6 ms·

I thought this was an interesting read: https://mises.org/library/political-economy-antifederalists-0 https://mises.org/library/political-economy-antifederalis

I thought this was an interesting read: https://mises.org/library/political-economy-antifederalists-0 https://mises.org/library/political-economy-antifederalists-... Things don't seem entirely one-sided with regard to free trade; e.g. you have anti-federalists concerned about the federal government's ability to create monopolies: """monopolies in trade, granted to the favorites of government, by which the spirit of adventure will be destroyed, and the citizens subjected to the extortion of those companies who will have an exclusive right, to engross the different branches of commerce.""" (It seems one argument made by Madison and Hamilton who also supported free trade was that by centralizing regulatory authority they would have more leverage internationally to make treaties that would encourage trade.) When I said "the anti-federalists turned out to be right about a lot of things" I was thinking more about their concerns about how the unlimited tax authority given to the federal government would lead to scope creep. Apparently anti-federalists suggested that this could even lead to a federal income tax and this was considered ridiculous at the time.

tticvs 3y ago
Important context to concerns about trade monopolies at the time: the East India Company. One of the major concerns leading to the revolution was the behavior of the EIC towards the inhabitants of India and the worry that a similar institution would be unleashed upon American colonists. The EIC was only able to grow so powerful because of the monopoly granted by the Crown. What we think of monopolies now are a product of the gilded age and not the same as what the Founding Fathers were thinking of. They were thinking of monopoly as "legally empowered corporation that then becomes an oppresively dominant quasi-government institution"
- qwytw 3y ago
  > was the behavior of the EIC towards the inhabitants of India "Really? While the concerns with the EIC having the monopoly on the tea trade and I think some other stuff like saltpetre(?) were real enough, this sounds a bit like a case of populist hysteria. And I seriously doubt many were that seriously concerned about the treatment of Indians (in India) when one of the most significant grievances the colonists had was the fact the crown severely limited the uncontrolled expansion of the west and established an Indian Reserve west of the the Appalachian Mountains (and assigned pretty much all of the territory captured from France during the French and Indian wars. A slightly more cynical person might wonder what part did the fact the British tricked Washington (and his soldiers) - promising them land in the newly captured territories and later backtracked on this by severely limiting non Native Americans from settling there -played in inciting him to join the revolution/rebellion.
  - notahacker 3y ago
    The colonists didn't care about Indians in India, they cared that they might end up in the same situation as the Indians in India
    - qwytw 3y ago
      I find that extremely doubtful (I mean something like that might have been used in propaganda material of course but nobody could have seriously considered that to be a realistic threat). The position the 13 colonies and the parts of India (that were under control/influence of the EIC) were in could had hardly been more different. Also this possibly somewhat anachronistic because the level of control the East India Company had over India back in the 70s was quite limited and relatively indirect.
      - tticvs 3y ago
        William Dalrymple's book The Anarchy has some excerpts from American pamphlets decrying the EICs treatment of Indians (particularly during the Bengal famine of 1770) and also warning that the British would attempt to re-organize the colonies in a way that matches the EIC. I don't have time to dig up the passages. It's obviously not the singular cause but it was also very realistic. If you can manage it, try to think from their perspective: the Crown is preventing you from expanding westward to limit your power, you are hearing (distorted) reports of unimaginable atrocities being committed in the name of profit by the EIC in India, at the same time the EIC is being granted extraordinary privileges in your colonies. Fear of the Crown re-organizing your governmental structure along the lines to move to an extractive form of colonization were well founded. Furthermore, and returning to the original topic of this thread, the colonists were very averse to monopolies on trade since the few examples they had lead to disastrous behavior by the monopolists. > the level of control the East India Company had over India back in the 70s was quite limited and relatively indirect. Completely false, after the battle of Plassey in 1757 led to the EIC gaining direct control over all of Bengal (the largest and richest kingdom of India at that time) and they had installed puppet governments in other kingdoms and provinces. By the time of the American revolution their power had only grown, surpassing any of the remaining independent kingdoms. As an aside, When the British public (and hence the American public) found out about the full extent of the atrocities committed by the EIC in India there was a very large public backlash including putting the director on trial for what we would now term Crimes against Humanity. These people were not angels, but they were not only rampaging colonial brutes. History is complex, historical people doubly so.

tticvs 3y ago

Important context to concerns about trade monopolies at the time: the East India Company. One of the major concerns leading to the revolution was the behavior of the EIC towards the inhabitants of India and the worry that a similar institution would be unleashed upon American colonists. The EIC was only able to grow so powerful because of the monopoly granted by the Crown. What we think of monopolies now are a product of the gilded age and not the same as what the Founding Fathers were thinking of. They were thinking of monopoly as "legally empowered corporation that then becomes an oppresively dominant quasi-government institution"

qwytw 3y ago
> was the behavior of the EIC towards the inhabitants of India "Really? While the concerns with the EIC having the monopoly on the tea trade and I think some other stuff like saltpetre(?) were real enough, this sounds a bit like a case of populist hysteria. And I seriously doubt many were that seriously concerned about the treatment of Indians (in India) when one of the most significant grievances the colonists had was the fact the crown severely limited the uncontrolled expansion of the west and established an Indian Reserve west of the the Appalachian Mountains (and assigned pretty much all of the territory captured from France during the French and Indian wars. A slightly more cynical person might wonder what part did the fact the British tricked Washington (and his soldiers) - promising them land in the newly captured territories and later backtracked on this by severely limiting non Native Americans from settling there -played in inciting him to join the revolution/rebellion.
- notahacker 3y ago
  The colonists didn't care about Indians in India, they cared that they might end up in the same situation as the Indians in India
  - qwytw 3y ago
    I find that extremely doubtful (I mean something like that might have been used in propaganda material of course but nobody could have seriously considered that to be a realistic threat). The position the 13 colonies and the parts of India (that were under control/influence of the EIC) were in could had hardly been more different. Also this possibly somewhat anachronistic because the level of control the East India Company had over India back in the 70s was quite limited and relatively indirect.
    - tticvs 3y ago
      William Dalrymple's book The Anarchy has some excerpts from American pamphlets decrying the EICs treatment of Indians (particularly during the Bengal famine of 1770) and also warning that the British would attempt to re-organize the colonies in a way that matches the EIC. I don't have time to dig up the passages. It's obviously not the singular cause but it was also very realistic. If you can manage it, try to think from their perspective: the Crown is preventing you from expanding westward to limit your power, you are hearing (distorted) reports of unimaginable atrocities being committed in the name of profit by the EIC in India, at the same time the EIC is being granted extraordinary privileges in your colonies. Fear of the Crown re-organizing your governmental structure along the lines to move to an extractive form of colonization were well founded. Furthermore, and returning to the original topic of this thread, the colonists were very averse to monopolies on trade since the few examples they had lead to disastrous behavior by the monopolists. > the level of control the East India Company had over India back in the 70s was quite limited and relatively indirect. Completely false, after the battle of Plassey in 1757 led to the EIC gaining direct control over all of Bengal (the largest and richest kingdom of India at that time) and they had installed puppet governments in other kingdoms and provinces. By the time of the American revolution their power had only grown, surpassing any of the remaining independent kingdoms. As an aside, When the British public (and hence the American public) found out about the full extent of the atrocities committed by the EIC in India there was a very large public backlash including putting the director on trial for what we would now term Crimes against Humanity. These people were not angels, but they were not only rampaging colonial brutes. History is complex, historical people doubly so.