for that, I cannot help you there. As to reality, I can only say that the IDEALS OF AMERICAN SYSTEM (clearly listed in this article) are alive and well in Buchanan, Perot, the Reform Party, many members of the Democratic Party etc. They do no call it the American System by name and do not need to. This article is a historic article, you don't seem to realize that. You are way off base, and you must cease and desist in your harassment and wiki-stalking. This is the last I will respond to you here at the American System article...I've responded enough above. --Northmeister 07:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're not willing to provide sources for the assertions that you add then they should be removed. Unsourced material has no place in Wikipedia. -Will Beback 07:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Articles Legacy Section

Good collaborative effort so far. HK, you make a great point above about including how other countries had taken up the American System through our suggestion or their observation. I think that would be good to cover in the Legacy section. Everything else is well done (of course there is always room for improvement here at Wiki). Although this article has more citations than there are craters on the moon, I find it is still readable. Fine job folks, despite vandalism, fine job. --Northmeister 15:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Marx

How does this comment by Karl Marx:

• “H.C. Carey, the only American economist of importance, is a striking proof that civil society in the United States is as yet by no means mature enough to provide a clear and comprehensible picture of the class struggle.” (Marx in Perelman, 1987)[82]

lead us to assert that:

• [The American System] is a school of economic thought distinct from ... that of Karl Marx.

It appears to me that to do so we'd have to say that the AS is exclusivley Carey's idea, and that his concept of "harmony of interests' is a core principle of the AS. At the moment we don't assert either of those things. Hence, it appears that Marx's statement referes to Carey, not the American System as a whole. -Will Beback 21:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I provided the cite as a courtesy. Carey was the most famed theoretician of the American System. However, a cursory look at the fundamental tenets of the American System should establish beyond any reasonable doubt that it is entirely different from Marxism. --HK 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

HK, good edit and citation because the American System was propelled forward by Carey. The clear distinction between the three systems is relevant for inclusion. --Northmeister 22:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So you are saying that we are relying on your (or our) judgement in this matter, rather than an external source? That no historian has called them distinct? -Will Beback 22:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental Tenets

We know the American System existed from 1861-1929 with minor modification, especially under Woodrow Wilson and also Cleveland in his two disjointed terms. It's core element was protectionism through tariff's, together with Internal Improvements to infrastructure (such as roads, schools, railroads et. al.) by government, and government regulation of banking through a National Banking System all of which Lincoln established per Carey and his support of Clay. Clay coined the term as we all know to define it distinct from the British system of Free-Trade and speculation rooted in the physiocratic method of economics as espoused by Smith in Wealth of Nations. Hamilton countered with his Report on Manufactures, Public Credit I and II (the national bank one). Washington concured with Hamilton, as did Madison and Monroe when later accepting the Second national bank, the Cumberland Road, and then J.Q. Adams signed the 1828 Tariff (among others) completing three parts of the American System origination. This was reversed as is generally known by Jacksonian Democrat's and later Van Buren, Polk etc. Democrats throughout the 1850's. Lincoln, originally a Whig, was a strong advocate for Clay's system as were many of the original GOP as reflected by the platform planks provided above. The GOP continued support in platform planks well into the twentieth century. Internal Improvements and national banking became accepted by both parties-the dispute mainly being between Gold Standard and bi-metalism. The tariff issue or protectionism was the only disputed item from the American System. As late as 1900 Carnegie indicated the GOP was the party of Internal Improvement, Protectionism etc., and the platforms again confirm this. Internal Improvements became known a Public Works projects, such as the DAM building conducted after completion of the railroad system in the late Eighteen-hundreds. Hoover Dam is an example. Again both party's generally accepted public works (I.I.) and the FED (N.B.), but the dispute remained over protectionism, the third cardinal policy of the American System, Clay so well defined. 1929 ended this due to the Great Depression and 12 years of F.D.R. who implemented massive public works projects designed to enhance commerce and increase employment, such as the TVA among others. Congress passed a series of laws regulating the stock-market and banking to bring it back in line with encouraging production over the speculation that caused (in-part) the Great Depression. But, FDR did not embrace tariff protection. What he did do is encourage American enterprise through a series of stimulations and subsidies to farmers and manufacturers, while pursuing Reciprocity with other nations. This prove effective in the 1950's and 1960's as the Cold War developed and few could compete with our industry. Starting in the 1970's much change was made under Nixon and the rest lead to our present situation with Dubai and UAE and President Bush who embraces the opposite system of the Original GOP which was the American (protective, national etc.) System written about by List, Carey and other economists in the 19th and 20th century. --Northmeister 22:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Interest

• Some commentators and activists have revived interest in the American System approach in varying ways. They include Ross Perot, the Reform Party, Pat Choate, Alan Tonelson, Lou Dobbs, James Fallows, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Lyndon Larouche.

Since the American System has several elements showing an interest in only one element is not the same as showing an interest in the system. If we are going to include a list of people interested in the American System, then we should be able to identify how they are interested. If someone is only interested in high tariffs and internal improvements, for example, then that should be noted, while if they are interested only in high tariffs then they should not be listed at all. -Will Beback 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Two already exist..internal improvements and the FED, as well shown above. It is only protectionism that is now debated in the modern world of American politics. Free-trade has the upper hand now in both party's. Perot advocated against NAFTA. Buchanan did the same and against GATT and the WTO. Watching CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight will indicate his preferences in this regard. This is another case of re-debating what was already debated here at the talk page. When this edit was originally added you did not contest it. Instead you have waited til now. You have also taken out the Centennial when a consensus was for it. Again this is abuse. You have been asked to stop. I ask again that you stop your harassment. --Northmeister 22:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If American System now equals protectionism then the article should say so plainly. Otherwise, readers might think that these folks are interested in "varying" aspects of the American System. For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a huge bond issue to pay for internal improvements in his state. It seems logical to include his name too, unless we say that internal improvements are no longer a part of the American System. -Will Beback 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I will accept your above statement in good faith. I ask the same from you. The Legacy section is meant to show the renewed interest in the American System approach. One cannot be for the American System as it was historically if they do not support all three. Schwarzenegger is opposed to any form of 'fair trade' or protectionism and favors the present system. The difference is the people listed advocate the third cardinal policy which would make together the American System historically. A rewording (go ahead and propose one below) would be adequate to show this distinction. --Northmeister 22:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept your additions in first reading them, except the Smoot-Hawley stuff; as economists now do not accept that it caused the Depression. The depression began before that. Your edit offers balance and I accept that in good faith. --Northmeister 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you, and I mean you (since no sources have been offered), have re-defined the "American System" in modern times to mean "protectionism". We already have an article oon protectionism, which is handled at length. If people support protectionism, then they should be moved to that article. -Will Beback 23:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Some material has been added that I cannot believe is intended to be serious; it appears to have been added just to be contentious. Examples: "Those who have shown interest in the internal improvements include Arnold Schwarzenegger. A strong national bank receives support from George W. Bush, among others." Schwarzenegger's proposals are contrary to the American System approach, in that they are to be funded by the sale of state bonds, as opposed to a national policy of sovereign credit. Bush has never proposed a National Bank (and here I must insist that we respect the distinction between a National Bank and the privately held, British-modeled Federal Reserve System.) Again, I cannot escape the conclusion that Will Beback is deliberately disrupting the article, by insisting that individual features of the American System approach must either be absolute banned from discussion, as in the case of protectionism, or else absolutely included in the discussion regardless of whether they are being proposed in a manner consistent with the philosophy of the American System. I think that under the circumstances it would not be inappropriate to take a look at WP:DICK. --HK 23:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Schwarzeneeger supports one element of the American System, internal improvements. Regarding Bush and the national bank, doesn't he support using national credit? Hasn't he sold off national property? In fact, he has. Therefore, they appear to be just as much supporters of elements of the American System as Ross Perot or Lou Dobbs. -Will Beback 23:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We should also note that Bush signed a huge steel tariff, despite giving lip-service to free trade. He also signed the largest transportation bill in history, despite giving lip-service to cutting government spending. Thus, Bush has furthered the three major elelemts of the American System during his tenure, even when claiming to oppose its policies. -Will Beback 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree here HK. I think that the inclusion of Will Beback's edits to legacy round out the legacy section. I also disagree the FED is not a national banking system in light of the 1st and 2nd Bank of the USA, as they were similiar in nature, partly private. The only part of Will Beback's edits (recently) I disagree with is his Smoot-Hawley stuff. It just doesn't belong where it is, and needs rewording for inclusion. I feel his edits offer balance. I think we should all try to work in harmony, not as adversaries. I understand your objections per disruption. But, I would rather work in good faith with Will Beback than continue this back and forth. I accept all contributions made in good faith, I was extending that to Will Beback in this case. I think it should be reinserted, I will not do it now, as I don't want to be accused of breaking a 3RR rule or whatnot. Again Will, Bush is a free-trader and UAE case is about that philosophy blinding people and about national security. --Northmeister 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC) -Bush did sign the Steel Tariffs but since has reverted them, unless I am wrong. He did so inspite of his statements of belief, you are right. That is why your recent edit is warranted, I vote for its inclusion and re-insertion on merit. It rounds the article out in regards to the legacy and renewed debate. --Northmeister 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Smoot Hawley

We are saying that a high tariffs policy is the primary element of the AS. We are also saying that it was the economic policy of the Republican Party, which was in power in 1929. Smoot-Hawley was a high tariff passed by the Republicans in 1929. The logical conclusion is that Smoot-Hawley was a product of the American System as practiced at the time. We can refine how we refer to it. The language that I used reflects that of the WP article, which says,

• The Hawley-Smoot or Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act raised US tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels, and, in the opinion of many economists, protracted or even initiated the Great Depression.
• Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market Crash of 1929, many economic historians consider it a factor in deepening the Great Depression.

"Deepened" seems the mildest. We can use "protracted" or "initiated" instead. -Will Beback 23:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Smoot-Hawley was unwise and most agree today. It was passed during Hoover's administration as a way to protect our industry, it got out of hand. That said, our economy was about 3% dependent on foreign trade thanks to the American system of protection followed. The Great Depression is rooted in too much invested in stocks and bonds tied to people's personal savings and funds, and to much speculation. FDR passed a series of laws to regulate the Stock Market to prevent this in the future. I don't mind your inclusion for balance and the use of the word deepened, but you should reword it to say some economonists as there is debate here. Rjensen what are your thoughts if you happen upon this discussion? You know a lot about economic and New Deal issues. Also, we are not saying protectionism is the primary element, it was one of three cardinal policies. Protectionism is however the only remaining element of that system that is not practiced today. As you have noted, internal improvements and national banking in various forms are accepted, so the remaining cardinal policy is protectionism. --Northmeister 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Germany

• The German Third Reich followed policies which limited imports and supported internal improvements, such as the Autobahn.

This is true. Please see Nazi Germany#Economic policy:

• Repressive measures also kept volatility low, reducing inflationary pressures. New policies also limited imports of consumer goods and focused on producing exports. International trade was greatly reduced remaining at about a third of 1929 levels throughout the Nazi period.
• Under the leadership of Fritz Todt a massive public works project was started, rivaling the New Deal in both size and scope; its most notable achievement was the network of Autobahnen.

Obviously, the American System economic policies of Bismarck and List were predecesors. -Will Beback 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This was not limited to the Third Reich but modern Germany and prior Chancellorships to Hitler's. Mentioning the Third Reich is not appropriate for this article in exclusion of the New Deal and without context as the Third Reich was a repressive regime which is primarily known for its Holocaust measures and tyranny, which had nothing to do with the economic practices mentioned above. I ask that you understand why it's inclusion is not appropriate. --Northmeister 00:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Would, something like "Germany, 1880-1890,(or whichever periods), 1933-1939", be more neutral? As you may know, some people equate Abraham Lincoln with later dictators, but we should not be afraid to properly associate the facts even with disliked leaders. -Will Beback 00:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if it is in an appropriate place. Go ahead. --Northmeister 00:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC) -Germany 1871-1939 would be more accurate. Everything after 1939 was WWII related and driven, even in the USA. --Northmeister 00:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm not sure if the Weimar Republic-era can be counted though. I don't have a relevant resource at hand for their economic policies, which may have been directly or indirectly imposed upon them. Here's a tidbit I found in Treaty of Versailles.

• In 1921, Carl Melchior, a WWI soldier and German financier with M. M. Warburg & CO who became part of the German negotiating team, thought it advisable to accept an impossible reparations burden. Melchior said: "We can get through the first two or three years with the aid of foreign loans. By the end of that time foreign nations will have realized that these large payments can only be made by huge German exports and these exports will ruin the trade in England and America so that creditors themselves will come to us to request modification." ..The 1924 Dawes Plan modified Germany's reparation payments.

Anyway, unless something definite shows up there's no need to mention it. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your right about Weimer Germany (1918-1933). Although Von Pappen among other Chancellor's did try to save Germany from the Nazis. The Germans were treated badly by the Versaille Treaty..against President Wilson's objections. Reparations killed them and helped lead to Hitler's rise and horror of a reign. --Northmeister 01:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading over the provisions of the Versailles Treaty,[83] I see that many elements of the American System were prohibited. "Most Favored Nation" status was set for trade with all the allies, and free trade zones were implemented for former territories. The transfer of the national treasury for reparations prevented internal investment, and the ability of the government to regulate the railways and ports was specifically limited. Property that might have been sold to improve the national credit was confiscated. -Will Beback 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for the millions who lost their lives, that is true. --Northmeister 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Claiming that the 3rd Reich implemented the American System because it limited imports and built infrastructure, is like saying that a wolverine is a human being because it has two eyes and one nose. The American System had a clearly enunciated policy toward labor, which was that the creative power of the individual mind was of paramount importance to an economy, and hence Carey denounced slavery as a regressive economic policy[84]. The Nazis regarded labor as just another resource to be consumed, and moved to an economy based on slave labor. It is a grave mistake to try to look at the economic policies of the Nazis as somehow separate from their genocide policy -- in fact, they were one and the same. The error in confusing the Third Reich with the American System is comparable to the error of insisting that Bush and Schwarzenegger are somehow promoting the American System. --HK 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't George Washington himself own slaves and exploit their labor? How can we include him in the list of supporters, while excluding the slave labor policies of the Germans? If slavery is an excluding factor then I suppose that Henry Clay might not even be included, which would be truly odd. But if you think that we need to exclude slave owners from supporters then be my guest. -Will Beback 09:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

'Creativity' is an essential feature of the American Way (ideals/principles) and thus influenced Carey's reasons for advocating the American System of economics with its three cardinal points. Encouraging universal public education was an American idea, yes, but not a part of the American System of economics; it aided it, helping to awaken and use the talents of the people. Carey and Lincoln were right about slave labor and slavery itself. It was an awful practice and needed eradication as it was opposed to our Founding principles. Washington was of a different era and time, let's judge him for the time he lived. He abhorred slavery as did many Founders, but he was a contradiction too as was early America in this regards. He is still the Father of our Country who without we would not exist today, as without Lincoln we would not and Europe may well have been Nazis controlled today as a result. Men are never perfect, judge them overall by their actions and the times they lived, not our times. --Northmeister 12:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad Faith edits

The American System articulates a coherent philosophy which subsumes specific policies such as tariffs, infrastructure projects, and so forth. Therefore it is possible to intelligently judge whether a proposal for infrastructure, as an example, is made in a fashion consistent with the American System. I don't think that Will Beback is entirely oblivious to this fact, which is why I must strongly suspect that some of the edits made today were intentionally disruptive. Does he want to argue that the Great Wall of China, arguably an "internal improvement," was an early example of the American System? That would be tortured logic, like his attempts to link the AS to Bush, Schwarzenegger, or the Nazis. --HK 00:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The consensus of Northmeister and I is that they belong. -Will Beback 01:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree here with Will Beback, his edits are appropriate enough for inclusion. See our discussion above. --Northmeister 01:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that a useful rule of thumb on these matters would be the following: did the politician or commentator in question advocate the policy in question because of a philosophical commitment to the American System? If the answer is unclear, the individual or policy in question should probably be excluded from the article. This lifts the debate above the level of nit-picking and sophistry. --HK 23:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister's recent edits

Recently added, Theodore Roosevelt New Nationalism as a supporter and Woodrow Wilson as a critic New Freedom.

I also reworded the Legacy section, adding Senator Harry Reid of Nevada and former President Bill Clinton to the Internal Improvements and National Banking parts thereof. William H. Hawkins associated with the U.S. Business and Industry Council has also been added to 'fair trade' supporters.

Here is the new wording for perview:

"Some commentators and activists have revived interest in protecting and promoting American industry, including 'fair trade' advocates Ross Perot, the Reform Party, Pat Choate, Alan Tonelson, Lou Dobbs, William H. Hawkins, and James Fallows; with alternative interpretation's offered by Patrick J. Buchanan, and Lyndon Larouche. Those who have shown interest in the internal improvements include persons from both major partys in America, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. A strong national bank already receives support from President George W. Bush and former President Bill Clinton, among others in both major partys differing only to whether speculation or production should be its emphasis." --Northmeister 16:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what is meant by "alternative interpretations." Also, I think it is highly misleading to suggest that either Bush or Clinton have supported a national bank. Is there any documentation for this? If they made statements supporting the Federal Reserve system, that should be specified, so that the reader does not get the wrong impression. However, in former Labor Secretary Robert Reich's book, Locked in the Cabinet, he tells an anecdote where Bill Clinton, during his first term, walks around the oval office, waving his arms, and says "I can't do what I was elected to do. The Federal Reserve won't let me." --HK 23:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting anecdote on Clinton. The Federal Reserve System is a National Banking System, although it's policies are subject to criticism for encouraging speculation among other things. President Clinton had much promise, but completely failed. His legacy would of been assured if he had worked on National Healthcare and made that his major emphasis in his first term. Had he the stamina of Kennedy, he had the power to bypass the FED first by issuing new US notes etc., and then press a then Democratic Congress for FED reform to encourage production, bring the Board under Presidential and Congressional control, and the make sure the Chairman can be fired by any President. In other words restoring public credit step by step. It is not the structure of the Reserve System that is the problem, it is the control. Control has to be returned to the people through Congress and the President. Clinton could of championed those two concerns and had a well established legacy to retire on. As to alternative, I've read some of LaRouche's stuff on the American System since coming here and being accused of being a supporter. I must say some of his ideas are not mainstream on the American System. He links some loose associations throughout the past for starters. Although he has some noteworthy solutions for today, they are unfortunately being ignored because of his odd views of conspiracy by the Queen etc. It is too bad on that account. That is why I wrote alternative. Buchanan supports the American System but in severe limited form as he is afterall a paleo-conservative at heart and his 'little government' philosophy shrinks from full support; read his book 'The Great Betrayal' on America's economic debate, very enlightening and very American System. I welcome any discussion if you think I am wrong on this stuff. --Northmeister 01:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, but I am still requesting some sort of evidence that Clinton and Bush have supported "a strong national bank." --HK 01:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where they haven't. Since the FED is our national banking system and both men did not advocate against it, I can't fathom why you would insist that they do not support national banking. Andrew Jackson was opposed to national banking and advocated against it. He favored a system of state banks and private banking etc. Had Clinton and Bush believed the same as Jackson we would of been aware of it. --Northmeister 02:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Absence of stated opposition is not quite the same as advocacy. I am removing the part about Bush, Clinton and the National Bank until such time as an appropriate cite is found. In the meantime, I am adding some material about Senators from both parties who are collaborating in support of a renewed commitment to manufacturing and infrastructure. --HK 07:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your addition seems to deal with transportation only, so I changed the text. -Will Beback 02:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I am at a loss to see why. The name "Senate Manufacturing Caucus" suggests an interest in manufacturing, and likewise "Infrastructure Improvement Bill" brings to mind infrastructure. It is for these reasons that I chose "manufacturing and infrastructure" rather than "transportation." --HK 03:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

On closer examination that seems reasonable. However I don't think we need to quote a press release from Sen. Clinton in our article, unless it names the AS directly. Some might see associating the AS with a reviled figure like Sen. Clinton as an attempt to denigrate Clay's theory. -Will Beback 07:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Who is reviling Hillary, and why should that matter to the article? I myself am neither a great supporter nor a great detractor of Hillary; I think that the quote is noteworthy because it references earlier, more successful periods in American history, to my mind an implicit reference to the AS. --HK 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The American System is not a checklist of policies

I think that the present formulation, "The American System consisted of three cardinal points," is misleading, because clearly some editors infer from this that the whole is equal to the sum of the parts. In fact, the essence of the AS is to be found in the section called "Philosophical basis of the American System," particulary in the quote from Carey (as well as in the linked writings of Carey, which any editor of this article should examine in order to become more familiar with the subject.) I think the mistaken notion that the AS is merely tariffs, infrastructure and a national bank has given rise to numerous errors in the article, such as the one I just removed, that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was an "American System" tariff.

The key to the American System is that it derives from the same philosophical revolution that is embodied in the US Declaration of Independence and Constitution -- it is the economic equivalent of the political initiatives on which the nation was founded. As Carey insists, the American System vs. the British System is a grand clash of philosophies; the British have, from time to time, built infrastructure and imposed tariffs, but not because they abandoned their philosophical outlook in favor of the American approach.

Having said that, I am modifying the above formulation to make it "The American System included three cardinal points, to prevent further misconstructions. --HK 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is quite clear that the cardinal points are: national banking, infrastructure improvement (internal improvements), and tariffs (promotion of industry). There are further points later on that are not cardinal but rounded out an American philosophy of harmonization of interests rather than class conflict which embodied the Marxist/Socialist response to the British Empire's economic system after Cobden and the repeal of the Corn Laws. Britain had built itself up from Cromwell through Elizabeth I under Mercantilism, whose roots are in Colbert's France and earlier policies which embraced government intervention to stimulate the economy and regulation to ensure national growth. Hamilton was strongly influenced by this as was Washington. Thus, his Report on Manufactures, Credit I and II. Clay agreed, and chose this path as the best way to build American strength, unite the country etc. It became the Whig and early Republican program for the country. The American System did not embrace the idea that colonies needed to be sought for export or of limited resources as under Mercantilism and here they departed on thought. Had the British not abandoned her Mercantilism and instead gone the route of America, she would be today the Japan of Europe, and her borders would include Canada and Australia as fellow citizens of Greater Britannia. She however followed another path, advocating Smith's ideas at her own expense, while Germany under Bismarck and America through Lincoln and successive GOP administrations became more prosperous and economically advanced by 1900. The change you made is fine, but don't misunderstand the American System. You must seperate American foreign policy and ideals from our economic position and beliefs. Our economic system as it became was due in part to the wisdom of Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln. The fruits of this system gave us the ability to be the Arsenal of Democracy to save Europe twice from calamity. This article is about the economic system of America called the "American System" and it had three cardinal points listed above and for clearity again: national banking to stimulate production, government investment in infrastructure (roads, canals, transport overall, levees, dams etc.), and promotion of industry and protection thereof to remain in the hands of future generations through tariffs or subsidy. --Northmeister 22:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)----Also Smoot-Hawley belongs, though it needs better wording as not all economists agree. It belongs as an afterthought, since it was passed influenced by the idea that it was needed to protect American industry from foreign competition during the Depression then in its infancy. It was uneccessary and did not do the harm some attribute it to have done. It should remain, but be placed somewhere else as it does not seem to fit in the section it is in, I think. --Northmeister 22:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this reference incorrect?

