Andrew Jackson was no protectionist

Shortly before Donald Trump’s return to the White House, staffers made sure to rehang an Andrew Jackson portrait that Joe Biden had removed. Trump described America’s seventh president as “a very tough person” who nevertheless had “a big heart.”

Trump clearly admires “Old Hickory” Jackson, one of just three Carolina natives to serve as president (so far). Both Trump supporters and opponents claim to see many parallels between the two men. But when it comes to the timely topic of trade policy, Donald Trump is notfollowing in the footsteps of his hero.

As the ruling Democratic-Republican Party began to split apart in the 1820s, the faction led by John Quincy Adams favored protectionist taxes on imports. By contrast, the Jacksonian faction championed freer trade and “revenue” tariffs, so called because their purpose was to raise revenue to pay federal expenses — which required setting the tax rate low enough that it wouldn’t discourage Americans from buying imported goods.

During election campaigns, Jackson and his Democratic successors — including “Young Hickory,” Mecklenburg County native James K. Polk — sometimes dangled import taxes in front of swing voters in protectionist-leaning states such as Pennsylvania. Still, they generally disdained high tariffs as a special-interest scheme to redistribute income from the general public to wealthy owners of protected industries.

Shortly after taking office in 1829, President Jackson unilaterally opened American ports to British goods. Throughout the previous presidency, John Quincy Adams had tried and failed to negotiate a trade deal with London. His political coalition really didn’t give him much space for negotiation. Many Adams supporters preferred to exclude imported manufactures even if that meant Americans exported fewer commodities and agricultural goods to British markets.

Characteristically, Jackson decided to cut this Gordian Knot. Once he clearly signaled an American shift toward freer trade, Britain reciprocated by opening its Canadian and Caribbean possessions to American merchants. In a subsequent letter to Congress, Jackson claimed credit for settling “a question that has for years afforded matter for contention and almost uninterrupted discussion.”

It is certainly true that when South Carolina firebrand John C. Calhoun asserted the right of state governments to nullify the so-called Tariff of Abominations — signed by Adams during his last year in office — President Jackson threatened to bring the full force of the federal government down on the heads of Calhoun and his allies. That wasn’t because Jackson liked high tariffs, however. Indeed, he privately supported a compromise to pull the tax rates down. What appalled him was any suggestion that states could overturn a federal law duly enacted by Congress or obstruct its enforcement by a duly elected president.

Jackson secured an overall reduction of tariffs in 1833. His successors found even more room to maneuver on trade — and took full advantage of it. In 1846, for example, President Polk signed a bill that both simplified the tariff schedule and reduced its tax rates. At about the same time, the British government was repealing its protectionist “corn laws,” which served to exclude grain imports even during devastating famines.

These measures ushered in “a decade and a half of relatively free trade on both sides of the Atlantic,” as economist Phil Magness observed in a recent history of American trade policy. Alas, tariffs rose again during and after the Civil War.

There are many good reasons to oppose Trump’s new tax hikes on imports. They reflect a poor grasp of basic economics, violate the constitutional separation of powers (which gives Congress, not presidents, the power to tax), and are damaging key relationships with our European and Asian friends at precisely the time we need strong alliances to contain the China-Russia axis of revisionist powers. Furthermore, while I retain some family pride here — childless Andrew Jackson has no descendants but was my first cousin, five generations removed — I concede that some of his policies were wrongheaded and indefensible.

Still, on trade, Jackson got it right. We’d all be better off if Trump were following his lead.

John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy and American history.