• Following the War of 1812, a new nationalism emerged in the United States. Henry Clay's "American System" was a neofederalist program of a national bank, a tariff to promote and protect domestic industry, and congressionally financed internal improvements. [85]

It lists three elements, no more and no less. -Will Beback 22:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You are correct as is the citation, I think HK is wrong here or this is a misunderstanding of interpretation somehow. --Northmeister 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Smoot-Hawley Tariff

"The high tariffs of the American System, especially the Smoot-Hawley Tariff passed after the Stock Market crash in 1929, are credited with deepening the Great Depression by some economists, while others disagree. The American System's reliance on tariffs ceased at this time and the before said crash and the beginning of the New Deal can be seen as an end to the American System as originally practiced with high tariff protection. The New Deal, though continuing infrastructure improvement and banking reform of the Federal Reserve to stimulate production, embraced lower tariffs through Reciprocity and subsidization of industry instead."

I added the above to clearify the Smooth-Hawley tariff, which belongs. Let us work on the above re-wording to get it right. It does belong. --Northmeister 22:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

New Deal

• The beforesaid crash and the beginning of the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt can be seen as an end to the American System as originally practiced with high tariff protection. The New Deal, though continuing infrastructure improvement as the numerous public works projects of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) indicate; together with banking reform of the Federal Reserve to stimulate production and control speculation; however abandoned protective tariffs while embracing lower tariffs through reciprocity, choosing to subsidized industry instead.

Come on, let's stop making this stuff up. Which historian or economist regards the New Deal as the successor of the American System? -Will Beback 23:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that the New Deal is something else than what I wrote? I give no indication above that the New Deal was the American System, but that it practiced, measures similar to it. I disagree with HK on this one, in so much as McKinley was not the last to vigorously support the American System Roosevelt was with Taft. The Roaring Twenties combined the original system with the heavy speculation and the bad banking practices of the FED, this lead to the crash. FDR came in and passed numerous reforms that tried to reign in speculation. Was the New Deal the American System? I don't see that it was. Was it similar, yeah. I say as much above. But make no mistake the New Deal was not the traditional American System. --Northmeister 23:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good, then let's leave it out. This article is about the American System, not the New Deal. -Will Beback 23:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. --Northmeister 23:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Theodore Roosevelt

I would like to see some documentation for the claim that TR or Taft supported the American System. --HK 01:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good question consider the following:

• "The New Nationalism was not a shallow piece of rhetoric thrown together for the campaign; it represented a carefully thought-through analysis of American society and the role that government ought to play. Roosevelt had been intuitively moving in this direction during his second term, but he found the historical and philosophical analysis he needed in a book by Herbert Croly entitled The Promise of American Life (1909). Croly argued that there were two basic strands in American political thought, which he termed Hamiltonian and Jeffersonian. The former, Croly argued, had become identified in the public mind with strong government, aristocracy and special privilege, while the Jeffersonian dogma of weak government had become identified with democracy, equal rights and equal opportunity. Croly called for an amalgam of the two, the use of Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Americans had to do this, Croly argued, because of the new facts of industrial life. - Roosevelt read the book and grew very excited, as a number of ideas with which he had been toying now fell into place. In his famous speech at Ossowatomie, Kansas, on August 31, 1910, he sounded the keynote of what would become his campaign theme in 1912. - The old nationalism, he claimed, had been used by sinister, special interests. He now proposed a New Nationalism of dynamic democracy that would recognize the inevitability of economic concentration; to counter the power of the giant corporations, Roosevelt proposed bringing them under complete federal control, so as to protect the interests of the laboring man and the consumer." [86]

In addition Roosevelt continued the protective tariff, internal improvements (including the building of the Panama Canal, that was to be used by our vessels to sail quicker from coast to coast with a Canal Zone belonging to the USA and to be settled by US citizens), and national banking enacted under Lincoln. He never advocated against these principles. He did believe as above that Hamilton's views on government action and economics are right and must be used to achieve Jeffersonian ends (Democracy et. el.) much the same way Lincoln believed.

• "We come here to-day to commemorate one of the epoch-making events of the long struggle for the rights of man -- the long struggle for the uplift of humanity. Our country -- this great republic -- means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy, the triumph of popular government, and, in the long run, of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him. That is why the history of America is now the central feature of the history of the world; for the world has set its face hopefully toward our democracy; and, O my fellow citizens, each one of you carries on your shoulders not only the burden of doing well for the sake of your own country, but the burden of doing well and of seeing that this nation does well for the sake of mankind." -T.R. 1910 speech on 'New Nationalism' [87]

Roosevelt admired Lincoln greatly.

• "Of that generation of men to whom we owe so much, the man to whom we owe most, is of course, Lincoln. Part of our debt to him is because he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out. He said: -- "I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind." And again: -- "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. "If that remark was original with me, I should be even more strongly denounced as a communist agitator than I shall be anyhow. It is Lincoln's. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the workingman hear his side. "Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights... Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor;... property is desirable; is a positive good in the world." And then comes a thoroughly Lincolnlike sentence: -- "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe from violence when built." - It seems to me that, in these words, Lincoln took substantially the attitude that we ought to take; he showed the proper sense of proportion in his relative estimates of capital and labor, of human rights and property rights. Above all, in this speech, as in many others, he taught a lesson in wise kindliness and charity; an indispensable lesson to us of today. But this wise kindliness and charity never weakened his arm or numbed his heart. We cannot afford weakly to blind ourselves to the actual conflict which faces us to-day. The issue is joined, and we must fight or fail." T.R. speech of 1910 on 'New Nationalism' [88]

There was no end to the American System under Roosevelt or Taft who was more conservative in the sense of worker rights or government intervention per say. What did put an end to the American System was Woodrow Wilson as a result of the division of the old GOP in the 1912 election. Roosevelt went Progressive and Taft Republican...the party split mostly going to Roosevelt and Wilson ended up winning...his 'New Freedom' agenda usurped the progessive cause (essentially an American way of dealing with social economic problems as opposed to the Marxist rooted socialism), and implemented the FED and lower tariffs. The Harding administration maintained the FED with its propensity for speculative investment over production, while re-embracing tariffs - an unhealthy combination - which helped lead to the banking failures and stock market crash of 1929 - leading to the Great Depression. --Northmeister 05:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not completely persuaded, but I am sufficiently persuaded that I will not dispute it further. Incidentally, I like your concluding paragraph above, and with appropriate cites I think it could go in the article, since the article seems to lack a conclusive statement of when the AS died out. --HK 07:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment on the last paragraph. If you think it merits inclusion, edit it and go put it in under Legacy. It should go as the starting paragraph of Legacy if included. I will provide the citations for it once it is included. Will Beback what is your opinion, as I do respect your opinion even if I disagree with it at times? --Northmeister 17:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed legacy paragraph

Due to the history of contention at this article, I am placing a copy-edited version of Northmeister's paragraph below, so that it may be thoroughly discussed before insertion into the article. Northmeister, I suggest you also add the relevant source citations before insertion. --HK 15:28, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

"The American System was largely continued under Teddy Roosevelt, and Howard Taft, who was less inclined to promote worker rights or government intervention per se. What did put an end to the American System was the administration of Democrat Woodrow Wilson, which came about as a result of the division of the Republican Party in the 1912 election (Roosevelt went with the Progressive Party and Taft the Republican.) Wilson's "New Freedom" agenda usurped the progessive cause (essentially an American way of dealing with social economic problems as opposed to socialism), and implemented the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank and lower tariffs. The Harding administration maintained the Fed, with its propensity for supporting speculative investment over production, while re-embracing tariffs - an unhealthy combination - which helped lead to the banking failures and stock market crash of 1929, and the Great Depression."

HK, I think what is there now is sufficient after re-reading the article. --Northmeister 04:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tariffs alone are not the American System. According to whom did the American System continue under TR and Taft? According to whom was there partial return with Harding? What are our sources, that mention the Ammerican System by name, for these assertions? -Will Beback 05:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rehashed old arguments now being conducted again to harass me. I've already answered you several times. If you don't wish to look up the sources or read them online, thats your problem. Consensus stands against you and facts do as well. --Northmeister 05:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You are using this paragraph to justify edits on other pages, saying you don't have to source them there because you've sourced them here. But there isn't a single source for this either. There's no source anywhere for the American System after 1900. -Will Beback 05:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bull, goto the primary sources I provided or the References provided by Rjensen and read them. They are put there according to all standards of academic and encylopedic reference. Since we both back them up, it is on you to read them. Since you seem to object based upon some sort of secret source you have that we both are wrong. I am not obligated to continue to respond to harassment. I have ample SOURCES on that other article page as well, I do not refer to this page other than in talk and to indicate fallacy you bring up there about my references etc. You bring arguments from one page to another and that is Harassment and bad manners per wikipedia policy. Stop wiki-stalking my edits and stop harassing me. I am not obliged to respond to this any longer. Consensus holds agaisnt you. Read the sources ONLINE and provided for your library pleasure and then let me know where the consensus here is wrong. --Northmeister 05:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Centennial Expo #3

Which one of these sources:

1. http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/grant_annual_address_1875.html
2. http://libwww.library.phila.gov/CenCol/exh-signif.htm
3. http://www.assemblymag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,6493,99795,00.html
4. http://libwww.library.phila.gov/CenCol/exh-signif.htm

says that the American System deserves credit for the Centennial Exhibition of 1876? For us to draw a connection between Carey, the American System, and the Centennial would be original research without some specific source. It is dangerous to rely on primary sources, as they are open to novel interpretations. Secondary sources are preferable. -Will Beback 05:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rehashing old argument, already determined by consensus against your arguments. Let it go. --Northmeister 05:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you are using these sources now to make edits in other articles. We never decided this point, and these sources do not tie the Centennail Expo to the American System anymore than all sorts of other subsequent economic and historical events. -Will Beback 05:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, HK, and myself concur...he's an economist (RJ) and I am a (Historian), and HK knows a lot about this stuff as well...you are the only one who doesn't concur, and you object but never provide a reason why...since consensus is for the article as it is and since the article is amply sourced. You are rehashing old arguments to harass me...bringing the arguments you started at the other article here which is harassment. --Northmeister 05:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if Alan Greenspan logs in and asserts that the Centennial Expo is related ot the AS. Unless there is a reliable source which connects them we should not include it. -

Added several Sources

Recently added several sources for older and newer edits. If any one disputes any of my new edits or older edits not currently holding to consensus...let me know below and I will provide the source material for you. --Northmeister 02:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Which sources have you added? Have you found a source which links the Centennial to the American System? -Will Beback 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a large number of {fact} tags to the material you added or restored. Please give us sources for those assertions or their connection to the American System. 24 hours should be enough time, I'll remove any questioned, unsourced assertions after that. -Will Beback 05:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Two more sources for edits made besides those provided by requests for citations by above user:

On the nature of the Hamiltonian root of American System - with the support of Federalists, Whigs, and then Republicans under Lincoln.

• "The first phase of American political history was characterized by the conflict between Federalists and the Republicans, and it resulted in the complete triumph of the later. The second period was characterized by an almost equally bitter contest between the Democrats and the Whigs in which the Democrats represented a new version of the Republican tradition and the Whigs a resurrected Federalism." (Pg. 52 Promise of American Life - Croly)

On the nature of Theodore Roosevelt supporting the American System:

"It is a matter of regret that the protective-tariff policy, which, during the last forty-odd years, has become part of the very fibre of the country, is not now accepted as definitely established. Surely we have a right to say that it has passed beyond the domain of theory, and a right to expect that not only its original advocates but those who at one time distrusted it on theoretic grounds should now acquiesce in the results that have been proved over and over again by actual experience. These forty-odd years have been the most prosperous years this Nation has ever seen; more prosperous years than any other nation has ever seen. Beyond question this prosperity could not have come if the American people had not possessed the necessary thrift, energy, and business intelligence to turn their vast material resources to account. But it is no less true that it is our economic policy as regards the tariff and finance which has enabled us as a nation to make such good use of the individual capacities of our citizens, and the natural resources of our country. Every class of our people is benefited by the protective tariff. (Letter accepting Republican nomination for President, September 12, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 521; Nat. Ed. XVI, 391.

AND

• "Of that generation of men to whom we owe so much, the man to whom we owe most, is of course, Lincoln. Part of our debt to him is because he forecast our present struggle and saw the way out. He said: --

 "I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not only his own 
 condition, but to assist in ameliorating mankind."
 And again: --
 "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of 
 labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is 
 the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

It is Lincoln's. I am only quoting it; and that is one side; that is the side the capitalist should hear. Now, let the workingman hear his side.

 "Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other 
 rights... Nor should this lead to a war upon the owners of property. Property 
 is the fruit of labor;... property is desirable; is a positive good in the 
 world."

And then comes a thoroughly Lincolnlike sentence: --

 "Let not him who is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him work 
 diligently and build one for himself, thus by example assuring that his own 
 shall be safe from violence when built."

It seems to me that, in these words, Lincoln took substantially the attitude that we ought to take; he showed the proper sense of proportion in his relative estimates of capital and labor, of human rights and property rights. Above all, in this speech, as in many others, he taught a lesson in wise kindliness and charity; an indispensable lesson to us of today. But this wise kindliness and charity never weakened his arm or numbed his heart. We cannot afford weakly to blind ourselves to the actual conflict which faces us to-day. The issue is joined, and we must fight or fail." (Roosevelt - New Nationalism pg. 24 and 25 Prentice-Hall 1961 edition) --Northmeister 02:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like Roosevelt supported tariffs. I don't see any mention of the American System. Also, where is the sourcve linking the Centennial Expo to the American System? You added the material back, but there's still no linkage. -Will Beback 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We need sources that actually mention the American System, not sources whoich you construe to refer to some elements of the AS. -Will Beback 03:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Has nothing to do with my definition, but Linds, Gills, Batra's, Richardson's, Croly's, Roosevelt himself etc. etc. All the books I added to references are the source material for my additions. Consensus holds for the Centennial I might add once again. These sources are worthless? How so? Have you read the books I mentioned? You seem to question the very nature of American history itself - by what source material are you constantly challenging my sources with? I would like to know it. Please provide your sources as I have mine. Thank You. --Northmeister 03:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the source for the opening sentence and you've placed citation needed, odd. Have you any comprehension of the source? Here is the source verbatim:

• "By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed England as industrial leader of the world. Indeed, England, which had stubbornly persisted in its free trade policy, instituted in the 1830's, was now in third place...The rise of America dazzled the world." (Gill pg 39. Trade Wars Against America)
• "I suggest you visit Youngstown or Cleveland, the industrial suburbs of Chicago, or the ghost towns up and down the Mongahela River thst feeds the Ohio at Pittsburgh, formely the industrial heart of America, and once the world's redoubtable "Arsenal od Democracy." (Gill pg. ix Trade Wars Against America)

---So Gill is worthless: A man who has published in Time, Life, Fortune, National Geographic, Nation's Business? An associate with Chase Manhattan Bank of New York? A CEO of Allegheny Foundation, T. Mellon & Sons for six years? A graduate of the University of Missouri and member of the National Historical Society? THIS MAN IS WORTHLESS? How so? And what sources do you use to indicate he is worthless or Richardson is, or Batra is worthless, or Dobbs, or Perot (multi-billionaire CEO), or how about Michael Lind? These are the sources I provide and they all concur on the tariff, internal improvement, national bank parts of America's economic system after Lincoln until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson signed the FED into law and the Underwood Tariff slashed our protectionist tariffs. That three part system is the current of economic thought back to Roosevelt (Teddy), Lincoln, Clay, and Hamilton or the Progressive (1912 Bull Moose one), Republican, Whig, National Republican, Federalist party's who called for labeled the American System that was also referred to as the Protective System etc. by its adherents. I can provide more quotes from the above authors and historians and economists...and I have provided numerous books from history that say the same thing. What source refute this? Provide them here for me to consider your objections. --Northmeister 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources which don't mention the American System can't be used as references for peoples' support of the American System. Startig tomorrow I'll move all such assertions to this page. That's about half of the article, including everything in the 20th century. -Will Beback 04:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

IT CAN'T BE? BY WHAT RULE and HOW MANY ARTICLES SHALL YOU CENSOR AND DELETE BY THAT RULE that DOES NOT EXIST! GIVE ME THE WIKIPEDIA STANDARD YOU ARE USING - that is my right to know and the communities. Your out of line and further you have not provide one source to indicate why you object to the plethora of credible sources I offer. I am an expert scholar with published material - number one - second I have offered expert scholars who speak of this 'system' and its adherents which were American Presidents 16-32 with the exceptions of Cleveland and Wilson. Further American Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover - then FDR without the tariffs and with greater emphasis on subsidy. Let me have your sources? I am more than willing to read them if they contradict what is in this article. Your limited conception of what should be included is not by wikipedia standards either. You took much of the material I restored out when you knew I was out for one month by my word...bad faith and bad manners..which is against wikipedia rules of the game...that said....sources for your assumptions? Starting tomorrow? You have no greater authority than I to remove material that is legitimate and agreeed to by consensus. Again, I have asked you several times for your sources so legitimate discussion can be engaged here and you refuse to provide them. You further placed citations in areas already cited and accepted in the past - and also where cites and quotes and page numbers are provided. --Northmeister 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC) - These sources are worthless? How so? Have you read the books I mentioned? You seem to question the very nature of American history itself - by what source material are you constantly challenging my sources with? I would like to know it. Please provide your sources as I have mine. Thank You --Northmeister 06:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The rule here at Wikipedia is that all material must be verifiable (WP:V). If challenged, it needs to have a reliable source (WP:RS). We do not allow original research or original conclusions (WP:NOR). You've written over 1200 words on the American System in the 20th century. What reliable sources talk about the AS in that century? So far as I'm aware, none that you've provided. For that matter, what reliable sources talk about the AS as being related to the Centennial Expo? or Marx? -Will Beback 08:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First, all of the above is generic babble and does not answer my question. You well know I am familar with all of the above policies and of the controversy over the WP:NOR. Further, none applies here. We have been over this numerous times and I and others have continued to provide numerous sources for 20th century economic practices in America. You seem to indicate by your objection to what is in the article, that America practiced something else under Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson...Well, what and what source do you have to indicate what I wrote is wrong. I have provide VERIFIABLE sources that are modern (and some quite old) and have provided quotations here as well. So all of the nonsense above is neither good faith in providing dialogue on this article or sources so we can engage as to why you object to the material in the article nor is it by any stretch of the imagination reasonable. Michael Lind talks about all this in Hamilton's Republic; Theodore Roosevelt's Cyclopedia and New Nationalism can be obtained online and at any library; Lou Dobbs 'Exporting America' speaks of modern economic debate and the call for a return to America's traditional economic system that this article speaks of; Friedrich List's "National System" and "Outlines of American Political Economy" speak of America's historic economic system; Borritt in "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" speaks of Lincoln's economic beliefs - the early Republicans connection to the Whigs of Henry Clay and the practices of America economically from 1861 (read - Chapter 14 "The Whig in the White House"); Richardson in "The Greatest Nation" tells the story of Republican economic policies during the Civil War - and on and on. All the previous are verifiable and can be bought or loaned from any library today. Again, what sources are you using to refute what is in the article? We can't engage in discussion without knowing your sources so I can verify them. You seem to question the very nature of American history itself - by what source material are you constantly challenging my sources with? I would like to know it. Please provide your sources as I have mine. Thank You --Northmeister 14:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about the American System. References for this article should mention the American System. Are you now proposing that Roosevelt, Taft, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson were AS supporters? And what's with the "Realigning forces of Jeffersonian and Hamiltonian systems and possible future"? Did you write that? It belongs on your blog, not in an encyclopedia. -Will Beback 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from Personal attacks. Engage in conversation not attack or inquisitorial questions. You have a long history here which you've been refuted by myself and others - or do you forgot that? I don't wish to engage in any sort of personal discussion. The American System you full know is simply a description of the American economic policy that dominated from 1861-1970's. It's three parts were practiced with limited exception as Lind, Gill, and others indicate. If you think otherwise by sources then let me have them and we will engage in legitimate discussion. Otherwise your continuing your harassment again with personal attacks like above which are not helpful to wikipedia. --Northmeister 18:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've not made any personal attack - please tell me where the attack is located. No, I do mnot know that the AS dominated American economic policy from 1861-1970s., but I'd be happy to see a source which says so. I'm going to remove the essay, which you won't even discuss. -Will Beback 20:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In BOLD the above parts present what you ask for about America's economic system from 1861-1973 precisley as Batra states it. What you are insinuating is:

1. That America did not have: Protectionist Tariffs and then Reciprocity and Subsidy after New Deal (Promotion and Protection of Industry).
2. That America did not invest in railroads, national roads, highways, ports, or any infrastructure improvement from 1861-1973. (Internal Improvements by government)
3. That America did not have a national banking system set up in the 1860's that lasted until Woodrow Wilson's Federal Reserve Act set up the more private based Federal Reserve System. That Roosevelt's New Deal banking acts did not bring greater public control back to the Federal Reserve that remained the banking structure afterward under Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. (National Banking to stimulate industry and production)

In essence you are insinuating that the American System or School of economics played no role beyond the debates of the 1840's - which according to Lind, Gill, Richardson, Batra, Buchanan and others simply is not the case. Well what source do you have to indicate your insinuation? I have provided numerous sources of agreement that with the exception of Grover Cleveland's and Woodrow Wilson's terms in office America practiced the American System of economics and then under Franklin D. Roosevelt with the limited exception of replacing protectionism with subsidy and reciprocity continued the American System of economics (essentially a mixed system of government intervention) that Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson maintained and expanded upon in their own ways (Eisenhowers National Highway System of internal improvement for example). Well source to refute Gill, Lind, Richardson and the others listed in references? --Northmeister 22:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me the exact citation where Batra (or whoever) refers to the American System as dominating the American economy until 1973? Thanks, -Will Beback 22:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are some of the material in Batra's book "The Myth of Free Trade":

#"Unlike most of its trading partners, real wages in the United States have been tumbling since 1973, the first year of the country's switch to laissez-faire." (pg 126-127)

#"Before 1973, the US economy was more or less closed and self-reliant, so that efficiency gains in industry generated only a modest price fall, and real earnings soared for all Americans." (pg. 66-67)

#"Moreover, it turns out that 1973 was the first year in its entire history when the United States became an open economy with free trade." (pg. 39)

#"Throughout its history, at least until 1970, America was practically a closed economy." (pg. 37)

Why does Batra say all this?

• His book states it well with statistics indicating 1973 as a watershed year and turning point in American economic history - it was the end of American School or System economics and the beginning of the Laissez-faire - privatization - free market - de-regulation boom that representing Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton (NAFTA), and Bush's plan of action (CAFTA, GUEST WORKERS). The former produced high wages, the later demands low wages by out sourcing manufacturing and in-sourcing third world labor with illegal immigration and 'guest worker' status et. al. So agree's Buchanan and Dobbs, so agree's Gill (on Kennedy Round stuff) and others. The American economic System of: promotion and protection (tariff and subsidy), internal improvements, and national banking to encourage production became null in 1973 starting the long trek away from Hamilton, Clay, and Lincoln's system to Smith's system -
• Commentary on Batra: We live with the results today - pump any gas lately or buy that new DVD player - how about that brand spanking new Car - China's coming for that - The American economic System of the past would say - protect and defend the homeland with subsidy and tariff to preserve our children's inheritance and fair play / the post-1973 Free trade/free market System would do nothing and let the hand of comparative advantage take its shape - Like I said, pump any gas lately -The old school would regulate and control in the interest of the nation, the new leaves it alone to harm ordinary citizens while rich oil companies make billions and pay their CEO a retirement package of 400 million - Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Roosevelt would of been appaulled - let alone Hamilton and Clay at our lack of industry, modern transportation - What about Dubai - old school of American System - No way we would relinquish control of our ports to anyone - the new school of Free trade - why not, its the free market isn't it?
• Now none of my commentary part has to do with the this discussion other than to illustrate a point - quite literally - of your argument that somehow the American System did not extend to the 20th century contrary to massive primary and secondary University related source material from the likes of Gill, Batra and others. As the article states - the American System was a phrase coined by Clay to indicate America's Hamiltonian economic thought and a plan he advocated and Lincoln "the old Henry Clay tariff whig" by his own definition enacted it into existence - which as Gill and others concur was carried forward by successive American presidents and congresses with limited exceptions in its traditional form until 1932 when FDR ended the protectionist part thereof and replaced it with reciprocity and subsidy that continued until 1970's or 1973 according to Batra - that System or School of economics called American by Clay, Hamiltonian by many historians, National by List, is one and the same and was the system America practiced and Roosevelt spoke of in his New Nationalism and in regards to the tariff and the 40 year period of growth from 1860-1900 when America became the dominant economic engine of the world surpassing Britain (former dominant) in the 1880's, prior to which the Centennial Expo, displaying our growth under this system of economics and by none other dazzled the world. Again what sources do you have to refute Gill, Batra, and the others? --Northmeister 00:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

How can I refute what Batra says about the American System when he never even mentions it? The phrase "American System" isn't in the index of The Myth of Free Trade. Next you'll be asking mne to refute what the Bible says about the American System. -Will Beback 00:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Batra is irrelevant and Gill is worthless? And, stop talking for the community...you mean stop wasting your time...Wasting time equals discussion using sources? Is this not an encyclopedia? Is that not our intention to give the great audience verifiable facts related to verifiable sources? Why is Batra irrelevant to America's economic system? Why is Gill worthless to this discussion? How about the others I mentioned? Richardson? Boritt? What is your esteemed opinion of them? Are thet irrelevant and worthless as well? And who says so, what source? Again, what source refutes these men and their published works or the published works of historians and economists listed under modern and older references? You said the index of Batra? Did you goto Amazon and simply look this stuff up? You can't find everything in an index...you asked for quotes - I gave them. You want to really check, goto your public library...look up these authors and then we can engage. Again, what sources do you have to indicate Gill is worthless and Batra is irrelevant? --Northmeister 00:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC) -The bible? Let's not get silly here. I am serious. I have provided quotations and sources for you right here and in the article...I have provide online sources as well. I have met every quesiton you ask and you continue to engage in a circular argument asking the same questions over and over and never provide your sources for refution of this article and its sources. If you have them, provide them and lets discuss where Batra, Gill, Boritt and the others are wrong. Let's engage and discuss to improve Wikipedia, not use it disparage others contributions without verifiable source material to work with. --Northmeister 01:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You have yet to provide even a single source which mentions the American System as being an active economic theory in the 20th century, or which connects the American System to the Centennial Expo. The only source I know that does both is the Lyndon LaRouche movement. Since that is the onlyt source which links the Centennial Expo to the AS, it appears that you are promoting LaRouche concepts in articles that are not about him. I propose that we move your additions to political views of Lyndon LaRouche, where they would fit comfortably. They don't belong in a serious article about a 19th century economic theory. -Will Beback 03:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The above is not a personal attack? Why do that? --Northmeister 03:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of editing behavior. I've asked and asked for sources connecting the Centennial Expo to the AS and you haven't been able to find a single one. But the connection is so widely acknowledged by the LaRouche movement that I found at least eight citations from them without any difficulty. Since LaRouche is the only source for the connection, I believe it is a LaRouche theory. -Will Beback 04:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Having looked through this, I'm inclined to agree with Will. This is an essentially Larouchian notion. If you have any other non-Larouche sources which make the claims, I'd be very interested in seeing them. JoshuaZ 04:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Clarifying my earlier remark at the request of North, I was referring to claims that the American System was an active economic theory in the 20th century, or onnected the Centennial Expo. JoshuaZ 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

At Joshua's request the following two quotations are provided as a start to that discussion and as a refutation that LaRouche is the only one proposing the "American System" policies were continued into the twentieth century - The GOP as can be read above enacted Clay's plan during the Civil War (see Richardson and Boritt on this) and thus by 1876 America was under the American System or School policies that lasted until Clevelands term, thereafter restored by Harrison and McKinely and carried on into the twenthieth century by this President and the GOP until Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1912, restored after this partially by Harding (FED replaced national banking system) until 1932 with the election of FDR who embraced subsidy (also advocated by Hamilton) instead of tariff protectionism and tariffs ranging around 30% together with public works projects (internal improvements) and national banking through the FED - back to the centennial, a celebration of American Independence mostly but which centered as can be read by the links I provide on the economic achievements of America that amazed the rest of the world - as America did not fair to well in the 1857 expo before the American System policies were implemented by Lincoln and the GOP:

• Lind: "Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party of 1865-1932, by presoding over the industrialization of the United State, foreclosed the option that the United States would remain a rural society with an agrarian economy, as so many Jeffersonians had hoped." and "...Hamiltonian side...the Federalists; the National Republicans; the Whigs, the Republicans; the Progressives." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Introduction pg. xiv-xv - published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN: 0-684-83160-0)

• Lind: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism...The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods...The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Part III "The American School of National Economy" pg. 229-230 published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN: 0-684-83160-0) --Northmeister 05:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I don't see any actual discussion of the American System in the 20th century, just a literary wave of the hand: The American School,...inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and ...the Republican party well into the twentieth century. "Inspired...well into"? Those words are not sufficient to support the assertion that the AS was the dominant economic theory up to 1973. Second, I don't see any mention of the Centennial Expo. Third, if you are unconnected with HK why were your first edits to this article identical to many of his, including adding back his language about the Centennial Expo, deleting the same external links that he'd deleted, etc? -Will Beback 19:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Lind isn't sufficient, by what standards? Batra is irrelevant and Gill is worthless? Seems you have a very low impression of people who have published credible works on American economic history. The sources are there, I've provided them on the page, including Gills, Batra's, Roosevelt's, Buchanan's, Dobbs, et. al. Further The American School, American System, Protective System, and National System are all one and the same and citations I have in the article itself prove this. Your narrow view of American System is yours and not Gills, Batras, Linds, Buchanans, or any other. It is your narrow theory and I would like source material from you from published sources indicating that the national system, American School, etc. are not the American System, which as I already pointed out with sources is the economic system of the USA from 1861-1932 and not limited to Henry Clay alone. Under this School, Policy, System of America also called by List "National" the Centennial took place - by inference what source indicates that the Centennial was the result of Socialism or Laissez-faire? That seems to be your point...well? I have provided more sources than Lind above including Batra on 1973 and I challenge any credible person to refute what is in this article with actual sources. Well what do you have? I am open to taking anything out that is refuted by credible published sources as the material in the article is backed up by credible published sources and Lind and others indicate this. Whether LaRouche or HK or anyone else concurs with actual facts is moot. That is the trouble you get into when a society or organizationd decides to persecute someone based on their political beliefs or affiliations which is un-American. I don't care what you think I am or who I am, but I do ask you refrain from accusations and personal insult in the future. The above discussion is prove positive of my committment to wikipedia and to giving sources for my edits. Anyone can read them and anyone can read the books I directly quote. Well, what sources? Are you to give them or are you here to harass me? --Northmeister 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The references you have given to Lind are insufficient to support your assertion that AS was the dominant economic policy of the U.S. up to 1973. If HK is irrevelant, why did you restore his edits and how did you even find them? If you want to show your commitment to sources, how about providing one for the Centennial Expo? -Will Beback 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts

{Fact} tags keep getting removed without sourcing problems having been reolved. The only answer seems to be to move the material that needs sourcing here, where we can discuss the issues, then move them back as they are dealt with. There are other outstanding discussions (above), which I'd hate to see interrupted, but perhaps this will focus our attention. -Will Beback 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, one by one -starting from the top move them here and I will provide the source for your inquisition. DO NOT, remove sourced material however. I will restore that. Thrice or more you have put citation needed on material already sourced accurately by book and by online source. Go right ahead...I have nothing to hide about what I add to articles. Just put them here for the whole world to see. Inquistor begin... --Northmeister 00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've move the main problem areas to sections below. Though a few links are included, they do not appear to support the assertions being made, so consider them contested. Please don't restore them until we've agreed on sourcing. This article is about the American System, so anything which doesn't mention that term, or use its narrow definition, belongs in some other article. Frankly, much of this material would be better at Economic nationalism, a more general article. -Will Beback 05:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Or an article on the "American School" also called "National System" called by Clay the "American System" in his own version, enacted by Lincoln and maintained by the GOP until their defeat in 1932 or an article on Ameirican Economic Policy. In light of a limited interpretation of "American System" speaking only of Clay's plans as part of the overall "Hamiltonian" economic philosophy running side by side with the competing "Jeffersonian" economic philosophy (actually called this - although Jefferson changed his mind later in life about tariff or protection of industry) through American History we actually have found common ground. I will look over the following complaints and respond in the course of time and schedule limitation - in which case they may remain out of the article justly until that time of response. --Northmeister 23:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that your idea of splitting some of this material into a different article is sound. "Economic nationalism" is a wide topic. "Hamiltonian economic theory" is a somewhat narrower topic. "American School" is quite a bit narrrower, and "American System" is very narrow. -Will Beback 07:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I will respond in 24hrs to your complaints below - by name which includes "American School" - "National System" - "American Policy" - "Protective System" - "American System" - "Protection Policy" as they refer to same "Hamiltonian" economic philosophy with roots in "Mercantilism" of Britain - "Colbertism" of France - and "Cameralism" of Germany wherein Hamilton derived his philosophy that List (National System) took to Germany that Bismarck embraced, that lead to Clay's "American System" program that Lincoln enacted into law during the Civil War and was referred to afterward mostly as the "Protective System" - "American Policy" - "Protection Policy" of the GOP that lasted until 1932 when FDR replaced the protective tariff through several negotiated Reciprocal Trade Agreements (lowering tariffs to a stable 20-30% range) replacing much of that protection with internal subsidy of industry though maintaining the "American Schools" government interventionist philosophy in the manner of banking reform to bring more public control thereof and in the manner of internal improvements through public works projects of the TVA, WPA, PWA, and in a limited manner the CCC and RFC support of businesses. Thus, FDR expanded on the American School philosophy and did not resort to calls for Socialism (Marxist School) or Free Marketism (Smith School/Austrian-Chicago Schools). Only in the 1970's did America begin to embrace Free Market ideas rooted in the Smith School (British System defined by Carey) through Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush in the area of trade, privatization, deregulation of the economy, and contracting out/out-sourcing. In this light - I will respond as said in 24hrs, although I have given another possible option on your talk page to resolve this issue of dispute. --Northmeister 02:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the "American System" was never advocated by FDR-Truman-Eisnehower-Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush by name, nor even Hoover, Coolidge, or Harding, Wilson, or Taft. Any standard reference on economics will describe the "American System" as a 19th century theory, though a few historians make some generalizations about its extension into the early 20th century. As we've discussed above, the broader theory of economic nationalism promoted by Colbert, et al, should be covered in another article. -Will Beback 07:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We never discussed it, it was offered as a solution to your uninformed view of economic history and continued harassment here. Since you will continue in the mode that is not collaborative or even congenial, then I must respond in the 'broad' manner as I stated above - since the "American System" is simply one term of many used for the same system. In fact, Clay expressed this term based on his belief in Hamilton's program, later to be embraced by Lincoln and GOP...it is not a requirement that the "American System" be advocated but practiced and commented upon by Scholars and professionals in the field in relation to those policies that make it distinct and in speaking thereof in regards to it as a uniform philosophy - ie. List's book "National System of Political Economy" or Carey's book "Harmony of Interest". To insist that "American System" be referred to exclusively is neither wikipedia standard nor historic standard, but Dictionary standard, as that phrase went in and out of use during the course of American history and was interchangeable with "Protective System", "National System", "Protective Policy", and "American School" and referred to usually by its modern critics as "Protectionism" especially in reference to the American School's/System's practice of using tariffs to both raise revenue and protect domestic industry. Gill speaks in this manner, as does Lind, as does Batra, as does Carey, as does List, as does Hamilton - as does Lincoln and the GOP. Bismarck through List brought this philosophy and system to Germany which lead to the "German Historic School" called also "Historicist" that influenced German economic practice until after the first World War and Japan and China both have embraced this School's philosophy rooted in Hamilton's "Reports" and the spirit of regulation and intervention in the national and public interest to varying degrees since - which explains the present Japanese System of economic practice and the Social Market System Germany embraced after WWII - some economists who see only the Marxist/Communist/Socialist School and British/Manchester/Austrian/Free Market School with blinders towards the American/German Historic/Mercantilist/National School find themselves in quandaries at why Japan's system worked - so they call it a "Miracle." - Had they read their own history, they understand it full well as well as China's present conversion from Communist theory (it ain't the Free Market School they are embracing) - however a growing number have re-discovered it such as Batra and Gill and Dobbs and Buchanan and Perot et. al. Your failure to understand this, is your problem. Frankly I don't care about that. I will simply provide the sources for this and ask that ONCE AGAIN, your SOURCE for constructive debate. I will restore all the below without them in light of your fair spirit and condescending attitude above. All I present is based on sourced scholarly material old and new - in summary as an encyclopedia is suppose to do and I do not limit myself to pet theories and novel interpretations of WP:OR based on changes made without consensus as is mandated by policy - nor does that apply here anyway as all the above is the root of Gills, Buchanan's, Lind's, Batra's anaylsis among a host of others I present in the modern and old references sections and in the notes now being created with another user. Further back in this discussion, consensus held against your 'narrow' pet theory about American System limited to the term alone as if this was a dictionary rather than an encyclopedia when Rjensen admonished you about the Centennial and sided with myself and HK about the issue. Further your narrow definition if applied across Wikipedia would obliterate the Capitalism article and many others, especially pertaining to Capitalism in its early stages as it was not given this name by Smith or early economists who often wrote of "political economy" and "free trade" before they used the word "Capitalism" yet you would deny the works of Smith in discussing Capitalism? --Northmeister 15:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For which assertion do you want me to provide a source? -Will Beback 19:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

That America did not practice protective tariffs, internal improvements, and national (central) banking in the 20th century. That the American System/School was not prevelant until 1932 and for each of your above accusations and assertions. Let's have them to have a balanced discussion here. Also, Answer my last question and the whole host of questions you refuse to answer. Collaboration is two ways and editing is a two way street. What your doing is harassing and wiki-stalking my edits, which in the past you have been accused of numerous times. If your here for credible reasons, then provide a sound basis for that. Googling will not do. We are talking scholarly works as I have provided or published sources. I want exact statements as I have provided, citations I can follow et. al. I have provide all the evidence to indicate all that you question is researched by others and well sourced and presented here in that light. Otherwise you are here for disruption purposes alone - if you are challenging my edits then there must be sources you have to indicate what I added was somehow wrong. Then lets have them. I offered to move most of this material to another article, but you have simply rejected that, increasing my suspicion your not acting in good faith and have not all along. Your motives to downplay this article because 'you think' it relates to LaRouche alone when in fact as has been seen, that is farthest from the truth - though you bring this up over and over again. Again all my questions are above and in this paragraph, they beg answers and your assertions that America somehow practiced something other than the American System during the early half of the 20th Century need a source - well? --Northmeister 23:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine - here's a source that discusses the American System, by name, and says the AS pretty much ended in 1832, a century earlier than your assertion. [89] -Will Beback 23:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Aslo, I didn't reject your offer of moving the non-AS material to another article. On the contrary, I approve of that. -Will Beback 23:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What you call non-American System above is simply not true as I explained above. Here is what your source says: "Portions of the American System were enacted by Congress. The Second Bank of the United States was rechartered in 1816 for 20 years. High tariffs were maintained from the days of Hamilton until 1832. However, the national system of internal improvements was never adequately funded; the failure to do so was due in part to sectional jealousies and constitutional scruples about such expenditures." [90]--Now what the article is speaking of is not an end to the practice of the American System or philosophy thereof - in fact the debate was well under way. What it is speaking of is the high tariff of 1828 (known as Tariff of Abominations) passed by Calhoun and Clay, which caused the Nullification Crises with South Carolina, was replaced by an agreement Clay worked out, that eventually reduced tariffs to all time lows by 1832. However that debate continued in the following years when Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Tayler, Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan were elected until Lincoln was elected in 1860 that basically ended in triumph for the American School/System advocates primarily because the main opponents of that economic philosophy and practice were the plantation dominated South. What this article speaks of is Clay's plan and not in full detail, the article here at wikipedia gives greater detail - and speaks of Clay's plan as well as where that plan came from Hamilton and where it lead to Lincoln and the GOP and the several names used throughout the debate, enactment, and maintainence. It does however connect Clay to Hamilton, as other sources do for Clay and Lincoln and the original GOP through their platform planks and the two books on the subject in references do - as does Carnegie in 1900 and McKinley and Roosevelt in embracing this school of economics. Are you denying that this connection exists and that there was an American School? If so, based on what source? --Northmeister 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Our dispute is over semantics, and to offer the reader who may be seeking Henry Clay's specific program and history thereof, I've created the American System (Henry Clay program) link for the reader to find that specific version whether Clay's or the overall American System or School philosophy rooted in Hamilton's theories and ideas and later practiced and called by the GOP the "Protective System" or "American Policy" or "National System" (as List called this overall philosophy). I will work on this article to clean up any confusion and to move what is appropriate to the other article. I am doing this to try to collaborate and work out a workable formation, despite past actions on your part, for this stuff. We have been debating two different impressions of American System - so I moved to make matters clear by the different articles. Students of history or economics will have a clear path when typing in American System for searches - to determine which they are to find information on as I added the Henry Clay program link to American System (dis..) page. --Northmeister 03:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is titled "American System". It is about the "American System". If you want to write an article about a different topic please go ahead. But don't change this article so that it is about the "American School" or any other topic. And please do not restore the material that needs citing. You promised you'd cite every one, but you haven't produced a single new reference. -Will Beback 05:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

NO, this is about the American System or School of economic philosophy, which you have continually misunderstood, as evidence by your constant pandering here. I created an American System (Henry Clay program) for the plan Clay had that was a part of this overall system, that Clay only emphasized for the Whig Party. This title of this article is American System (economics) - thus it pertains as always to the overall philosophy, you want to debate Clay's specific program - then goto the American System (Henry Clay program) for that. Lind and others concur on this articles substance and ample evidence is provided for its emphasis, as the opening now states clearly, this had several names, as some things do, but it is a discussion of the economic philosophy and not Clays specific plan. --Northmeister 05:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Right so all references must refer to the "American System". You have once again re-inserted unsourced material, depsite your repeated promises to find sources. Go start an article about whatever topic you like, but this article is about the "American System". -Will Beback 05:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll add that you are doing this re-write without any consensus, and despite my urgent complaints over your poor sourcing. -Will Beback 05:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please show good faith by removing the unsourced info that I've been asking you to discuss here. -Will Beback 05:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

What you complain of is not unsourced, that is the problem. This article has always been about the overall economic philosophy known by a number of names called the American System by economist Carey and others like Lind "American School" or List "National System". Read List or Carey's books online and you will see this. The title is American System (economics) - pertaining to the philosophy in general of the Hamiltonian economic system American embraced around circa 1861-1932 in full through the GOP and its practices - it states that in the opening clearly. That is what it was always about. The American System Plan of Clay was based on Hamilton's theories, and needs its own article so researches can directly find it as it should be simply as his plan...when they type in the search: American System they will be able to differentiate between the Plan of Clay's and the Philosophy that was behind it that Carey and other's had written about - and not in insolation - This article mentions "National System" and "American School" as two other names used as a description of this philosophy rooted in Hamilton, along with "Protective System". It is quite clear on that. I am willing to add a link to Clay's Plan however to direct reader's to that specific moment in history, that is part of the overall momentum of the philosophy that not only Clay, but Lincoln, Carey, Raymond, and others embraced and well understood as such. Agan Lind, Gill, Batra etc. all speak of this as evidence above in my quotes. My edits are entirely and always in good faith, I always give consideration to others in discussion. Just read my attempts above to collaborate only followed by constant refusal to discuss sources or to even understand this economic philosophy others have written about. --Northmeister 05:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC) -I do keep my promises however - but the qualifiers you put on the questions below are unacceptable because you are basing your questions on Clay's program, not on this articles subject. --Northmeister 05:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not about the "National System". Maybe we should just move it to that name and start fresh with an article about the American System. In any case, the materialk is still unsourced and you are still violating your promise to find sources. Your original research does not belong in this article. -Will Beback 05:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That ok too...I am not out to advocate one particular name. As it is now, fine. Agreed. --Northmeister 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced section #1 Legacy of the American System and renewed interest today

• ==Legacy of the American System and renewed interest today==
• Today, calls for a return to some level of tariff and trade reform are being heard again, including from 'fair trade' advocates Ross Perot, the Reform Party, Pat Choate, Alan Tonelson, Lou Dobbs, William H. Hawkins, and James Fallows; with alternative interpretations offered by Patrick J. Buchanan and Lyndon LaRouche. Those who have shown interest in the internal improvements include persons from both major parties in America, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. There has been increasingly bipartisan collaboration in the U.S. Senate to revive a national commitment to manufacturing and infrastructure. On June 14, 2005, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) formed the Senate Manufacturing Caucus.[91] In addition, Senators Clinton, George Voinovich, and Thomas Carper introduced the Infrastructure Improvement Bill on March 8, 2006. In the press release announcing the bill, Clinton writes that “Our nation’s economic strength throughout history has been inexorably linked to the investments made in our public infrastructure. From the Transcontinental Railroad to the National Highway System, the public sectsectorsvestments in our roads, our waterways, our railways and our aviation systems have defined the bedrock strengths of the American economy and its people."[92] However, no current major political party or candidate has called for a return to the three cardinal points of the American System as it was practiced from 1861-1932.

There is no source to cover anything in this section. I don't mean sources which indicate that HR Clinton has formed a committee - I mean a connection between these people and the American System -by name. -Will Beback 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced section #2 Supporters and opponents

• William McKinley, twenty-fifth President of the United States.
• Andrew Carnegie, leading industrialist and philanthropist.
• Theodore Roosevelt, twenty-sixth President of the United States.
• William H. Taft, twenty-seventh President of the United States.
• Otto Von Bismarck and Germany from 1871-1914.
• Republican Party fully til 1950's, in part until circa 1970's.[93]
• Democratic Party 1932-present with New Deal changes (although differences between rank and file members and leadership over immigration and wages - and the WTO continue).
• Woodrow Wilson, twenty-eighth President of the United States.
• Democratic Party of Cleveland, Bryan, and Wilson until circa 1932, though Southern faction remained to later gravitate to Republican Party of present influencing that party to favor Free-trade over domestic manufacturing and Independence concerns - the original Democratic Party stance until the New Deal.
• Republican Party of Goldwater, Nixon, Reagan, Bush's circa 1964-present in part (not typically rank and file members, but leadership as expressed through Presidents and Senate and some think tanks).
• Adam Smith *-proposed alternative Free Trade and Laissez-faire system
• Karl Marx *-proposed alternative Communist system of total state control

We need sources which refer to these people or institutions and the Americn System, by name. -Will Beback 04:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced section #3 AS in the 20th century

• The last U.S. President's to practice the American System in its original three part form were Theodore Roosevelt, William H. Taft. (Roosevelt, Croly) In 1913 the administration of Woodrow Wilson pressed forward with his New Freedom policy that replaced the National Bank System with the Federal Reserve System, and lowered tariffs to revenue only levels with the Underwood Tariff.

• The election of Warren G. Harding and the Republican Party in 1920 represented a partial return to the American System through restoration of high tariffs, although a shift away from productive investments into speculation by the Federal Reserve System continued. This speculation lead to the Stock Market Crash on Black Friday in October of 1929. President Herbert Hoover responded to this crash and the subsequent bank failures and unemployment by signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, which some economists considered to have deepened the Great Depression, while others disagree.

• The before-said crash and the beginning of the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt can be seen as an end to the Lincoln-Republican version of the American System as originally practiced with high tariff protection and national banking (replaced by the Federal Reserve System). The New Deal, continued infrastructure improvements through the numerous public works projects of the Works Progress Administration (WPA) as well as the creation of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); brought massive reform to the banking system of the Federal Reserve while investing in various ways in industry to stimulate production and control speculation; but abandoned protective tariffs while embracing moderate tariff protection (revenue based 20-30% the normal tariff under this) through reciprocity, choosing to subsidized industry as a replacement.

• Roosevelt's "New Deal" changes remain in place during (controlled Federal Reserve, public works projects, with revenue tariffs and subsidy" ) the Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson administrations. America remained dominant in industrial strength during this era with little competition for her industries and with moderate protection offered through subsidy and revenue tariffs under reciprocity arrangements. (Lind)

• In 1973 when the "Kennedy" Round concluded under President Richard Nixon which cut U.S. tariffs to all time lows, the New Deal orientation towards reciprocity and subsidy ended, which put the United States on a "laissez faire" path including the semi-privatization of the U.S. Post Office (once a Cabinet post) which would become the U.S. Postal Service. The administrations of Ford and Carter continued the Nixonian policies and trade concessions in each successful negotiation. Privatization and "contracting out" continued on through Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush and continues today together with continuing trade concessions/liberalization through NAFTA and CAFTA as well as recent mass in-sourcing of cheap labor through the 1990's and 2000's and under current President George Bush. (Gill, Batra, Lind)

This is a long essay on 20th century economic policy. Lind apparently just says that the AS "inspired" economic policy. If so we can summarize it in a sentence. We need sources which mention the American System, by name, in reference to all of these ideas. In particlar, let me ask about this:

• The before-said crash and the beginning of the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt can be seen as an end to the Lincoln-Republican version of the American System as originally practiced with high tariff protection and national banking (replaced by the Federal Reserve System).

Can be seen? That is a clsssic weasel phrase. -Will Beback 04:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced section #4 - Centennial Expo

• After ten years of this system the American centennial celebration, celebrated in 1876 in Philadelphia at the Centennial Exposition, was formally opened by President Ulysses S. Grant [94], and served as a showcase for the achievements of the United States[95]. Prominently featured were innovations of science and technology as applied to infrastructure. Among the items on display were the gigantic Corliss Engine developed by George Corliss, and the telephone of Alexander Graham Bell. The centennial was a celebration of American Independence and innovation as well as over ten years of industrial strength under the three policies enacted during Lincoln's administration. Foreign nationals left the exposition with an admiration for the progress America had made since the last such expo in 1851. [96] According to the Free Library of Philadelphia's "Centennial Exhibition" website, "In 1851 America had been embarrassed by its inability to compete on a par with other nations at the Crystal Palace Exhibition. By 1876 foreign visitors were impressed and captivated by American progress and industrial know-how." [97]

No one is quetioning that the expo occurred, which is all that the references support. Its presence strongly implies that the expo is a product of the American System. We need a source for that connection. Which source about the American System are we summarizing when we mention Bell and Corliss? -Will Beback 05:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Will Beback, is moving against consensus material around, I ask that he stop his vandalism against agreement. I ask that other admins step in and stop this abuse and lack of good faith. --Northmeister 23:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, we agreed yo'd move your material to another article, which has happened. Why did you move it back? -Will Beback 00:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Because our arrangement was to keep your 'name change' to national system (economics) and to keep American System (Henry Clay program) and the redirect from American System (economics) as both National/American System are the same, as is Protective System etc. This solved the problem until you undid this. Researchers would be able to type in American System and get both options...which are both correct. The new changes (economic system) is more accurate so there is American System (economic system) and American System (Henry Clay program) to distinguish the two things and for both us to move on to other things instead of an endless debate over semantics - your interpretation of American System vs. mine which is really the system versus the program of Clay's - as Clay's program was based on the system (America-National-Protective as it was often called by different supporters) but is apart in so much as a distinct portion thereof he advocated for the Whig program. --Northmeister 01:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WILL BEBACKS ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR

I have restored the original pages and if this continues will restore the original name which is just as fitting as National System, which was changed arbitrarily. This user Will Beback has shown his lack of good faith here and shows he has no reason to be here but to vandalise and stalk this user and others who disagree with him. He has been a part of several arbcom cases against him charging him with the same offenses and I ASK HE STOP HIS ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR. I am not longer bound by any agreement with him and no longer will engage with him because of this behavior and abuse and lack reasonable discussion. Such behavior is unbecoming of an admin. --Northmeister 23:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

We agreed on the change. The American System (economics) is the plan that Henry Clay named, not the National System. We also agreed that you would find sources for the disputed info that you keep writing. Please honor those agreements. -Will Beback 00:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

NO, we did not agree. And, I am more a novice at this...so I restored moved the pages around improperly - so I am in process of restoring everything to where it should be. I am not longer obligated to correspond with your abusive behavior. I tried and you have continually harassed me with use of admin knowledge - such as unilateral page move to National System, which I agreed, ok same thing but American System (Henry Clay program) stays...and you move again to change the very nature of the article. Enough! You have not acted with me cordially or in good faith. I may not be an admin and you may abuse your privledges from here to enternity but I will not accept this arrangement any longer. Enough is enough already. --Northmeister 00:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote "That ok too...I am not out to advocate one particular name. As it is now, fine. Agreed. --Northmeister 06:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)" That looked like an agreement to me. -Will Beback 00:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

How about we discuss and find a consensus on how things "should be" instead of you just doing whatever you want? -Will Beback 00:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the shoe on the other foot? I have always tried to work with you, read through the discussions we've had - but what you've done isn't right and is abusive of your admin powers. --Northmeister 00:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a process of restoration

I invite all good faith collaboration. This is a restoration of the American System page that was unilaterally changed to National System, by another user. The American System (Henry Clay program) speaks to Henry Clay's economic plan based on THIS SYSTEM'S economic principles outlined by Alexander Hamilton in his three reports, by Friedrich List in his "National System of Political Economy" and "Outlines of American Political Economy" and well as Henry Carey's "Harmy of Interest" which mentions the American System (economic system) by name as a uniform philosophy that Lincoln, advised by Carey put into practice in 1861 that lasted until 1932 when FDR changed the system's reliance on tariff protection to subsidy and revenue duties. --Northmeister 01:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice of a short attempt to work this out

For for a little while, maybe a week, I am going to try to work this out by asking Will Beback to not edit this article and to not address Northmeister; and for Northmeister to not address Will Beback and to simply give the below a try. I will work with Northmeister and see if progress can be made in making sure everything in the article is Verifyable, NPOV, and Not Original Research. My intent at this moment is that everything Will Beback finds questionable is to go into some other article (I don't care which). Let's try this out. Thanks. WAS 4.250 16:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not approve removing material that is factual and resourced, regardless of whether another user objects, unless that user has a source indicating my sourcing to be wrong. I do however approve of your attempts to help out. I like some of the things you've done. But, the revert you've done I do not approve of; as it has reverted all my efforts and hours of work. I created American System (Henry Clays program) for Henry Clay's specific program. This article pertains to the American System/National System/Protective System/American School practiced by the United States from 18610-1932 in full; and then thereafter from 1932-1973 when we entered the Free Trade era fully based on the assumptions of Free Market reforms - through de-regulation and so forth. Batra speaks of this; as does Gill on our tariff and monetary policy; as does Lind on the Hamiltonian system he call's the American School of National Economy that inspired Clay's "American System" program - Carey's analysis of the American Hamiltonian philosophy that was opposing the British Smithian Philosophy (of Free Trade) at the time in his book "Harmony of Interest" calls this the "American System"; Friedrich List a leading economist of the nineteenth century in his book of the same name called this system the "National System" to compare it with Smith's Free Trade/Market System. The GOP who enacted Clay's plan when in power during the Civil War (Transcontinental Railroad, National Banking Act, Morrill Tariffs reaching 48% protection) maintained this system of economics afterwards and did not embrace the Adam Smith version of capitalism rooted in unregulated economic activity and free trade known in modern parlance as "Free Market" or "Market Economy" - "Laissez Faire". This continued through Grant's, Haye's, Garfield's-Arthur's, Harrison's, McKinley's, T. Roosevelt's, Taft's administrations. Woodrow Wilson and the Democratic Party who had opposed the Republican Party on trade and economic policy (including banking originally) passed the Underwood Tariff lowering tariffs to all time lows on a revenue only basis - passed the Federal Reserve Act that transfered power of monetary decisions from the Treasury and National Bank System controlled by government to the Federal Reserve Bank and Open Market Committee thereof controlled by private bankers that lead to the 1920's speculation boom that lead to the Stock Market Crash - bank failures - and a general recession all combining to form the Great Depression. Harding, Coolidge, Hoover each restored and maintained the protective tariff, while keeping the FED's changes - so a partial return to the original economic system and policy of the USA that the GOP often called "Protective System or Policy" or on rare occasions in the 20th Century "American System" and "National System" each referring to the same thing. FDR came into power in 1932. He passed several banking reforms and recommitted the USA to a policy of internal improvement's through massive public works (to alleviate the Depression) through the WPA, PWA, CCC, NRA, and TVA. He also pushed subsidy of industry as a better form of protection (since we were dominant by then...which was always the goal of the American System - followed by reciprocity to trade surpluses) followed by Reciprocity arrangements lowering tariffs to the average of 30% - this regulated FED, public works investments in infrastructure, and subsidy/reciprocity became the new American System of economics practiced from 1932-1973 when the Nixon administration concluded the Kennedy Round of trade and slashed US tariffs to all time lows - began a campaign of deregulation of the economy (de-subsidization as well) etc. that Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton who signed NAFTA/GATT-WTO, Bush who signed CAFTA-wants Amnesty and Guest Workers for cheap labor had pursued as the policy directly at odds with the American-National System/School practiced by the USA from 1861-1973. If you want a point by point show of this from the authors I provide and how they and not I synthesize this - like Gill, Batra, and Lind - then we are working on a solution. But, I will not remove credible material to placate someone (Will) who does not understand economic history. I will simply provide the sources and write the material on them. --Northmeister 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Say the word and I'm gone. WAS 4.250 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I think your help is needed - straighten this out. I want to start from where the article was...and work from there. If anything should be removed, because it is not sourced or whatnot - then I am for it. I just do not approve reverting back to Will's version - why not the version before he unilaterally changed it when I was out for a month? That doesn't make sense. Anyway - What you've begun is good - we need to continue. --Northmeister 00:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

See Also section

Why the delete of the See Also section? --Northmeister 02:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You insisted on filling it with stuff that doesn't belong for many reasons. Let's work on getting this article as good as we can and set aside disputed items for now. Once the article is as good as we can get it without disputed items (I'm thinking maybe a week to do that) then let's deal with disputed stuff. WAS 4.250 11:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I am liking what you've done so far. I added 'also known as National System' as this Hamiltonian economic philosophy was called that by Friedrich List as well. --Northmeister 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence = "The American System (also known as the National System) is the economic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American civil war until sometime in the twentieth century (exactly when is debated)."

• I am not sure I like the ending of this opening sentence "sometime in the twentieth century" - it sounds ambivelant as the GOP ran the country with this system until 1913 and then with the FED from 1921-1932. Batra clearly states that the Free Market/Free Trade era began in 1973 as does Buchanan and Gill (see my quotes I provide in discussion above from Batra). Maybe to take out the ambivelance it could end thus: "until the mid twentieth century when the country moved to a free-market/trade orientation (exactly when this occured is debated)." - What do you think? --Northmeister 15:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Seen the new opening, looks good and better written than my suggestion. --Northmeister 16:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Made minor change - like new style of article. It reads well as far as I can see on first look. You took out the centennial, but that is not necessary for the article in light of the changes made. Good work - this is what I wanted all along - someone working with me to improve this article for the better. --Northmeister 18:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Legacy section

"Today, calls for a return to some level of Hamilton's economic philosophy through tariff and trade protection are being heard again, including from 'fair trade' advocates Ross Perot, the Reform Party, Pat Choate, Alan Tonelson, Lou Dobbs, William H. Hawkins, and James Fallows; with alternative interpretations offered by Patrick J. Buchanan and Lyndon LaRouche. Those who have shown interest in the internal improvements by government include persons from both major parties in America, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. There has also been increasingly bipartisan collaboration in the U.S. Senate to revive a national commitment to manufacturing and infrastructure. On June 14, 2005, Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) formed the Senate Manufacturing Caucus.

In addition, Senators Clinton, George Voinovich, and Thomas Carper introduced the Infrastructure Improvement Bill on March 8, 2006. In the press release announcing the bill, Clinton writes that “Our nation’s economic strength throughout history has been inexorably linked to the investments made in our public infrastructure. From the Transcontinental Railroad to the National Highway System, the public sectsectorsvestments in our roads, our waterways, our railways and our aviation systems have defined the bedrock strengths of the American economy and its people.""

I am in favor of keeping a Legacy section, shown above. The one once there, that you took out, might need work - but some commentary on the rising tide in some parts for a return to this system needs to be offered here or we would overlooking why Batra, Gill and others have been offering scholarly works on the subject or why Dobbs and Buchanan have offered their books - or why there was a heated debate over CAFTA and NAFTA recently and in the 1990's or the inherent reasons behind Perot's run and later efforts agaisnt NAFTA. In other words, the present trend since 1973 towards "Free Market/Trade" orientation of the US economy has had strong advocates agaisnt who often right of the system once in place as a starting point for reversal of such policy since 1973. We should start with what was there here, and re-work it to be what is appropriate - if you felt it was not right for the article. -What are your thoughts on this? --Northmeister 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's work on it at Talk:American System (economic system)/sandbox until we get it good enough to go into the article. Try your hand at it first. I'm not sure what to do besides remove it. WAS 4.250 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Added my rewrite to sandbox. See what you think. --Northmeister 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I added it to the article. WAS 4.250 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The changes are good, but you left out a whole key issue: fair trade pertaining to the tariff and protection of industry. --Northmeister 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It got good enough to go "live", so now we can edit it live. WAS 4.250 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. I added the fair trade stuff. Feel free to tweak it, if you feel it needs improvement. There should be some mention of the US Industry and Business Council that is headed by Tonelson - strong advocates for a return to traditional tariff and trade - policy. --Northmeister 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's all about sourcing in an unbiased way. I think some kind of quote for free trade is need. And multinational corporatism. And globalism. In the legacy section. It is a real debate. A one quip per side approach seems fair. As for me, I think anything but pragmatic mixed economy is nuts. WAS 4.250 23:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree about pragmatism. The fair trade stuff in legacy can still be tweaked to make it fit better. The entire point is this stuff is still debated, and a return to the traditional American System policy; is not far-fetched considering the changing climate of debate in the USA. But my commentary is neither here nor there. I am liking the article that has come out of our efforts. I will re-read it again; but I feel is it fair, balanced, accurate, and tells the story according to sourced information. I think a link to Clay's program would be possible here - at the right point in the article, and an expansion on the philosophy part considering List's, Hamilton's, Carey's, Raymond's, explanation thereof in their books. Something that can be worked on over time. --Northmeister 23:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by: "I think some kind of quote for free trade is need. And multinational corporatism. And globalism. In the legacy section."? --Northmeister 00:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. As near as I can tell, we both believe we have a good article. But it could be better. Let us bask in the glory of a well fashioned gift to all while we can, for the carping will begin soonest. WAS 4.250 00:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I think the article looks better than before. I really appreciate all your help. Wikipedia articles are always a work in progress. So expect what you said will happen to be the case. In any way, I want to personally thank you for the effort made. This sort of collaboration is what I was looking for all along. --Northmeister 01:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I have no plans for further changes to the article. But it would be more NPOV if additions were made in the legacy section reflecting other opinions. Although I won't be the person to add them, when someone does they need to be encyclopedic (noteable), verifyable, and about being pro or con the key policy points and NOT pro or con people or institutions that are accused of being pro or con this or that. None of this pro or anti Dem party, Rep party or individuals belongs in this article. Just noteable opinions pro or con the key policies that define the American System. WAS 4.250 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, it has been a joy working with you. I found your behavior to be polite, easy-going, well-mannered, informed, eager to make Wikipedia better, never using foul language, never changing the subject from how to improve the article to other things like personal issues, all-in-all a wonderful Wikipedian. What a pleasure it has been. I look forward to working with you anytime anywhere on anything. WAS 4.250 17:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The same is extended to you. Thanks. --Northmeister 17:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Merger

The American System (Henry Clay program) is a POV fork of this article. Unless this article is made entirely about a separate topic, the two articles should be merged. -Will Beback 02:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:DISRUPT, You know full well from your contentious past here that this article and the Henry Clay article are two separate articles - one on the economic system (this article) that inspired Clay to pronounce his support thereof by name in a speech before congress American System (Henry Clay program) which speaks to the specific Whig program based on this articles philosophy he favored. You are simply here once again to disrupt wikipedia to make a point, wiki-stalking my edits to the Elvis Presley page and dishonoring agreements made between yourself, WAS, and myself. This current fad of yours is another POV attempt to insert your uninformed view into an article you have repeatedly shown no knowledge of; and which you have history of personal insult and bias against this editor; including continued accusation of false political ties and leanings. Any editor may perview this in the record kept here. I protest in the highest terms and advise all editors so reading to regard what this editor is and what he has begun once again after a proper, well researched, collaborated article was forged in the manner Wikipedia is proud to call its own. --Northmeister 02:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have been editing this article since long before you ever came to Wikipedia. Another editor requested that I let him work with you on the article for a week without my involvement. I agreed. Before I could follow up he was called away from editing so I waited for his return to ask for his report. When I looked now there was no longer any mention anywhere of the basic history of the American System. It had disappeared. I haven't see anyone editing the article recently, so I assume that other editors feel it was complete. While I appreciate that there is some progress, such as the omission of the Centennial Expo, the article still suffers from the same problems as before. I am eager to work with everybody to bring it into better shape.

I suggest that the first order of business is to move the American System (Henry Clay program) material back in here so that we can edit the overall topic more cogently. If we need to split it into more than one article then it may make more sense to do so in another way, such as American System (19th century)/American System (20th century) or American System (Henry Clay)/American System (Alexander Hamilton). -Will Beback 08:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Until you provide me with credible sources and quotes from those sources you are using then I DO NOT accept your edits here. You have shown a lack of understanding indicated by the history above. I am for umpteenth time, officially requesting your sources and quotes indicating what you say. I've repeatedly given my sources and you run in circles asking the same questions over and over. It is now time for yours. Without them, your simply here to disrupt editing in a continued harassment of myself - which for the umpteenth time I ask you STOP. Again, I will not accept your editing here under any circumstances without VERIFIABLE SOURCES, for the edits you make. --Northmeister 15:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, please do me a favor. Please add the material from American System (Henry Clay program) to this article in a subsection all its own and restore it as a redirect, please. When that subsection outgrows this article, it would be useful at that time to split it off as a seperate article. But for now, it harms nothing to put it here in its own subsection. Thanks in advance for being understanding. By the way, providing a source is always good. WAS 4.250 09:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the article material into the history section for now. However, this article already covered a good portion of that article. The American System (Henry Clay program) was originally created because Willbeback's narrow definition and so as not to confuse would be seekers of Clay's specific speech!, and advocacy of the system already advocated by others including those mentioned in this article. What Willbeback has failed repeatedly to do; is to indicate what sources he is using to indicate America was NOT under American System economic philosophy in the early twentieth century and why he rejects actual sources I've already given, from that era indicating the use of the term. Also, the term as the article states was interchangeable with National System as List used it, and with Protective System - eventually especially by the opposing side Protectionism was used as a standard term. However, as can be seen, we are not speaking of 'protectionism' in and of itself, we are speaking of the economic system of the USA - which from 1860's forward was the same philosophy - infrastructure improvements by government, national banking system for sound currency and to encourage production, and tariff protections to promote and protect domestic industry. That is both common knowledge and also been written about by the numerous authors I've already given thus far and by others. Thus, the article title American System (economic system) as opposed to the narrow article American System (Henry Clay program) or American System (manufacturing) which also exists. Plus, the charge of original research is ridiculous and constantly refuted by sources. WAS, I honored your request out of respect for your sincerity here. I've compromised and collaborated to get a harmonious article. I will not agree to further deletion of material that is relevant and sourced. I consider Willbebacks motivation here to be harassing and his continued interference in my edits across wikipedia as a case of wiki-stalking. This users history indicates this with others and I am not going to tolerate such abuse, I shouldn't have to do so. --Northmeister 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, thank you for honoring my request. It is my intention to work with both you and Beback in an attempt to improve this article. Towards that purpose, I suggest we remove nothing sourced and encyclopedic just because maybe it should be in an article with another name. When the article is in a condition so that the only issue is where to put the material, then we can decide that. In the end perhaps this article simply gets a new title, like National system (concept) or gets broken into time periods per Beback. But for now let's get everything right other than the exact name of article which parts of this should go in. The legacy subsection is going to be especially problematic and may deserve an article all by itself. Northmeister, maybe you could create a seperate article United States current economic policy debate? WAS 4.250 18:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

WAS as you know from your past experience, I am more than reasonable and open to collaboration. All I request from Will is that he start by providing the sources he is using for this page. I've amply done so myself. I wish you would read the previous encounters between Will and Myself over this page. I've constantly given him the benefit of the doubt, tried to side with him on issues, placate his worries, agreed to take out centennial and LaRouche as a supporter because of his concerns here and a whole host of other concessions to address the main reason why he has interest in this article. What do I get in return? ---To paraphrase - "Original Research" - "Your a LaRouchie" - "LaRouche is the only one who supports this concept" - "LaRouche" "LaRouche" "LaRouche"....Me thinks someone does protest to much - and about nothing and about a man who has little clout, is little known, and who supports but did not invent the American System. That is the reason and motivation behind Will...he will not accept collaboration, will not provide sources, will not read my sources, will not listen to you, will not accept that he is wrong, will not offer any postive edits - in other words, I've been through all this before. It is tiresome for obvious reasons. We've worked out a productive model of an article, that though not perfect is clear, concise, and has ample (more than most articles) documentation - Will on the other hand has been through several arbcom cases for his abuse and continues to abuse wikipedia priveledges to foster his own agenda. I will not work with someone of such character who has NEVER assumed good faith with me. Who has blantantly labeled me and called me a variety of things I am not; never extending goodwill and observations my way. I've offered time and time again to work with him despite this on other articles and here, and he refuses or accepts then repudiates the agreement. I do not accept his uninformed definition of American System, American history and I do not accept his contributions as anything but disruptive edits to prove a point WP:DISRUPT. Read what has transpired here previously and ask yourself, if I haven't been down this road with him before. I have ... and I've had enough of his harassment. I appreciate your efforts though and I will listen to all you have to say or want to do and consider it - I am not here to forward an agenda or to promote anything - except accuracy. So I applaud your attempt to make this work. --Northmeister 23:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

DiLorenzo

Thomas J. DiLorenzo's scholarship is not my cup of tea, but he is a notable modern critic of Abraham Lincoln. The view of Lincoln as a tyrant is not as fringe as we might like. NPOV calls for us to include all significant points of view. Not only should the link to "Henry Clay: National Socialist" be included, but we should also summarize his view just as we should summarize the views of other modern scholars, like Gill and Lind. Not everybody has described the American System in glowing terms. The opposition to it has been mentioned without real explanation. Rather than cutting anything at this point, let's focus on adding more about the history and criticism, both areas which are lacking. -Will Beback 04:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding sourced encyclopedic data is good. Please suggest unbiased expert quotes we should add as sources so we can evaluate them and complement the article with a balanced selection. As the "American System" proved very successsful, I'm sure you would agree contrary-to-fact criticism makes little sense unless properly framed. I think its better to start with good quotes(sources), than to start with assertions and try to find quotes(sources) that fit them. WAS 4.250 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to provide sources and the first one I add is challenged. If we can only add unbiased quotes, then most of the quotes in the article must be removed, as most of them are from proponents. Was Stewart an unbiased commentator? Hardly. I agree that we should start with sources, which is why I added back one of the few modern critical discussions of the American System. I don't see why there should be so much objection to the link. -Will Beback 06:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: At no pooint does DiLorenzo call Clay a "Nazi". He has a different meaning in mind for "National Socialist". -W.

Your addition http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=92&sortorder=articledate Henry Clay: National Socialist by Thomas J. DiLorenzo] Criticism of the American System from the Ludwig von Mises Institute was deleted by Northmeister who gave the reason Calling clay a national socialist is Fringe - Discussion already decided not to have this in the article a long time ago which editor was party to. I think it best to not revisit this issue, in exactly the same way I think it best not to revist the LaRouche issue. We want to make progress. I have no interest in getting bogged down in debate. I'm sure the politics of the period will supply plenty of criticism that we can use. WAS 4.250 13:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What about this paper, also by DiLorenzo? It's more directly about the American System, and is a much longer treatment. "The Role Of Private Transportation In America’s 19th-Century “Internal Improvements” Debate". -Will Beback 06:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises Institute says "The Mises Institute's stated goal is to undermine statism in all its forms." Anything from them would be like quoting the KKK on racism. You can prove the KKK is racist by quoting them, but you can't prove anything else. So too with quoting Mises and their people; one can prove they are against it but nothing else. Not even why the nelieve what they say they believe. Is the Klan to be bekieved when they give their sorry assed excuses? No. Anybody with an axe to grind can't be trusted as a source for objective reality. Only as a source for what they say and think. I suggest politics of the late 1800's as a place to find criticism we can use. It can go in the history section as history of the partisan debates about the American System, with us providing what competing politicians said about it to each other, in other words paired quotes from the same elections so they are talking about the same things. In different elections there are different issues, so the context differs from one election to the next. And thus what "American System" meant to the polititians and voters changed from one election to the next. Just as it means something different to you and North than it did to Clay and Clay's opponets. WAS 4.250 14:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The LvMI is not the KKK, and the comparison is not reasonable. I'd note that this article now uses references to or by Patrick Buchanan, who is also considered a fringe character. I'm amazed that there is so much opposition to the inclusion to a link to a scholarly article. Have all the other links and sources been similarly vetted? (Speaking of which, the sources, references, further reading, external links, etc are a big mess. Making those more regular should be an early task). -Will Beback 23:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No they are not the KKK but they are not an unbiased source. Sorry if I upset you with the comparison. Perhaps I should have compared then to the Dem or Rep parties as being biased sources. Thanks for bringing up Pat. I just deleted "*Controversial politicians such as: Patrick J. Buchanan and Ralph Nader." We are a work in progress and all sources are subject to continual verification. I don't like all the further reading myself, but I know no reason (Wiki-excuse?) to alter it. Perhaps you do and then we can fix it. As for being amazed, what would your reaction be to a LaRouche link? I don't care myself, but you two need to accept a little give and take here. No Larouche and no Mises. For now. When this article's only two remaining problem's are those two, I can go away and leave you two to fight. WAS 4.250 00:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

LaRouche links are banned by the ArbCom. LvMI links are not. They are not comparable. -Will Beback 01:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You are changing the subject. While I am accepted as mediating, helping, whatever you want to call it, neither is helpful in making progress. I'm not sticking around this article all that much longer, so what till I'm gone and you can fight it out with whoever does stick around, ok? My only point here is for now drop it. Please. WAS 4.250 17:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cartoon

The cartoon is about the American System, the topic of this article. It contributes more than the portraits of Clay, Hamilton, and Lincoln, whose appearance tells us nothing about the American System. The cartoon is a contemporary criticism expressed as a political cartoon. NPOV requires that we include criticism. -Will Beback 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Who drew it? Who published it? When? Why? What was the rebuttle? Why is this cartoon significant? What information about the "American System" do we wish to convey to our readers? Is this the best way to convey that information? I suspect that using words to descibe the ins and outs of the politics surrounding the American System will be a far better tool for the job, and once we have those words, this cartoon can illustrate those words. Right now there is simply no good context for the cartoon in this article. So first lets get words on the politics behind the cartoon. Or put the cartoon at Talk:American System (economic system)/needs context. It shouldn't go live without appropriate context. WAS 4.250 13:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a remarkable standard, one which I've never seen applied to any other information or source. Should this be our standard for all images and sources? If not, then it shouldn't be the standard for this one. What info do those complimentary portraits add? Why are they significant? What were the rebutals to those pictures? If they can't be established then those images should also be removed. What are the rebutals to the various quotations? This cartoon is taken from a well-regarded history of the U.S. by Charles Beard. The context of the cartoon is that it is a contemporary reaction to the topic of the article. The topic of the article is the American System, not the appearance of Clay, Lincoln or Hamilton. -Will Beback 23:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What good is the cartoon? Explain to me what useful encyclopedic information it is supposed to convey to the reader. I don't get how it it suppossed to help the article. Help me out here. Does it accurately portray a flaw in the "American System"? Who is Charles Beard? What I am not getting, other readers also will not get. The issue is what words are needed to accomplany the cartoon. I don't know. I know the article does not have the needed accompanying words. WAS 4.250 00:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Charles A. Beard is one of the best known popular historians of the mid-20th century. Here is a link to his book, [98], which is the source for this image. Yes, we can explain what is going on in the image - basically it is a row of caged monkeys, each of whom is stealing from the other's food dish. The complaint is that it is a scheme to redistribute wealth. Let's add the cartoon back and work on the text. If a contemporary criticism isn't allowed and a modern criticsm isn't allowed then this article will be hopelessly POV. -Will Beback 01:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I have an idea for a proper caption that can provide context. I'll put it in. I expect you'll approve, since its your own words. WAS 4.250 17:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Keynesian?

• During the century, it evolved into Keynesian economics which promotes a type of mixed economy. Instead of the economic process being based on continuous improvements in potential output, as most classical economists had believed from the late 1700s on, Keynes asserted the importance of aggregate demand for goods as the driving factor of the economy, especially in periods of downturn. Towards the end of the 20th century Free Market policies were increasingly adopted; justified by arguments from the Classical, Supply-side, and Austrian schools of economic thought. Monetarism strongly limits American Free Market policies and can be seen as a continuation of the third core policy (financial infrastructure) of the "American System".

What is our source for the "fact" that the American System evolved into Keynesian economics, and all of the other assertions in this paragraph? -Will Beback 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you agree with the fact that in the year 1900 the "American System" in some way is representative, identified or otherwise properly associated with either policies or practices concerninh Macroeconimics in the US? And if not then why not. Prove you are not playing games by answering that question or in some other way. Otherwise, simply read all the references in the linked articles and the references in the articles they link and so forth. But let's not play games. Let's make the article better. WAS 4.250 16:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not playing games - I'm asking for which source supports these assertions. As far as I can tell, most sources seem to place McKinley as the last gasp of the American System. So if the question was moved to 1904, then I'd say "no". Keynesian Economics wasn't created until decades later. Saying that this information is somewhere in the references used by some of the dozens of articles we reference is like telling me to find a needle in a haystack. Don't you play games either, please. If you know where this information came from then say so. If you don't then let's remove it. -Will Beback 20:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In your opinion, what came between the American System and Keynesian economics other than the evolutoion of one into another. I bet this is just semantics. Phrase it how you want and I'll bet I agree it is good enough to replace the way I expressed the transition. I'm glad neither of us are playing games. WAS 4.250 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to summarize a source that doesn't exist. I prefer that the material be moved to the talk page while we search for sources to support it. Once we agree that it properly reflects reliable sources, then we can move it back. -Will Beback 22:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is accurately and adequately souced by the sources at the linked sites. Do not detete information you believe to be true or are ignorant of its truth. If you assert that some part of it is in fact false then state clearly what the truth is that would stand in its stead. Simply asserting ignorance on your part is not sufficient to delete or remove part of wikipedia. WAS 4.250 02:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand - there are no linked sites in this paragraph. Which sources are you referring to? -Will Beback 04:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding verifiability: I am not sure that we have the same understanding to Wikipedia's principles. To me, WP:V means that any editor should be able to verify the material in an article using reliable sources. There are something on the order of 50 direct references, some rather obscure. Presumably those sources each have dozens of sources of their own, even hundreds. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the direct assertion that the AS evolved into Keynesianism is a) so obvious as to be common knowledge, or b) adequately sourced somewhere among the thousands of sources and sub-sources involved in this article, and that either way c) the request for a specific source is a disruptive game. I hope I've misread all of that, but that is how it appears to me. In response to these possible strawmen, I'd say that a) there is no part of 19th century American political history which qualifies under Wikipedia:Common knowledge, b) every direct assertion needs to be verifiable. To say that Fifth Avenue runs north-south would be one thing but to say that one economic philosophy turned into another is an opinion. Unless it is very widely held, we need to represented it as an opinion. Whose opinion is it? c) This article is being written to a very high degree of sourcing and verifiability. I expect that all material will be required to be fully sourced. That's a good thing. -Will Beback 05:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You say Also, regarding verifiability: I am not sure that we have the same understanding to Wikipedia's principles. To me, WP:V means that any editor should be able to verify the material in an article using reliable sources. You are mistaken. It is the normal case that an editor lacking prerequisites will not be able to connect the source data to the article content. WAS 4.250 18:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Prerequisites or not, if we can't find sources for it I will remove it, per WP:RS. -Will Beback 19:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove {fact} tags without providing a source. The whole Keynesianism paragraph is unsourced. -Will Beback 21:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ideas that might help us make progress

I have the idea we might make progress if we assumed our differences in what we wish to put in the article are semantic rather than based on differneces in opinion concerning objective fact. In other words, let's ignore sources for now and just get the semantics to the point we both agree it is accurate. We can worry about sources when we disagree on an objective fact. I don't see that as occurring yet. WAS 4.250 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to create a plan to move forward, but I suggest that you have it backwards. We should start with the sources and then see what they say. We shouldn't decide what we want to say and then try to find sources to back it up. -Will Beback 20:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The sources are the ones I named. What goes here is such a small subset that decide what we want to say and then try to find sources to back it up is the only way to figure out which of the millions of words of evidence are specifically relevant to whatever we wind up with. WAS 4.250 20:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not following - which sources have you named, or where did you name them? -Will Beback 23:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested reading material

Is there anything on the web, not too long, that would help me understand your point of view so that I can help us make this article good enough so we can move on to other things? WAS 4.250 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please write here

something you would like to see somewhere in the article. Don't worry yet about sources. WAS 4.250 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A. the actual history of the American System.

B. criticisms of the American System.

-Will Beback 23:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Please rewrite here

a paragraph that replaces mine that you feel corrrectly describes the relationship of "American system" to

1. Keynesian economics
2. mixed economy
3. classical economics
4. Free Market
5. Classical economics
6. Supply-side economics
7. Austrian School
8. Monetarism

Don't worry about sources at this point. WAS 4.250 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The American System was a predecessor to most of those. Unless the creators of, or commentators about, the Austrian System, Keynesian economics, etc, have referenced the American System then I don't see any connection. It's not for us to decide, we're just here to summarize reliable sources. What sources do you have to describe these relationships? -Will Beback 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you see a connection? Theories are like species in that it is a simplification to think of all examples as being the same. Individuals vary, as do individuals' understandings of theories. It is a simplification to think of all theories with different names as being so different that none can be thought of as the same thing under a different name. One looks at the substance of a policy or economy or theory and comparing its componets one can see the relationship between things with different names that yet identify or signify the same or near same thing. If x=(a,b,c) and y=(a,b,c) then x=y even if no one actually says so. What looks like original research to someone unfamiliar with a subject can be so obvious to the experts that they don't bother to mention it. Then again, sometimes it is original research. WAS 4.250 20:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

For us to say that X=Y, when no one else has said so, is original research even if it's obvious to you. If the idea that X=Y is notable then it will have been recorded by a verifiable, reliable source. Until we find such a source I think the material should be removed. As far as theories being species, species are thoroughly described with each variation getting a separate name. Horses may have evolved from hippos, but we don't treat both in the same article, and we don't make that assertion just because, as editors, it is obvious to us. We say it because scientists have said so. -Will Beback 22:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

American System SOURCES A-Z

Everything below is a BRIEF (although long) synopsis of the American System. The following are extracts from sources used, as well as the sources themselves, especially at the end. Much has been written on it - both old and new (see sources section below) - I provide brief and long quotes trying to put them in chronological order - PRIMARY SOURCES (preferred here at Wikipedia) and SECONDARY SOURCES that provide the historical/economic picture and synthesis that is not mine but: writers, historians, and economists throughout history. I apologize for the length, but I feel it necessary due to misconceptions shown by one editor here about the very nature of American History and Economics - whose only source seems to be LaRouche himself (whom he often accuses others of) whence is where he states "McKinley was the last to practice American System" that is not factual nor accurate - it is a LaRouche Theory (seems to be his only source on the American System). --Northmeister 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

ALEXANDER HAMILTON - GENESIS OF THE AMERICAN SYSTEM -

Hamilton as Publius pronouncing the "American system" he envisioned for the new nation:

• "It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will will add another victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!" -As Publius, speaking of trade and commerce prior to Reports.

Hamilton as 1st Secretary of the Treasury and the nature of his philosophy:

• "Hamilton got to work drawing up reports, requested by congress, detailing this plan of action. As we have seen, Hamilton spent the better part of his American career puzzling out these issues. Hamilton was greatly influenced by the great 18th century Scottish economists, primarily David Hume, who considered the consequences and possibilities of the merger of their comparatively backwards, agrarian country with Britain, whose economy was largely mercantile. Britain's fiscal underpinnings were comprised of a funded national debt, a large base of paper capital, and a national bank which issued a circulating currency, and regulated fiscal policy and interest rates. The situation of the early 18th century Scots was quite similar to that faced by Hamilton, who needed to plan for the future of a young, underdeveloped country as a competitor in the world market. Hume in particular was cautionary about the British system, but pointed out some advantages to a credit-based economy. Securities, Hume observed, provide ready capital with the value and function of specie, the availability of which enables merchants to engage in more extensive trade enterprises, which in turn makes commodities cheaper and easier to procure, and thus helps spread "arts and industry throughout the whole society." Landed wealth, Hume contended, makes "country gentlemen" out of wealthy merchants; whereas paper capital fosters a more international mentality, and a more diverse economy. However, Hume emphasized the many evils of a credit-based economy, warning that a funded debt necessitates oppressive taxes to pay the interest, creates dangerous disparities in wealth, indebts the nation to foreign powers, and renders the stock holders largely idle and useless for everything but playing the market. Hume felt that the evils greatly outweighed the advantages. Hamilton dismissed Hume's warnings and instead focused on the positive aspects of national credit; the continuing vitality of the British economy was enough to prove the efficacy of their system. Hamilton based his program primarily on the British model, with variations more suited to the United States' unique characteristics. Public credit was to become the pillar of Hamilton's fiscal reform package, the "invigorating principle" which would infuse the United States with the energy and international respectability he had envisioned. In order to stimulate the economy, Hamilton needed big investors. The support and capital of the nation's wealthiest citizens would provide the foundation and security of his system. He wrote in 1780: "The only plan that can preserve the currency is one that will make it to the immediate interest of the monied men to cooperate with the government in its support. ...No plan could succeed which does not unite the interest and credit of rich individuals with that of the state." This was Hamilton's most controversial position about which he was quite frank, and which would incite fierce protest on the part of those who feared that Hamilton aimed to create an aristocracy. Hamilton was, as usual, simply drawing on realities that he felt, although not necessarily equitable, would benefit the nation as a whole in the long run. Securing the support of the wealthy was only a first step in his complete economic picture. The accumulation of wealth was not Hamilton's goal; he wanted to encourage the use of private wealth for beneficial enterprises. Hamilton envisioned a strong economy in which everyone could participate and profit. Landed wealth, represented by the Virginia opposition, was limiting and limited; whereas paper wealth was fluid, and opened up wider vistas in international trade and domestic industrialization. Industry would diversify labor, thus creating more jobs and income sources for a burgeoning population. Hamilton's vision was dynamic and made use of all the possibilities of a young nation with unlimited resources and boundless potential. His reports were the culmination of the vision he had cultivated during his fifteen years as an American," - Biography of A. Hamilton From Revoluton to Reconstruction.

Hamilton's reports forming the basis of the "protective policy" or American System:

• "...a report on a national bank, followed by a great legal argument in the cabinet, which evoked the implied powers of the constitution; a report on manufactures, which discussed with profound ability the problems of political economy and formed the basis of the protective policy of the United States;" -Appleton's Encyclopedia excerpt explaining Hamilton's impact.

Hamilton's Report on the Subject of Manufactures (one of three dealing with the core issues that became the American System's economic philosophy):

• "December 5, 1791 - The Secretary of the Treasury, in obedience to the order of ye House of Representatives, of the 15th day of January, 1790, has applied his attention, at as early a period as his other duties would permit, to the subject of Manufactures; and particularly to the means of promoting such as will tend to render the United States, independent on foreign nations for military and other essential supplies. And he thereupon respectfully submits the following Report.

The expediency of encouraging manufactures in the United States, which was not long since deemed very questionable, appears at this time to be pretty generally admitted. The embarrassments, which have obstructed the progress of our external trade, have led to serious reflections on the necessity of enlarging the sphere of our domestic commerce: the restrictive regulations, which in foreign markets abridge the vent of the increasing surplus of our Agricultural produce, serve to beget an earnest desire, that a more extensive demand for that surplus may be created at home: And the complete success, which has rewarded manufacturing enterprise, in some valuable branches, conspiring with the promising symptoms, which attend some less mature essays, in others, justify a hope, that the obstacles to the growth of this species of industry are less formidable than they were apprehended to be, and that it is not difficult to find, in its further extension, a full indemnification for any external disadvantages, which are or may be experienced, as well as an accession of resources, favorable to national independence and safety.

It is now proper to proceed a step further, and to enumerate the principal circumstances, from which it may be inferred–that manufacturing establishments not only occasion a positive augmentation of the Produce and Revenue of the Society, but that they contribute essentially to rendering them greater than they could possibly be, without such establishments; These circumstances are–

1. The division of labour.

2. An extension of the use of Machinery.

3. Additional employment to classes of the community not ordinarily engaged in the business.

4. The promoting of emigration from foreign Countries.

5. The furnishing greater scope for the diversity of talents and dispositions which discriminate men from each other.

6. The affording a more ample and various field for enterprize.

7. The creating in some instances a new, and securing in all, a more certain and steady demand for the surplus produce of the soil.

Each of these circumstances has a considerable influence upon the total mass of industrious effort in a community: Together, they add to it a degree of energy and effect, which are not easily conceived. Some comments upon each of them, in the order in which they have been stated, may serve to explain their importance.

I. AS TO THE DIVISION OF LABOUR

It has justly been observed, that there is a scarcely any thing of greater moment in the economy of a nation than the proper division of labour. The separation of occupations causes each to be carried to a much greater perfection, than it could possibly acquire, if they were blended. This arises principally from three circumstances–

1st. The greater skill and dexterity naturally resulting from a constant and undivided application to a single object. It is evident, that these properties must increase, in proportion to the separation and simplification of objects and the steadiness of thc attention devoted to each; and must be less in proportion to the complication of objects, and the number among which the attention is distracted.

2nd. The economy of time, by avoiding the loss of it, incident to a frequent transition from one operation to another of a different nature. This depends on various circumstances–the transition itself–the orderly disposition of the implements, machines and materials employed in the operation to be relinquished–the preparatory steps to the commencement of a new one–the interruption of the impulse, which the mind of the workman acquires, from being engaged in a particular operation–the distractions, hesitations and reluctances, which attend the passage from one kind of business to another.

3rd. An extension of the use of Machinery. A man occupied on a single object will have it more in his power, and will be more naturally led to exert his imagination in devising methods to facilitate and abridge labour, than if he were perplexed by a variety of independent and dissimilar operations. Besides this the fabrication of Machines, in numerous instances, becoming itself a distinct trade, the Artist who follows it, has all the advantages which have been enumerated, for improvement in his particular art; and in both ways the invention and application of machinery are extended.

And from these causes united, the mere separation of the occupation of the cultivator, from that of the Artificer, has the effect of augmenting the productive powers of labour, and with them, the total mass of the produce or revenue of a Country. In this single view of the subject, therefore, the utility of Artificers of Manufacturers, towards promoting an increase of productive industry, is apparent.

II. AS TO AN EXTENSION OF THE USE OF MACHINERY, A POINT WHICH, THOUGH PARTLY ANTICIPATED REQUIRES TO BE PLACED IN ONE OR TWO ADDITIONAL LIGHTS

Thc employment of Machinery forms an item of great importance in the general mass of national industry. 'Tis an artificial force brought in aid of thc natural force of man; and, to all the purposes of labour, is an increase of hands; an accession of strength, unencumbered too by the expence of maintaining the laborer. May it not therefore be fairly inferred, that those occupations, which give greatest scope to the use of this auxiliary, contribute most to the general Stock of industrious effort, and, in consequence, to the general product of industry?

It shall be taken for granted, and the truth of the position referred to observation, that manufacturing pursuits are susceptible in a greater degree of the application of machinery, than those of Agriculture. If so all the difference is lost to a community, which, instead of manufacturing for itself, procures the fabrics requisite to its supply from other Countries. The substitution of foreign for domestic manufactures is a transfer to foreign nations of the advantages accruing from the employment of Machinery, in the modes in which it is capable of being employed, with most utility and to the greatest extent.

The Cotton Mill, invented in England, within the last twenty years, is a signal illustration of the general proposition, which has been just advanced. In consequence of it, all the different processes for spinning Cotton are performed by means of Machines, which are put in motion by water, and attended chiefly by women and Children; and by a smaller number of persons, in the whole, than are requisite in the ordinary mode of spinning. And it is an advantage of great moment, that the operations of this mill continue with convenience during the night as well as through the day. The prodigious effect of such a Machine is easily conceived. To this invention is to be attributed essentially the immense progress, which has been so suddenly made in Great Britain, in the various fabrics of cotton.

III. AS TO THE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT OF CLASSES OF THE COMMUNITY, NOT ORIGINALLY ENGAGED IN THE PARTICULAR BUSINESS

This is not among the least valuable of the means, by which manufacturing institutions contribute to augment the general stock of industry and production. In places where those institutions prevail, besides the persons regularly engaged in then, they afford occasional and extra employment to industrious individuals and families, who are willing to devote the leisure resulting from the intermissions of their ordinary pursuits to collateral labours, as a resource for multiplying their acquisitions or their enjoyments. The husbandman himself experiences a new source of profit and support; from the increased industry of his wife and daughters; invited and stimulated by the demands of the neighboring manufactories.

Besides this advantage of occasional employment to classes having different occupations, there is another, of a nature allied to it, and of a similar tendency. This is–the employment of persons who would otherwise be idle (and in many cases a burthen on the community) either from the bias of temper, habit, infirmity of body, or some other cause, indisposing or disqualifying them for the toils of the Country. It is worthy of particular remark, that, in general, women and Children are rendered more useful, and the latter more early useful by manufacturing establishments, than they would otherwise be. Of the number of persons employed in the Cotton Manufactories of Great Britain, it is computed that four sevenths nearly are women and children; of whom the greatest proportion are children, and many of them of a very tender age.

And thus it appears to be one of the attributes of manufactures, and one of no small consequence, to give occasion to the exertion of a greater quantity of Industry, even by the same number of persons, where they happen to prevail, than would exist, if there were no such establishments.

V. AS TO THE FURNISHING GREATER SCOPE FOR THE DIVERSITY OF TALENTS AND DISPOSITIONS, WHICH DISCRIMINATE MEN PROM EACH OTHER

This is a much more powerful means of augmenting the fund of national Industry than may at first sight appear. It is a just observation, that minds of the strongest and most active powers for their proper objects fall below mediocrity and labour without effect, if confined to uncongenial pursuits. And it is thence to be inferred, that the results of human exertion may be Immensely increased by diversifying Its objects. When all the different kinds of industry obtain in a community, each individual can find his proper element, and can call into activity the whole vigour of his nature. And the community is benefited by the services of its respective members, in the manner, in which each can serve it with most effect.

If there be any thing in a remark often to be met with– namely that there is, in the genius of the people of this country, a peculiar aptitude for mechanic improvements, it would operate as a forcible reason for giving opportunities to the exercise of that species of talent, by the propagation of manufactures.

VI. AS TO THE AFFORDING A MORE AMPLE AND VARIOUS FIELD FOR ENTERPRISE.

This also is of greater consequence in the general scale of national exertion, than might perhaps on a superficial view be supposed, and has effects not altogether dissimilar from those of the circumstance last noticed. To cherish and stimulate the activity of the human mind, by multiplying the objects of enterprise, is not among the least considerable of the expedients, by which the wealth of a nation may be promoted. Even things in themselves not positively advantageous, sometimes become so, by their tendency to provoke exertion. Every new scene which is opened to the busy nature of man to rouse and exert itself, is the addition of a new energy to the general stock of effort.

The spirit of enterprise, useful and prolific as it is, must necessarily be contracted or expanded in proportion to the simplicity or variety of the occupations and productions, which are to be found in a Society. It must be less in a nation of mere cultivators, than in a nation of cultivators and merchants; less in a nation of cultivators and merchants, than in a nation of cultivators, artificers and merchants.

VII. AS TO THE CREATING, IN SOME INSTANCES, A NEW, AND SECURING IN ALL A MORE CERTAIN AND STEADY DEMAND FOR SURPLUS PRODUCE OF THE SOIL.

This is among the most important of thc circumstances which have been indicated. It is a principal means, by which the establishment of manufactures contributes to an augmentation of the produce or revenue of a country, and has an immediate and direct relation to the prosperity of Agriculture.

...Considering how fast and how much the progress of new settlements in the United States must increase the surplus produce of the soil, and weighing seriously the tendency of the system, which prevails among most of the commercial nations of Europe, whatever dependence may be placed on the force of natural circumstances to counteract the effects of an artificial policy, there appear strong reasons to regard the foreign demand for that surplus as too uncertain a reliance, and to desire a substitute for it, in an extensive domestic market.

To secure such a market, there is no other expedient, than to promote manufacturing establishments. Manufacturers who constitute the most numerous class, after the Cultivators of land, are for that reason the principal consumers of the surplus of their labour.

...It merits particular observation, that the multiplication of manufactories not only furnishes a Market for those articles which have been accustomed to be produced in abundance in a country, but it likewise creates a demand for such as were either unknown or produced in Inconsiderable quantities. The bowels as well as the surface of the earth are ransacked for articles which were before neglected. Animals, Plants and Minerals acquire a utility and a value which were before unexplored.

The foregoing considerations seem sufficient to establish, as general propositions, that it is the interest of nations to diversify the industrious pursuits of the individuals who compose them– that the establishment of manufactures is calculated not only to Increase the general stock of useful and productive labour; but even to improve the state of Agriculture in particular, certainly to advance the interests of those who are engaged in it.

The following considerations are of a nature to remove all inquietude on the score of the want of Capital.

The introduction of Banks, as has been shown on another occasion, has a powerful tendency to extend thc active Capital of a Country. Experience of the Utility of these Institutions is multiplying them in the United States. It is probable that they will be established wherever they can exist with advantage; and wherever they can be supported, if administered with prudence, they will add new energies to all pecuniary operations.

The aid of foreign Capital may safely, and, with considerable latitude, be taken into calculation. Its instrumentality has been long experienced in our external commerce; and it has begun to be felt in various other modes. Not only our funds, but our Agriculture, and other internal improvements, have been animated by it. It has already in a few instances extended even to our manufactures.

...It is not impossible, that there may be persons disposed to look with a jealous eye on the introduction of foreign Capital, as if it were an instrument to deprive our own citizens of the profits of our own industry; But, perhaps, there never could be a more unreasonable jealousy. Instead of being viewed as a rival, it ought to be Considered as a most valuable auxiliary, conducing to put in Motion a greater Quantity of productive labour, and a greater portion of useful enterprise, than could exist without it. It is at least evident, that in a Country situated like thc United States, with an infinite fund of resources yet to be unfolded, every farthing of foreign capital, which is laid out in internal ameliorations, and in industrious establishments, of a Permanent nature, is a precious acquisition.

And, whatever be the objects which originally attract foreign Capital, when once introduced it may be directed towards any purpose of beneficial exertion, which is desired. And to detain it among us, there can be no expedient so effectual as to enlarge the sphere within which it may bc usefully employed: Though introduced merely with view to speculations in the funds, it may afterwards be rendered subservient to the Interests of Agriculture, Commerce, and Manufactures.

But the attraction of foreign Capital for the direct purpose of Manufactures, ought not to bc deemed a chimerical expectation. There are already examples of it, as remarked in another place. And the examples, if the disposition be cultivated can hardly fail to multiply. There are also instances of another kind, which serve to strengthen the expectation. Enterprises for improving the Public Communications by cutting canals, opening the obstructions in Rivers and erecting bridges have received very material aid from the same source.

When the Manufacturing Capitalist of Europe shall advert to the many important advantages, which have been intimated, in the Course of this report, he cannot but perceive very powerful inducements to a transfer of himself and his Capital to the United States. Among the reflections, which a most interesting peculiarity of situation is calculated to suggest, it cannot escape his observation, as a circumstance of Moment in the calculation, that the progressive population and improvement of the United States, insure a continually increasing domestic demand for the fabrics which he shall produce, not to be affected by any external casualties or vicissitudes.

But while there are Circumstances sufficiently strong to authorize a considerable degree of reliance on thc aid of foreign Capital towards the attainment of the object in view, it is satisfactory to have good grounds of assurance, that there are domestic resources of themselves adequate to it. It happens, that there is a species of Capital, actually existing within the United States, which relieves from all inquietude on the score of want of Capital. This is the funded Debt.

The effect of a funded debt, as a species of Capital, has been Noticed upon a former Occasion, but a more particular elucidation of the point seems to be required by the stress which is here laid upon it. This shall accordingly be attempted.

Public Funds answer the purpose of Capital, from the estimation in which they are usually held by Monied men, and consequently from the Ease and dispatch with which they can be turned into money. This capacity for prompt convertibility into money causes a transfer of stock to be in a great number of Cases equivalent to a payment in coin. And where it docs not happen to suit the party who is to receive to accept a transfer of Stock, the party who is to pay is never at a loss to find elsewhere a purchaser of his Stock, who will furnish him in lieu of it, with the Coin Of which he stands in need.

Hence in a sound and settled state of thc public funds, a man possessed of a sum in them can embrace any scheme of business, which offers, with as much confidence as if he were possessed of an equal sum in Coin.

There remains to bc noticed an objection to the encouragement of manufactures, of a nature different from those which question the probability of success. This is derived from its supposed tendency to give a monopoly of advantages to particular classes, at the expense of the rest of the community, who, it is affirmed, would be able to procure the requisite supplies of manufactured articles on better terms from foreigners, than from our own Citizens, and who, it is alleged, are reduced to the necessity of paying an enhanced price for whatever they want, by every measure, which obstructs thc free competition of foreign commodities.

It is not an unreasonable supposition, that measures, which serve to abridge the free competition of foreign Articles, have a tendency to occasion an enhancement of prices and it is not to be denied that such is the effect, in a number of Cases; but the fact does not uniformly correspond with the theory. A reduction of prices has, in several instances immediately succeeded the establishment of a domestic manufacture. Whether it be that foreign manufactures endeavour to supplant, by underselling our own, or whatever else be the cause, the effect has been such as is stated, and the reverse of what might have been expected.

But though it were true, that the immediate and certain effect of regulations controlling the competition of foreign with domestic fabrics was an increase of Price, it is universally true, that the contrary is the ultimate effect with every successful manufacture. When a domestic manufacture has attained to perfection, and has engaged in the prosecution of it a competant number of Persons, it invariably becomes cheaper. Being free from the heavy charges which attend the importation of foreign commodities, it can be afforded, and accordingly seldom or never fails to be sold Cheaper, in process of time, than was the foreign Article for which it is a substitute. The internal competition which takes place, soon does away every thing like Monopoly, and by degrees reduces the price of the Article to the minimum of a reasonable profit on the Capital employed. This accords with the reason of the thing, and with experience.

Whence it follows, that it is the interest of a community, with a view to eventual and permanent economy, to encourage the growth of manufactures. In a national view, a temporary enhancement of price must always be well compensated by a permanent reduction of it.

It is a reflection which may with propriety be indulged here, that this eventual diminution of the prices of manufactured Articles, which is the result of internal manufacturing establishments, has a direct and very important tendency to benefit agriculture. It enables the farmer, to procure, with a smaller quantity of his labour; the manufactured produce of which he stands in need, and consequently Increases the value of his income and property.

The objections which are commonly made to thc expediency of encouraging, and to the probability of succeeding in, manufacturing pursuits, in the United States, having now been discussed, the Considerations which have appeared in the Course of the discussion, recommending that species of industry to the patronage of the Government, will be materially strengthened by a few general and some particular topics, which have been naturally reserved for subsequent Notice–

I. There seems to be a moral certainty, that the trade of a country which is both manufacturing and Agricultural will be more lucrative and prosperous than that of a Country, which is merely Agricultural.

One reason for this is found in that general effort of nations (which has been already mentioned) to procure from their own soils, thc articles of prime necessity requisite to their own consumption and use, and which serves to render their demand for a foreign supply of such articles, in a great degree occasional and contingent. Hence, while the necessities of nations exclusively devoted to Agriculture, for the fabrics of manufacturing states, are constant and regular, the wants of the latter for the products of the former, are liable to very considerable fluctuations and interruptions. The great inequalities resulting from difference of seasons have been elsewhere remarked. This uniformity of demand on one side, and unsteadiness of it on the other, must necessarily have a tendency to cause the general course of thc exchange of commodities between the parties to turn to the disadvantage of the merely agricultural States. Peculiarity of situation, a climate and soil adapted to thc production of peculiar commodities, may, sometimes, contradict thc rule, but there is every reason to believe that it will be found, in the Main, a just one.

Another circumstance which gives a superiority of commercial advantages to states that manufacture as well as cultivate, consists ifl thc more numerous attractions, which a more diversified market offers to foreign Customers, and in the greater scope which it affords to mercantile enterprise. It is a position of indisputable truth in Commerce depending too on very obvious reasons, that 1he greatest resort will ever be to those marts where commodities, while equally abundant, are most various. Each difference of kind holds out an additional inducement. And it is a position not less clear, that thc field of enterprise must be enlarged to the Merchants of a Country, in proportion to the variety as well as the abundance of commodities which they find at home for exportation to foreign Markets.

A third circumstance, perhaps not inferior to either of the other two, conferring the superiority which has been stated, has relation to the stagnations of demand for certain commodities which at some time or other, interfere more or less with the sale of all. The nation which can bring to Market but few articles is likely to be more quickly and sensibly affected by such stagnations, than one which is always possessed of a great variety of commodities. The former frequently finds too great a proportion of its stock of materials for sale or exchange lying on hand– or is obliged to make injurious sacrifices to supply its wants of foreign articles which are Numerous and urgent, in proportion to the smallness of the number of its own. The latter commonly finds itself indemnified, by the high Prices of some articles, for the low prices of others– and the Prompt and advantageous sale of those articles which are in demand, enables its merchants the better to wait for a more favorable change in respect to those which are not. There is ground to believe that a difference of situation, in this particular, has immensely different effects upon the wealth and prosperity of Nations.

From these circumstances collectively–two important inferences are to be drawn, one, that there is always a higher probability of a favorable balance of Trade, in regard to countries in which manufactures founded on the basis of a thriving Agriculture flourish, than in regard to those, which are confined wholly or almost wholly to Agriculture; the other (which is also a consequence of the first), that countries of the former description are likely to possess more pecuniary wealth, or money, than those of the latter.

Not only the wealth, but the independence and security of a Country, appear to be materially connected with the prosperity of manufactures. Every nation, with a view to those great objects, ought to endeavour to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the means of Subsistence, habitation, clothing, and defence.

The possession of these is necessary to the perfection of the body politic; to the safety as well as to the welfare of the society; the want of either is the want of an important Organ of political life and Motion; and in the various crises which await a state, it must severely feel the effects of any such deficiency. The extreme embarrassments of the United States during the late War, from an incapacity of supplying themselves, are still matter of keen recollection: A future war might be expected again to exemplify the mischiefs and dangers of a situation to which that incapacity is still in too great a degree applicable, unless changed by timely and vigorous exertion. To effect this change, as fast as shall be prudent, merits all the attention and all the Zeal of our Public Councils; 'tis the next great work to be accomplished.

One more point of view only remains in which to Consider the expediency of encouraging manufactures in the United states.

It is not uncommon to meet with an opinion that though the promoting of manufactures may be the interest of a part of thc Union, it is contrary to that of another part. The Northern & southern regions are sometimes represented as having adverse interests in this respect. Those are called Manufacturing, these Agricultural states; and a species of opposition is imagined to subsist between the Manufacturing and Agricultural interests.

...Ideas of a contrariety of interests between the Northern and southern regions of the Union, are in the Main as unfounded as they are mischievous. The diversity of Circumstances on which such contrariety is usually predicated, authorizes a directly contrary conclusion. Mutual wants constitute one of the strongest links of political connection, and the extent of these bears a natural proportion to the diversity in the means of mutual supply.

Suggestions of an opposite complexion are ever to be deplored, as unfriendly to the steady pursuit of one great common cause, and to the perfect harmony of all the parts.

In proportion as the mind is accustomed to trace the intimate connection of interest which subsists between all the parts of a Society united under the same government–the infinite variety of channels will serve to Circulate the prosperity of each to and through the rest–in that proportion will it be little apt to be disturbed by solicitudes and Apprehensions which originate in local discriminations.

It is a truth as important as it is agreeable, and one to which it is not easy to imagine exceptions, that every thing tending to establish substantial and permanent order in the affairs of a Country, to increase the total mass of industry and opulence, is ultimately beneficial to every part of it. On the Credit of this great truth, an acquiescence may safely be accorded, from every quarter, to all institutions and arrangements which promise a confirmation of public order, and an augmentation of National Resource.

But there are more particular considerations which serve to fortify the idea that the encouragement of manufactures is the interest of all parts of the Union. If the Northern and Middle states should be the principal scenes of such establishments, they would immediately benefit the More southern, by creating a demand for productions, some of which they have in common with the other states, and others of which, are either peculiar to them, or more abundant, or of better quality, than elsewhere. These productions, principally, are Timber, flax, Hemp, Cotton, Wool, raw silk, Indigo, iron, lead, furs, hides, skins and coals. Of these articles Cotton and Indigo are peculiar to the southern states, as are hitherto Lead and Coal, Flax and Hemp are or may be raised in greater abundance there, than in the More Northern states; and the Wool of Virginia is said to be of better quality than that of any other state: a Circumstance rendered the more probable by the reflection that Virginia embraces the same latitudes with the finest Wool Countries of Europe. The Climate of the south is also better adapted to the production of silk.

The extensive cultivation of Cotton can perhaps, hardly be expected but from the previous establishment of domestic Manufactories of the Article; and the surest encouragement and vent, for the others, would result from similar establishments in respect to them.

If then, it satisfactorily appears, that it is the Interest of the United states, generally, to encourage manufactures, it merits particular attention, that there are circumstances which Render the present a critical moment for entering, with Zeal upon the important business. The effort cannot fail to be materially seconded by a considerable and increasing influx of money, in consequence of foreign speculations in the funds–and by the disorders, which exist in different parts of Europe." -Report on Manufactures A. Hamilton - Excerpts therefrom.

HENRY CLAY - NAME GIVEN TO HAMILTON'S IDEALS -

Summation of Clay's inspiration for what he termed the American System:

• "The principle of the system under consideration has the sanction of some of the best and wisest men, in all ages, in foreign countries as well as in our own-of the Edwards, of Henry the Great, of Elizabeth, of the Colberts, abroad; of our Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, at home." - Excerpt from speech by Henry Clay on his specific plans regarding American System

Clay's actual speech in excerpts where he used the phrase "American System" and described its roots and policies:

• "Two classes of politicians divide the people of the United States. According to the system of one, the produce of foreign industry should be subjected to no other impost than such as may be necessary to provide a public revenue; and the produce of American industry should be left to sustain itself, if it can, with no other than that incidental protection, in its competition, at home as well as abroad, with rival foreign articles. According to the system of the other class, whilst they agree that the imposts should be mainly, and may, under any modification, be safely relied on as a fit and convenient source of public revenue, they would so adjust and arrange 'the duties on foreign fabrics as to afford a gradual but adequate protection to American industry, and lessen our dependance on foreign nations, by securing a certain and ultimately a cheaper and better supply of our own wants from our own abundant resources. Both classes are equally sincere in their respective opinions, equally honest, equally patriotic, and desirous of advancing the prosperity of the country. In the discussion and consideration of these opposite opinions, for the purpose of ascertaining which has the support of truth and reason, we should, therefore, exercise every indulgence, and the greatest spirit of mutual moderation and forbearance. And, in our deliberations on this great question, we should look fearlessly and truly at the actual condition of the country, retrace the causes which have brought us into it, and snatch, if possible, a view of the future. We should, above all, consult experience-the experience of other nations, as well as our own, as our truest and most unerring guide.

In casting our eyes around us, the most prominent circumstance which fixes our attention, and challenges our deepest regret, is the general distress which pervades the whole country. It is forced upon us by numerous facts of the most incontestable character. It is indicated by the diminished exports of native produce; by the depressed and reduced state of our foreign navigation; by our diminished commerce; by successive unthrashed crops of grain, perishing in our barns and barn-yards for the want of a market; by the alarming diminution of the circulating medium; by the numerous bankruptcies, not limited to the trading classes, but extending to all orders of society; by a universal complaint of the want of employment, and a consequent reduction of the wages of labor; by the ravenous pursuit after public situations, not for the sake of their honors and the performance of their public duties, but as a means of private subsistence; by the reluctant resort to the perilous use of paper money; by the intervention of legislation in the delicate relation between debtor and creditor; and, above all, by the low and depressed state of the value of almost every description of the whole mass of the property of the nation, which has, on an average, sunk not less than about fifty per centum within a few years. This distress pervades every part of the Union, every class of society; all feel it, though it may be felt, at different places, in different degrees. It is like the atmosphere which surrounds us-all must inhale it, and none can escape it. In some places it has burst upon our people, without a single mitigating circumstance to temper its severity. In others, more fortunate, slight alleviations have been experienced in the expenditure of the public revenue, and in other favoring causes. A few years ago, the planting interest consoled itself with its happy exemptions; but it has now reached this interest also, which experiences, though with less severity, the general suflering. It is most painful to me to attempt to sketch or to dwell on the gloom of this picture. But I have exaggerated nothing. Perfect fidelity to -the original would have authorized me to have thrown on deeper and darker hues. And it is the duty of the statesman, no less than that of the physician, to survey, with a penetrating, steady, and undismayed eye, the actual condition of the subject on which he would operate; to probe to-the bottom the diseases of the body politic, if he would apply afficacious remedies." - Excerpt from Clay's American System speech.

• "The quantity of money, in whatever form it may be, which a nation wants, is in proportion to the total mass of its wealth, and to the activity of that wealth. A nation that has but little wealth, has but alimited want of money. In stating the fact, therefore, that the total wealth of 'the country has diminished within a few years, in a ratio of about fifty per centum, we shall, at once, fully comprehend the inevitable reduction, which must have ensued, in the total quantity of the circulating medium of the country. A nation is most prosperous when there is a gradual and untempting addition to the aggregate of its circulating medium. It is in a condition the most adverse, when there is a rapid diminution in the quantity of the circulating medium, and a consequent depression in the value of property. In the former case, the wealth of individuals insensibly increasee, and income keeps ahead of expenditure. But, in the latter instance, debts have been contracted, engagements -made, and habits of expense established, in reference to the existing state of wealth and of its representative. When these come to be greatly reduced, individuals find their debts still existing, their engagements unexecuted, and their habits inveterate. They see themselves in the possession of the same property, on which, in good faith, they had bound themselves. - But that property, without their fault, possesses no longer the same value; and hence discontent, impoverishment, and ruin arise. Let us suppose, Mr. Chairman, that Europe was again the theatre of such a general war as recently raged throughout all her dominions-such a state of the war as existed in her greatest exertions and in our greatest pros- perity: instantly there would arise a greedy demand for the surplus produce of our industry, for our commerce, for our navigation. The languor which now prevails in our cities, and in our sea-ports, would give way to an animated activity. Our roads and rivers would be crowded with the produce of the interior. Everywhere we should witness excited industry. The precious metals would reflow from abroad upon us. Banks, which have maintained their credit, would revive their business; and new banks would be established, to take the place of those which have sunk beneath the general pressure. For it is a mistake to suppose that they have produced our present adversity; they may have somewhat aggravated it, but they were the effect and the evidence of our prosperity. Prices would again get up; the former value of property would be restored. And those embarrassed persons who have not been already overwhelmed by the times, would suddenly find, in the augmented value of their property, and the renewal of their business, ample means to extricate themselves from all their difficulties. The greatest want of civilized society is a market for the sale and exchange of the surplus of the produce of the labor of its members. This market may exist at home or abroad, or both; but it must exist somewhere, if society prospers; and wherever it does exist, it should be competent to the absorption of the entire surplus of production. It is most desirable that there should be both a home and a foreign market. But, with respect to their relative superiority, I cannot entertain a doubt. The home market is first in order, and paramount in importance. The object of the bill, under consideration, is to create this home market, and to lay the foundations of a genuine American policy. It is opposed, and it is incumbent upon the partisans of the foreign policy (terms which I shall use without any invidious intent) to demonstrate that the foreign market is an adequate vent for the surplus produce of our labor. But is it so ? 1. Foreign nations cannot, if they would, take our surplus produce. If the source of supply. no matter of what, increases in a greater ratio than the demand for that supply, a glut of the market is inevitable, even if we suppose both to remain perfectly unobstructed. The duplicationof our population takes place in terms of about twenty five years. The term will be more and more extended as our numbers multiply. But it will be a sufficient approximation to assume this ratio for the present. We increase, therefore, in population, at the rate of about four per centum per annum. Supposing the increase of our production to be in the same ratio, we should, every succeeding year, have of surplus produce, four per centum more than that of the preceding year, without taking into the account the differences of seasons which neutralize each other. If, therefore, we are to rely upon the foreign market exclusively, foreign consumption ought to be shown to be increasing in the same ratio of four per centum per annum, if it be an adequate vent for our surplus produce. But, as I have supposed the measure of our increasing production to be furnished by that of our increasing population, so the measure of their power of consumption must be determined by that of the increase of their population. Now, the total foreign population, who consume our surplus produce, upon an average, do not double their aggregate number in a shorter term than that of about one hundred years. Our powers of production increase then in a ratio four times greater than their powers of consumption. And hence their utter inability to receive from us our surplus produce." -Excerpt from Clay Speech on American System

• "The creation of a home market is not only necessary to procure for our agriculture a just reward of its labors, but it is indispensable to obtain a supply of our necessary wants. If we cannot sell, we cannot buy. That portion of our population, (and we have seen that it is not less than four-fifths,) which makes comparatively nothing that foreigners will buy, have nothing to make purchases with from foreigners. It is in vain that we are told of the amount of our exports supplied by the planting interest. They may enable the planting interest to supply all its wants; but they bring no ability to the interests not planting; unless, which cannot be pretended, the planting interest is an adequate vent for the surplus produce of the labor of all other interests. It is in vain to tantalize us with the great cheapness of foreign fabrics. There must be an ability to purchase, if an article be obtained, whatever may be the price, high or low, at which it is sold. And a cheap article is as much beyond the grasp of him who has no means to buy, as a high one. Even if it were true that the American manufacturer would supply consumption at dearer rates, it is better to have his fabrics than the unattainable foreign fabrics; because it is better to be ill supplied than not supplied at all. A coarse coat, which will communicate warmth and cover nakedness, is better than no coat. The superiority of the home market results, 1st, from its steadiness and comparative certainty at all times; 2d, from the creation of reciprocal interests; 3d, from its greater security; and, lastly, from an ultimate and not distant augmentation of consumption, (and consequently of comfort,) from increased quantity and reduced prices. But this home market, highly desirable as it is, can only be created and cherished by the PROTECTION of our own legislation against the inevitable prostration of our industry, which must ensue from the action of FOREIGN policy and legislation. The effect and the value of this domestic care of our own interests will be obvious from a few facts and considerations. Let us suppose that half a million of persons are now employed abroad in fabricating, for our consumption, those articles, of which, by the operation of this bill, a supply is intended to be provided within ourselves. That half a million of persons are, in effect, subsisted by us; but their actual means of subsistence are drawn from foreign agriculture. If we could transport them to this country, and incorporate them in the mass of our own population, there would instantly arise a demand for an amount of provisions equal to that which would be requisite for their subsistence throughout the whole year. That demand, in the article of flour alone, would not be less than the quantity of about nine hundred thousand barrels, besides a proportionate quantity of beef, and pork, and other articles of subsistence. But nine hundred thousand barrels of flour exceeds the entire quantity exported last year, by nearly one hundred and fifty thousand barrels. What activity would not this give, what cheerfulness would it not communicate, to our now dispirited farming interest! But if, instead of these five hundred thousand artisans emigrating from abroad, we give by this bill employment to an equal number of our own citizens, now engaged in unprofitable agriculture, or idle, from the want of business, the beneficial effect upon the productions of our farming labor would be nearly doubled. The quantity would be diminished by a subtraction of the produce from the labor of all those who should be diverted from its pursuits to manufacturing industry, and the value of the residue would be enhanced, both by that diminution, and the creation of the home market to the extent supposed. And the honorable gentleman from Virginia may repress any apprehensions which he entertains, that the plough will be abandoned, and our fields remain unsown. For, under all the modifications of social industry, if you will secure to it a just reward, the greater attractions of agriculture will give to it that proud superiority which it has always maintained. If we suppose no actual abandonment of farming, but, what is most likely, a gradual and imperceptible employment of population in the business of manufacturing, instead of being compelled to resort to agriculture, the salutary effect would be nearly the same. Is any part of our common country likely to be injured by a transfer of the theatre of fabrication, for our own consumption, from Europe to America? All that those parts, if any there be, which will not, or cannot engage in manufactures, should require, is, that their consumption should be well supplied; and if the objects of that consumption are produced in other parts of the Union, that can manufacture, far from having any just cause of complaint, their patriotism will and ought to inculcate a cheerful acquiescence in what essentially contributes, and is indispensably necessary to the prosperity of the common family." -Excerpt from Clay's American System speech.

• "Having called the attention of the committee to the present adverse state of our country, and endeavored to point out the causes which have led to it; having shown that similar causes, wherever they exist in other countries, lead to the same adversity in their condition; and having shown that, wherever we find opposite causes prevailing, a high and animating state of national prosperity exists, the committee will agree with me in thinking that it is the solemn duty of government to apply a remedy to the evils which afflict our country, if it can apply one. Is there no remedy within the reach of the government? Are we doomed to behold our industry languish and decay, yet more and more ? But there is a remedy, and that remedy consists in modifying our foreign policy, and in adopting a genuine AMERICAN SYSTEM. We must naturalize the arts in our country; and we must naturalize them by the only means which the wisdom of nations has yet discovered to be effectual; by adequate protection against the otherwise overwhelming influence of foreigners. This is only to be accomplished by the establishment of a tariff, to the consideration of which I am now brought." -Excerpt from Clay American System speech.

• "Mr. Chairman, our confederacy comprehends within its vast limits great diversity of interests: agricultural, planting, farming, commercial, navigating, fishing, manufacturing. No one of these interests is felt in the same degree, and cherished with the same solicitude, throughout all parts of the Union. Some of them are peculiar to particular sections of our common country. But all these great interests are confided to the protection of one government to the fate of one ship: and a most gallant ship it is, with a noble crew. If we prosper, and are happy, protection must be extended to all; it is due to all. It is the great principle on which obedience is demanded from all. If our essential interests cannot find protection from our own government against the policy of foreign powers, where are they to get it ? We did not unite for sacrifice, but for preservation. The inquiry should be, in reference to the great interests of every section of the Union, (I speak not of minute subdivisions,) what would be done for those interests if that section stood alone and separated from the residue of the republic ? If the promotion of those interests would not injuriously affect any other section, then every thing should be done for them, which would be done if it formed a distinct government. If they come into absolute collision with the interests of another section, a reconciliation, if possible, should be attempted, by mutual concession, so as to avoid a sacrifice of the prosperity of either to that of the other. In such a case, all should not be done for one which would be done, if it were separated and independent,-but something; and in devising the measure, the good of each part and of the whole should be carefully consulted. This is the only mode by which we can preserve, in full vigor, the harmony of the whole Union. " - Excerpt from Speech by Clay on the American System.

• "To the friends of the tariff, I would also anxiously appeal. Every arrangement of its provisions does not suit each of you; you desire some further alterations; you would make it perfect. You want what you will never get. Nothing human is perfect. And I have seen, with great surprise, a piece signed by a member of Congress, published in the National ntelligencer, stating that this bill must be rejected, and a judicious tariff brought in as its substitute. A judicious tariff! No member of Congress could have signed that piece; or, if he did, the public ought not to be deceived. If this bill do not pass, unquestionably no other can pass at this session, or probably during this Congress. And who will go home and say that he rejected all the benefits of this bill, because molasses has been subjected to the enormous additional duty of five cents per gallon ? I call, therefore, upon the friends of the American policy, to yield somewhat of their own peculiar wishes, and not to reject the practicable in the idle pursuit after the unattainable. Let us imitate the illustrious example of the framers of the constitution, and, always remembering that whatever springs from man partakes of his imperfections, depend upon experience to suggest, in future, the necessary amendments.

We have had great difficulties to encounter.-I. The splendid talents which are arrayed in this House against us. 2. We are opposed by the rich and powerful in the land. ,3. The executive government, if any, affords us but a cold and equivocal support. 4. The importing and navigating interest, I verily believe from misconception, are adverse to us. 5. The British factors and the British influence are inimical to our success. 6. Long established habits and prejudices oppose us. 7. The reviewers and literary speculators, foreign and domestic. And, lastly, the leading presses of the country, including the influence of that which is established in this city, and sustained by the public purse.

From some of these, or other causes, the bill may be postponed, thwarted, defeated. But the cause is the cause of the country, and it must and will prevail. It is founded in the interests and affections of the people. It is as native as the granite deeply imbosomed in our mountains. And, in conclusion, I would pray GOD, in His infinite mercy, to avert from our country the evils which are impending over it, and, by enlightening our councils, to conduct us into that path which leads to riches, to greatness, to glory." - End of Speech of Clay on American System.

"THE AMERICAN SYSTEM" explained by Congressman Stewart

"While in Congress, it will be seen that Mr. Stewart served on several of the most important committees, among them as Chairman of the Committee on the Tariff, and the Committee of Internal Improvements, constituting together, what was well called by Mr. Clay, "The American System "-in the advocacy of which, Mr. Stewart commenced and ended his political life. This system, he always contended, lay at the foundation of the national prosperity-the one protecting the national industry, and the other developing the national resources. He called it the "political thermometer," which always had and always would indicate the rise and fall of the national prosperity. In concluding one of his speeches, he put this whole matter in a nutshell when he said: The true American policy is this:

• 1st. Protect and cherish your national industry by a wise system of finance, selecting in the first place those articles which you can and ought to supply to the extent of your own wants-food, clothing, habitation, and defence-and to these give ample and adequate piotection, so as to secure at all times an abundant supply at home. Next select the LUXURIES consumed by the rich, and impose on them such duties as the wants of the Government may require for revenue; and then take the necessaries of life consumed by the poor, and articles which we cannot supply, used in our manufactories, and make them free, or subject to the lowest rates of duty.
• 2d. Adopt a system of national improvements, embracing the great rivers, lakes, and main arteries of communication, leaving those of a LOCAL character to the care of the States; and on these expend the 8urplus revenue only; thus uniting and binding together the distant parts of our common country, and at the same time securing the most efficient system of defence in war, and the cheapest and best system of commercial and social intercourse in peace.
• 3d. Introduce enlightened economy in every branch of the public expenditures. Lighten the burdens, diversify the employments, and secure and increase the rewards of labor in all its departments. And,
• 4th. In your foreign relations follow the advice of the father of his country-" observe good faith and justice towards all nations-cultivate peace and harmony with all." Thereby illustrating the beauty and perfection of our Republican institutions, holding up a great example of "liberty and independence," for the nations of the earth to admire and imitate. This was the great and true American system which he hoped yet to see adopted and carried out. We owe a great example to the world-let it be given; this was the duty, as he trusted it would be the destiny of this, our great and glorious Republic." [99][100]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 1861-1932 (SYSTEM IS PLACED INTO LAW)

Abraham Lincoln described himself as an "Old Henry Clay Tariff Whig" and spent the early part of his political career speaking to economic issues regarding the American System - ie. tariffs, internal improvements, banking...as national policies to be promoted.

"As soon as Lincoln took office, the old Whig coalition finally controlled the entire government. It immediately tripled the average tariff, began to subsidize the construction of a transcontinental railroad in California even though a desperate war was being waged, and on February 25, 1862, the Legal Tender Act empowered the secretary of the treasury to issue paper money ('greenbacks') that were not immediately redeemable in gold or silver." UShistory.org

Hence, except for the continued debate over the tariff (between Democrats and Republicans of the 19th and early 20th century until 1932) the policies of the American System were firmly in place having been enacted, and modified little, in Lincoln's Administration - ie. Protective Tariff (went down under Cleveland and Wilson), Infrastructure building (national roads, rail system, canals etc.), and banking through National Banking System lasting until Federal Reserve established under Wilson. The nomenclature changed from American System, to American Policy, to Protective System, to Protective Policy or simply at times as evidenced by the GOP platform of 1932 "American system of protection". All coherent and agreed to by historians, economists of the times and since alike.

Here are excerpts from Republican Platforms on the American System reliance on protection of Industry through tariffs - notice the phrases - "American Policy" "American System of protection" is was all considered one and the same as it was in 1876 when the centennial commenced showcasing America's rapid development of industry since the last expo held in 1857 where America had a poor showing (pre-American System policy implementation)...

• "12. That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence." 1860 Republican Party Platform
• "Seventh. The annual revenue, after paying current expenditures, pensions, and the interest on the public debt, should furnish a moderate balance for the reduction of the principal and that revenue, except so much as may be derived from a tax upon tobacco and liquors, should be raised by duties upon importations, the details of which should be so adjusted as to aid in securing remunerative wages to labor, and to promote the industries, prosperity, and growth of the whole country." 1872 Republican Party Platform
• "Seventeenth. It is the duty of the general Government to adopt such measures as may tend to encourage and restore American commerce and ship-building." 1872 Republican Party Platform
• "8. The revenue necessary for current expenditures and the obligations of the public debt must be largely derived from duties upon importations, which, so far as possible, should be so adjusted as to promote the interests of American labor and advance the prosperity of the whole country." 1876 Republican Party Platfrom (Year of the Centennnial)
• "Our foreign trade increased from $700,000,000 to $1,115,000,000 in the same time, and our exports, which were $20,000,000 less than our imports in 1860, were $265,000,000 more than our imports in 1879. (AND) 5. We affirm the belief, avowed in 1876, that the duties levied for the purpose of revenue should so discriminate as to favor American labor" 1880 Republican Party Platform
• "It is the first duty of a good government to protect the rights and promote the interests of its own people. The largest diversity of industry is most productive of general prosperity, and of the comfort and independence of the people. We, therefore, demand that the imposition of duties on foreign imports shall be made, not "for revenue only," but that in raising the requisite revenues for the government, such duties shall be so levied as to afford security to our diversified industries and protection to the rights and wages of the laborer; to the end that active and intelligent labor, as well as capital, may have its just reward, and the laboring man his full share in the national prosperity." 1884 Republican Party Platform
• "We are uncompromisingly in favor of the American system of protection; we protest against its destruction as proposed by the President and his party. They serve the interests of Europe; we will support the interests of America. We accept the issue, and confidently appeal to the people for their judgment. The protective system must be maintained. Its abandonment has always been followed by general disaster to all interests, except those of the usurer and the sheriff. We denounce the Mills bill as destructive to the general business, the labor and the farming interests of the country, and we heartily indorse the consistent and patriotic action of the Republican Representatives in Congress in opposing its passage." 1888 Republican Party Platform
• "In support of the principles herewith enunciated we invite the co-operation of patriotic men of all parties, and especially of all workingmen, whose prosperity is seriously threatened by the free-trade policy of the present Administration." 1888 Republican Party Platform
• "We reaffirm the American doctrine of protection. We call attention to its growth abroad. We maintain that the prosperous condition of our country is largely due to the wise revenue legislation of the Republican congress." 1892 Republican Party Platform
• "We renew and emphasize our allegiance to the policy of protection, as the bulwark of American industrial independence, and the foundation of American development and prosperity. This true American policy taxes foreign products and encourages home industry. It puts the burden of revenue on foreign goods; it secures the American market for the American producer. It upholds the American standard of wages for the American workingman; it puts the factory by the side of the farm and makes the American farmer less dependent on foreign demand and price; it diffuses general thrift, and founds the strength of all on the strength of each. In its reasonable application it is just, fair and impartial, equally opposed to foreign control and domestic monopoly to sectional discrimination and individual favoritism." 1896 Republican Party Platform
• "We renew our faith in the policy of Protection to American labor. In that policy our industries have been established, diversified and maintained. By protecting the home market competition has been stimulated and production cheapened. Opportunity to the inventive genius of our people has been secured and wages in every department of labor maintained at high rates, higher now than ever before, and always distinguishing our working people in their better conditions of life from those of any competing country. Enjoying the blessings of the American common school, secure in the right of self-government and protected in the occupancy of their own markets, their constantly increasing knowledge and skill have enabled them to finally enter the markets of the world. We favor the associated policy of reciprocity so directed as to open our markets on favorable terms for what we do not ourselves produce in return for free foreign markets." 1900 Republican Party Platform
• "We replaced a Democratic tariff law based on free trade principles and garnished with sectional protection by a consistent protective tariff, and industry, freed from oppression and stimulated by the encouragement of wise laws, has expanded to a degree never before known, has conquered new markets, and has created a volume of exports which has surpassed imagination Under the Dingley tariff labor has been fully employed, wages have risen, and all industries have revived and prospered." [101]
• "Protection, which guards and develops our industries, is a cardinal policy of the Republican party. The measure of protection should always at least equal the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad. We insist upon the maintenance of the principle of protection, and therefore rates of duty should be readjusted only when conditions have so changed that the public interest demands their alteration, but this work cannot safely be committed to any other hands than those of the Republican party. To intrust it to the Democratic party is to invite disaster. Whether, as in 1892, the Democratic party declares the protective tariff unconstitutional, or whether it demands tariff reform or tariff revision, its real object is always the destruction of the protective system. However specious the name, the purpose is ever the same. A Democratic tariff has always been followed by business adversity: a Republican tariff by business prosperity. To a Republican Congress and a Republican President this great question can be safely intrusted. When the only free trade country among the great nations agitates a return to protection, the chief protective country should not falter in maintaining it." 1904 Republican Party Platform
• "Under the guidance of Republican principles the American people have become the richest nation in the world. Our wealth to-day exceeds that of England and all her colonies, and that of France and Germany combined. When the Republican Party was born the total wealth of the country was $16,000,000,000. It has leaped to $110,000,000,000 in a generation, while Great Britain has gathered but $60,000,000,000 in five hundred years. The United States now owns one-fourth of the world's wealth and makes one-third of all modern manufactured products. In the great necessities of civilization, such as coal, the motive power of all activity; iron, the chief basis of all industry; cotton, the staple foundation of all fabrics; wheat, corn and all the agricultural products that feed mankind, America's supremacy is undisputed. " 1908 Republican Party Platform
• "Upon this platform of principles and purposes, reaffirming our adherence to every Republican doctrine proclaimed since the birth of the party, we go before the country, asking the support not only of those who have acted with us heretofore, but of all our fellow citizens who, regardless of past political differences, unite in the desire to maintain the policies, perpetuate the blessings and make secure the achievements of a greater America. " 1908 Republican Platfrom
• "The Republican Party has always been the staunch supporter of the American system of a protective tariff. It believes that the home market, built up under that policy, the greatest and richest market in the world, belongs first to American agriculture, industry and labor. No pretext can justify the surrender of that market to such competition as would destroy our farms, mines and factories, and lower the standard of living which we have established for our workers." 1932 Republican Platfrom

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM SOURCES IN BRIEF

Henry Carey, economist: "The last of all qualities now demanded in men who are to represent the country abroad is that of being in policy truly and distinctively American disciples in that school in which Hamilton and Clay were teachers, and in which it has been always taught that political independence cannot be arrived at by means of measures calculated to perpetuate industrial dependence."[102]

On the nature of the Hamiltonian root of American System - with the support of Federalists, Whigs, and then Republicans under Lincoln.

• "The first phase of American political history was characterized by the conflict between Federalists and the Republicans, and it resulted in the complete triumph of the later. The second period was characterized by an almost equally bitter contest between the Democrats and the Whigs in which the Democrats represented a new version of the Republican tradition and the Whigs a resurrected Federalism." (Pg. 52 Promise of American Life - Croly)

On the nature of Theodore Roosevelt supporting the American System:

• "It is a matter of regret that the protective-tariff policy, which, during the last forty-odd years, has become part of the very fibre of the country, is not now accepted as definitely established. Surely we have a right to say that it has passed beyond the domain of theory, and a right to expect that not only its original advocates but those who at one time distrusted it on theoretic grounds should now acquiesce in the results that have been proved over and over again by actual experience. These forty-odd years have been the most prosperous years this Nation has ever seen; more prosperous years than any other nation has ever seen. Beyond question this prosperity could not have come if the American people had not possessed the necessary thrift, energy, and business intelligence to turn their vast material resources to account. But it is no less true that it is our economic policy as regards the tariff and finance which has enabled us as a nation to make such good use of the individual capacities of our citizens, and the natural resources of our country. Every class of our people is benefited by the protective tariff. (Letter accepting Republican nomination for President, September 12, 1904.) Mem. Ed. XVIII, 521; Nat. Ed. XVI, 391.

On the nature of the Republican party until 1932 supporting the American System:

• "Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party of 1865-1932, by presiding over the industrialization of the United State, foreclosed the option that the United States would remain a rural society with an agrarian economy, as so many Jeffersonians had hoped." and "...Hamiltonian side...the Federalists; the National Republicans; the Whigs, the Republicans; the Progressives." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Introduction pg. xiv-xv - published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN: 0-684-83160-0)

On the nature of the dominance of the "American School" or American System into the during 19th and into 20th century:

• "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism...The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods...The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century." (from "Hamilton's Republic" Part III "The American School of National Economy" pg. 229-230 published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA - ISBN: 0-684-83160-0)

On the nature of two competing systems of capitalism by economist Carey (advisor to Lincoln):

• "Two systems are before the world;...One looks to increasing the necessity of commerce; the other to increasing the power to maintain it. One looks to underworking the Hindoo, and sinking the rest of the world to his level; the other to raising the standard of man throughout the world to our level. One looks to pauperism, ignorance, depopulation, and barbarism; the other to increasing wealth, comfort, intelligence, combination of action, and civilization. One looks towards universal war; the other towards universal peace. One is the English system; the other we may be proud to call the American system, for it is the only one ever devised the tendency of which was that of ELEVATING while EQUALIZING the condition of man throughout the world." Henry C. Carey's book Harmony of Interests

On the nature of enactment of the American System into law circa 1860's and continuance thereafter as a "blueprint for modern America":

• "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes that reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded..."Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes...for ordinary expenses of Government." (from "The Greatest Nation of the Earth" Chapter 4 titled "Directing the Legislation of the Country to the Improvement of the Country: Tariff and Tax Legislation" pg. 136-137 published 1997 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the USA - ISBN 0-674-36213-6)

• "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leornard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate cariety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'" (from "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" Chapter 14 titled "The Whig in the White House" pages 196-197 published 1994 by Memphis State University Press in the USA - ISBN 0-87880-043-9)

SOURCES IN FULL MANY CAN BE READ ONLINE

The sources below have been consulted and used to write the additions to the article that I have made thus - all can be obtained online or through purchase.

• Batra, Ravi, Dr., The Myth of Free Trade: The pooring of America (1993)
• Boritt, Gabor S. Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream (1994)
• Buchanan, Patrick J., The Great Betrayal (1998)
• Curry, Leonard P. Blueprint for Modern America: Nonmilitary Legislation of the First Civil War Congress (1968)
• Croly, Herbert, The Promise of American Life (2005-reprint)
• Dobbs, Lou Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed is Shipping American Jobs Overseas (2004)
• Joseph Dorfman. The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 1606-1865 (1947) 2 vol
• Joseph Dorfman. The Economic Mind in American Civilization, 1865-1918 (1949) vol 3
• Foner, Eric. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party before the Civil War (1970)
• Faux, Jeff. The Global Class War (2006)
• Gardner, Stephen H. Comparative Economic Systems (1988)
• Gill, William J. Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy (1990)
• Carter Goodrich, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 1800-1890 (Greenwood Press, 1960)
  • Goodrich, Carter. "American Development Policy: the Case of Internal Improvements," Journal of Economic History, 16 ( 1956), 449-60. in JSTOR
  • Goodrich, Carter. "National Planning of Internal Improvements," Political Science Quarterly, 63 ( 1948), 16-44. in JSTOR
• Richard Hofstadter, "The Tariff Issue on the Eve of the Civil War," American Historical Review, 64 (October 1938): 50-55, shows Northern business had little interest in tariff in 1860, except for Pennsylvania which demanded high tariff on iron products
• Jenks, Leland Hamilton. "Railroads as a Force in American Development," Journal of Economic History, 4 (1944), 1-20. in JSTOR
• John Lauritz Larson. Internal Improvement: National Public Works and the Promise of Popular Government in the Early United States (2001)
• Lively, Robert A. "The American System, a Review Article," Business History Review, XXIX (March, 1955), 81-96. recommended starting point
• Lauchtenburg, William E. Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932-1940 (1963)
• Lind, Michael Hamilton's Republic: Readings in the American Democratic Nationalist Tradition (1997)
• Lind, Michael What Lincoln Believed: The Values and Convictions of America's Greatest President (2004)
• Paludan, Philip S. The Presidency of Abraham Lincoln (1994)
• Richardson, Heather Cox. The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War (1997)
• Remini, Robert V. Henry Clay: Statesman for the Union. New York: W. W. Norton Co., 1991
• Roosevelt, Theodore. The New Nationalism (1961-reprint)
• Richardson, Heather Cox. The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War (1997)
• Edward Stanwood, American Tariff Controversies in the Nineteenth Century (1903; reprint 1974), 2 vols., favors protectionism
• W. Cunningham, The Rise and Decline of the Free Trade Movement (London, 1904)
• G. B. Curtiss, Protection and Prosperity: an ; W. H. Dawson, Protection in Germany (London, 1904
• Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures, communicated to the House of Representatives, 5th December 1791
• F. Bowen, American Political Economy (New York, 1875)
• J. B. Byles, Sophisms of Free Trade (London, 1903); G. Byng, Protection (London, 1901)
• H. C. Carey, Principles of Social Science (3 vols., Philadelphia, 1858-1859), Harmony of Interests Agricultural, Manufacturing and Commercial (Philadelphia, 1873)
• H. M. Hoyt, Protection v. Free Trade, the scientific validity and economic operation of defensive duties in the United States (New York, 1886)
• Friedrich List, Outlines of American Political Economy (1980-reprint)
• Friedrich List, National System of Political Economy (1994-reprint)
• A. M. Low, Protection in the United States (London, 1904); H. 0. Meredith, Protection in France (London, 1904)
• S. N. Patten, Economic Basis of Protection (Philadelphia, 1890)
• Ugo Rabbeno, American Commercial Policy (London, 1895)
• Ellis H. Roberts, Government Revenue, especially the American System, an argument for industrial freedom against the fallacies of free trade (Boston, 1884)
• R. E. Thompson, Protection to Home Industries (New York, 1886)
• E. E. Williams, The Case for Protection (London, 1899)
• J. P. Young, Protection and Progress: a Study of the Economic Bases of the A merican Protective System (Chicago, 1900)
• Clay, Henry. The Papers of Henry Clay, 1797-1852. Edited by James Hopkins

All of the above sections provide by: --Northmeister 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What sources do we have otherwise?

What I've seen used otherwise, though I often ask without answer by user Will Beback, is that he is using two sources (a possibly googling to try to find them) - LAROUCHE and LUDWIG VON MISES - both I reject as fringe groups - one banned and the other of LIKE NATURE not (I oppose bans on any source as long as that source is backed up with credible scholarly work - I am not for censorship or political oppression of anyone - just facts and truth and reliable sources indicating the subject). Either way they are fringe and not in adherence with wikipedia standards as a whole. All I wish is to have an acceptable discussion with SOURCES. Where are the credible sources of criticism? What besides fringe political groups does the contentious editor here [personal remark removed] have that you can offer per 'quotes' as I have for the statements you continue to make? The community wishes to know and I wish to know so that this article can move forward. You have offered a picture (cartoon) of little substance other than obstruction of editing and much to large in its size and you have continued to make assertions without sources and sometimes contradicting earlier assertions. Gaming the system for political reasons is wrong - please do not play games with the community - just provide your sources so we can discuss them and do wikipedia and the community right by achieving an acceptable article. --Northmeister 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Northmeister, you are incorrect in your statement above the Wikipedia prefers primary to secondary sources. That is backward. Primary sources can be misconstrued, and require interpretation. Secondary sources are much preferable. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Some definitions:

• In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics.... Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative.

Regarding the LvMI, I see that Michael Lind considers the Austrian School to be a notable response to what he calls the "American School". So yes, the LvMI is a notable critic of the American School, which this article seems to be about despite its title. I am sorry that you seem to think that I have not been fast enough in editing this article. I had left it to other editors for the past month. I've ordered books and will shortly begin making edits. The cartoon just happened to be at hand, and is obviously relevant. Welcome back. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see your doing your research. Be sure it is not original research, and be sure that you give the community your sources here that we can check. LvMI is in the same school as a organization promoting the "Austrian School" as LaRouche promoting 'his version' of the "American School" as Lind calls it. They are both fringe groups. --Northmeister 00:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to leave the LaRouche out of this, you're going to have to stop bringing them up. If the Austrian School is considered to be entirely fringe because they are critics of the American School, then who would you consider to be a non-fringe critic of the AS? -Will Beback 01:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: Do you understand oabout primary and secondary sources? We should avoid too many primary sources. -Will Beback 01:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't reject using "Austrian School" economists (there are a plethora) or their predecessors in the Laissez-Faire economic school. Even Ludwig Von Mises is acceptable in context. You may wish to try out Milton Friedman and his Chicago school (economics). Adam Smith is another contemporary to Alexander Hamilton and America's founders. You might want to check Jean-Baptiste Say and Richard Cobden of England who helped persuade the British Empire to abandon its successful mercantile-based economic system in the 19th century. --Northmeister 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

DiLorenzo and the LvMI are in the Austrian School. Adam Smith never heard of the American System of Henry Clay. -Will Beback 01:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Adam Smith was a contemporary of Alexander Hamilton and the American System was not just of Clay but you know that - let's not play games here - may your books hurry to you. --Northmeister 02:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC) -PS. LvMI should be avoided; but I am never for a ban...just back their material up with primary or scholarly sources. If your going to ask for citation requests, please let the author know on what account you challenge his edits. That helps the process move along. --Northmeister 03:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Adam Smith ever knew of Hamilton's economic concepts, but I'll take a look and see if I can find any mention of Hamilton, Clay, or the American System in Smith's works. Is there any problem with using this paper as a source of modern criticism? "The Role Of Private Transportation In America’s 19th-Century “Internal Improvements” Debate". -Will Beback 04:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hamilton knew of Smith's that I am sure. I read the above source, I have no problems on first observation - it backs this article up from the opposite side and would be good for a criticism section. --Northmeister 05:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the approval of the source. I think we can scratch Smith off the list of critics, since he never know of the AS. I'll check the others. -Will Beback 05:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

19th-Century “Internal Improvements” Debate paper

While http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Internal.pdf is selling a specific point of view, is a little too black and white in places a neutral paper would distinguish more shades of gray; I found parts that would be useful in the history section, parts that would be useful in the anaysis political against section, and parts that would be useful in the analysis policy against section (this last section does not yet exist). They key here, perhaps, is agreeing what goes where - which is to say, where he is selling a point of view and where we agree he is communicating what even people for the american System would agree to. For example any time humans do anything major, corruption is a problem that has to be dealt with. But do we disban the military because there is weapons procurement corruption? No. So while the corruption argument is valid, any black and white argument concerning it goes in analysis politics against; unless it was part of an historic debate or campaign in which case the history parts go in history. In the anaysis policy section, objective stuff about corruption would be appropriate - the facts about the implementation of the policy. Take Katrina. Saying Government just screws stuff up so the private sector should provide relief not govt is politics. Saying the government has concluded there was a 10% loss of allocated funds due to corruption would go under the policy section. This is not written in stone. Everything is subject to debate and obviously reality does not neatly divide into these categories. But we can make the most of biased sources with carefully distinguishing between objective history, political rhetoric, policy goals, and concept qua concept. WAS 4.250 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, the article has changed a lot since I last addressed you concerning this paper, and given the article's new sophistication in distinguished shades of meaning in the phrase "American System", and given that North is back helping out, and given that the article is overbalanced on the for side; this paper is a good example of something that can help the article. WAS 4.250

Will, on my talk page you said "I don't think we should form a concept of the system ourselves, but rather we should verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view." This discussion concerning this source is an example of why it is necessary to understand before using sources. Understanding is needed to be able to properly select and interpret sources. Without "forming a concept" first, it is impossible to evaluate the "verifiable" and "reliable" and "neutral" criteria. WAS 4.250 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with political issues it is typical for sources to have biases. Among existing sources, for example, William Gill is strongyl biased on tariff issues and Michael Lind is a self-identified "radical centrist". Their viewpoints, like DiLorenzo's, have to be treated neutrally. -Will Beback 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statement above about process. What we should hope for is a balanced, NPOV, article that fairly and accurately covers the American System from its genesis, its rooted philosophy in Hamilton's ideas, it's cementing in the likes of J.Q. Adams and Henry Clay and what became the Whig Party program - its debate (in the 1830's-1840's-1850's between Jacksonian Democrats and Adams/Clay Nat. Republicans - Whigs) - its enactment into law under Lincoln and through the original GOP and continuance thereafter until 1932 - its evolution as a result of the Great Depression, the New Deal, World War II and the Cold War prior to 1970's - and its decline from 1973 onward with the emergence of supply-side laissez-faire economics through Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan until present - its lasting legacy returning in the rhetoric of Perot, Buchanan, and Dobbs as well as the renewed interest in its core principles of Promoting manufacturing, infrastructure development, and national banking designed to encourage productive enterprise - followed by an analysis or criticism section indicating its relationship to other economic systems and its critics. All this through sources both Secondary (we agree is preferred) and primary to indicate secondary's position. --Northmeister 16:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That litany may describe your vision of the article, it may even describe the "American School", but it does not describe the "American System". -Will Beback 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Which source indicates it doesn't represent the "American System" - blantant statements without reference do not help? The sources I provided above indicate my statements, from Richardson, to Gill, to Borritt, and so on. Further, your source from DiLorenzo also indicates this. American School = American System = National System = Protective System and was America's economic system prior to 1932 in full and with modification (subsidy replacing protective tariff) until 1973. --Northmeister 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

DiLorenzo doesn't mention Nixon, at least in that paper. Gill is a POV source. Lind specifically differentiates the American System from the American School. -Will Beback 20:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read either:

• Boritt, Gabor S. Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream (1994)
• Richardson, Heather Cox. The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War (1997)

But I'd be surprised if they mention Nixon and the New Deal. Are you saying that they do? -Will Beback 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The two authors directly above talk about what I headlined their meaning to be - The GOP and its economic program and its connection to the Whigs and Henry Clay (the SOURCE section above clearly states this) - And DiLorenzo is not a POV source? Gill was a economist and highly esteemed, he has since passed away. Lind, doesn't differentiate the two he connects them as the other authors I give do as do a plethora of others in the source section. Hamilton himself uses that phrase as does the GOP in 1932 in their platform - as does literary criticism from the 1880s (see sources in article). If the American System is NOT, the American School or National System - tell us the source that says so - claims without sources do not help. --Northmeister 20:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Lind says that the American School inspired the American System, not that they are the same thing. See "Hamilton's Republic" pg. 229-230 -Will Beback 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, at this point, I am down to 50% mediating and 50% being a seperate third party altogether. Maybe even 100% a third party altogether. But whatever. WAS 4.250 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't see you as a mediator, as you've been adding contentious material to the article. -Will Beback 21:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My view:

1. its rooted philosophy in Hamilton's ideas Yes.
2. it's cementing in the likes of J.Q. Adams and Henry Clay and what became the Whig Party program Yes
3. its debate (in the 1830's-1840's-1850's between Jacksonian Democrats and Adams/Clay Nat. Republicans - Whigs) Ummm yes there was debate
4. its enactment into law under Lincoln and through the original GOP and continuance thereafter until 1932 partial enactment waxing and waning in its details. lots of grey here.
5. its evolution as a result of the Great Depression, the New Deal, World War II and the Cold War prior to 1970's - the concept has relevance in the evolution of American policy. the term itself died out as a political watchword until it was revived by extreme ideologues
6. its decline from 1973 onward with the emergence of supply-side laissez-faire economics through Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan until present this just confuses "american system" as political rhetoric, as a concept, and as an historical policy
7. its lasting legacy returning in the rhetoric of Perot, Buchanan, and Dobbs as well as the renewed interest in its core principles of Promoting manufacturing, infrastructure development, and national banking designed to encourage productive enterprise OK, now there is a lot a truth in this. But only when understood in the context of my last staement about "confuses".
8. followed by an analysis or criticism section indicating its relationship to other economic systems and its critics. this is my strong suit. North knows more about this whole thibg overall. And Will is hard for the two of us to deal with but he is without doubt helping to make this a better article, which is after all the point of all this. WAS 4.250 20:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

And the two of you are hard for me to deal with, too. ;).

I think we will eventually need to split out the Big Concept from historical facts. The "American School" seems to be the a good term for the big concept. -Will Beback 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for solution to definition problems

Per above comments by Will. - I've been thinking the same thing as a resolution to the problem over definition - that Will only accepts a narrow definition - that I and others (including others in the past) accept a more broad view based on the literature. What I propose is the following, if the two of you concur to each; we can move ahead with doing so - Sign Your Signature for the proposals:

• I. Create an "American System (Henry Clay)" to place material directly related to the specific speech and plan of Henry Clay and the Whigs.

--Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• II. Create an "American School (economics)" to place this article into 'as it exists now', including its history and talk history - though this might be broken off from my first edits to now and prior edits being placed in the other page ("American System (Henry Clay)").

--Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• III. Create a redirect for "American System (economics)" to "American System" (disambiguation) or overall (When someone type either in, it will take them to the overall page to find what they're looking for ie: American School, American System (Henry Clay), or American System (manufacturing) to click on).

--Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• IV. Delete "American System (economic system)" entirely after move to "American School (economics)".

--Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• V. Keep the redirects from titles such as "National System", "National School", "Protective System" etc. to "American School (economics)" page.

--Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• VI. Keep the redirects from "American System of Henry Clay" to "American System (Henry Clay)" along with other relevant directions for researchers.

--Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• VII. Fix up any broken links across wikipedia with relevant link to disambiguation page "American System", the "American System (Henry Clay)" for his plan references, and the "American School (economics)" for reference to the overall American System of economics - with name changes to American School where appropriate.

--Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If all three of us can agree to each point above then I suggest: Will make the moves or WAS, as I do not have the ability on some of the moves, or we can work out each task. --Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with moving the "American System" of Henry Clay to another name. I'd accept a move of the Hamiltonian/Perot school of economics to another title, such as "National System", "American School of economics", etc. -Will Beback 23:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Then I rest my case about collaboration. I will stand behind the sources I provide and insist that you provide your sources for your assertions. What more can I do than the above to work this out with you. So be it. --Northmeister 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about. I agree with most of your proposal. -Will Beback 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Then sign that to which you agree above so I know where things stand. We will see where WAS agrees also. Then, we will work from there. Why not work with me here to resolve this issue over definition by participating above on my Seven Proposals: as I see it, you've disagreed to all Seven by lack of signing onto them. --Northmeister 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to jump through seven hoops just because you demand it. If you want to resolve the issue then discuss it. I told you that I agree with the move of the conceptual material to an article of a different name, and that I think the historical information should stay at American System (or at American System (economics) if necessary for disambiguation). -Will Beback 23:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

What is all the anger for? I've made seven proposals that I consider reasonable and you decide to jump down my throat. Oh, well - remember Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and SOURCES are needed for assertions made. I expect them for any changes made to the page and I categorically reject any move of material from this article as this article is about the "American System" which is the same as the "American School" - "National System" of List, etc. as the sources indicate and show again and again. I've seen NO SOURCE from you indicating otherwise - I offered a compromise because of your lack of understanding to resolve this dispute - you've rejected a standard wikipedia practice to mediate a dispute and gather opinion of editors. So be it as I stated above in bold I reiterate again. You do not wish to collaborate but disrupt to make a point. --Northmeister 23:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not angry and I haven't rejected anything. Standard mediation does not involve having a partisan drawing up a list of proposals and demanding that other users accept or reject them. I've told you my opinion of your major proposals. The stuff about the order of moving pages and changing links is subisdiary. Let's agree on the basics first. Is "American School" an acceptable article name for the economic philosophy espoused by Hamilton, Perot, et al.? -Will Beback 00:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to make it simple. Participation would be showing Good Faith towards myself. All you had to do is sign that to which you agreed or partially agreed with disclaimer for alternative. Was could follow with his and we could work to resolve an major stumbling block to movement forward. That was all the above proposal was all about. You've turned it into something else entirely. I rest my case. --Northmeister 00:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make proposals then let's talk about the proposals. Requiring that I participate in the way that you want me to participate isn't helpful. So far all you've done is complain that I haven't signed in the right locations - you haven't discussed the proposals themselves. Is "American School" an acceptable article name for the economic philosophy espoused by Hamilton, Perot, et al.? -Will Beback 00:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want me to answer a question that is already answered in the sources above and in the article itself and to continue in what seems like a charade you should take your own advice above. The proposals were simple and straight forward. Again, your actions are contentious rather than collaborative. See my statement above. --Northmeister 00:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) -PS. If I'm misjudging your response, then honor this effort by addressing what portion of the seven above you disagree with. I was trying to work towards a solution to this with each of us placing our stamp of approval to what we approved or offering an alternative or not signing indicating disapproval - thus we could work on our differences if any emerged. You've completely misjudged my intentions with the proposal as if I was trying to dictate to you. Thus, needless discussion afterwards when we could of been working on moving the stuff if all agreed, or on our differences per the proposal based somewhat on your statement preceding it. --Northmeister 00:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll take it that you do accept the idea of moving the conceptual and 20th-century material in this this article to one called American School (economics). Fine. Next we need to decide which material. I propose that the entire article be moved to that name, and a fresh article be created at American System (economics) limited to Clay and the Whigs. Once it has been developed we can reduce the overlap. -Will Beback 01:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a round about way thats exactly what I stated above in my proposal. We need to work on the communication thing! I don't see it necessary to title the article American System (economics) which pretends that it is the overall system or school (ie. economics) but rather American System (Clay) or American System (Henry Clay) or American System (economic plan) would do better. Once we agree to a name, then I approve the move as you proposed - but we must wait for WAS to offer his opinion as well - I'd like to know his thoughts. So lets work on the name of the American System article and get WAS's opinion on this before any further moves. --Northmeister 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Placing the Clay/Whig material at American System (economic plan) and the conceptual/20th-century material at American School (economics) is acceptable to me. -Will Beback 01:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And to I, if WAS will concur - then its a go. --Northmeister 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree to ANYTHING (with regard to this article, the articles that are now redirects to this article, American System (economic plan) and American School (economics)) that both of you agree to. I recommend that Will implement Placing the Clay/Whig material at American System (economic plan) and the conceptual/20th-century material at American School (economics), that North make the minimum adjustments to that implementation that he feels are needed and I can be a swing vote in case something comes up that a discussion between you two doesn't fix. WAS 4.250 04:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved page per above discussion

I've made all the relevant moves. Though some cleanup is needed - and a delete of American System (economic system) is needed - this WILL can do. I made the American System (economic plan) the article as it existed on Feb. 5th 2006 when I begin editing - we can start from there on dealing with just the Clay plan. I've made this article the result of our work up til now on the overall American System or School - and changes to that effect can hence be made. --Northmeister 07:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)