Talk:American System/archive 1

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  It has been called... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Questions

message: "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: .  Also see the following extraction from "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; 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.". 
*Hamilton and Clay linked to one system of economic policy by Carey -  and also here .
*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: .
*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: -  - 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: .
*Here in the same letter Carey links Colbert, Franklin, George Washington, and  Alexander Hamilton again: 
*Washington again linked to Hamilton by Carey: .
*Here Carey links Washington, Hamilton, Hancock, Franklin to one and the same system: .
*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):  and here:  and here .
*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. 
*Clay himself tells of where his philosophy is rooted in his speech here: .
"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 .
*Second, it is well documented the linkage of the defunct Whig Party elements who opposed slavery creating with others the Republican Party of Lincoln .
*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  and the National Banking Act of 1863  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:  and as is shown the Expo link  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." 
**"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." .
**"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." .
**"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." 
**"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" 
**"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." 
**"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." 
**"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." 
**"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." .
**"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." 
**"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." 
**"**"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." 
**"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." 
**"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. " 
**"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. " 
*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." 
**"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." 
**"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." 
**"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." [
**"9. Resolved, That we are in favor of the speedy construction of the railroad to the Pacific coast." 
**"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." 
**"Under its administration, railways have increased from 31,000 miles in 1860, to more than 82,000 miles in 1879." 
**"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." .
**"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." 
**"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." 
**"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."" .
**"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." .
**"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." .
**"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." 
**"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." 
**"We have passed laws which will bring the arid lands of the United States within the area of cultivation." .
**"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." .
**"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. " 
*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." 
**"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." 
**"...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." 
**"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. " 
"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  - he did and with regard to Banking he did , 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  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)
replies: text: Once more, can you name a single historian who calls Hamilton the "pioneer" of the AS? -Will Beback 23:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: ANSWERS

message: 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)
thread_title: BACKGROUND FOR STUDY ON AMERICAN SYSTEM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO ECONOMICS TODAY

message: 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)
thread_title:  Critics claim... 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: The platforms don't mention the "American System". -Will Beback 01:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: protectionmism = American system Rjensen 01:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Sources needed 

message: 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." 
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)
replies: text: "Editions" or "additions"? We need a source for these "other policies". -Will Beback 23:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Will will suggest what we SHOULD say and we can edit him. Rjensen 06:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Format

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scope of the article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Supporter and Critics

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Good Job

message: 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)
thread_title: Useful links to books at Cornell University

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Woodrow Wilson

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A few discussion points on the Federal Reserve

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Legacy and renewed interest

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A short note on the ports controversy

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Critics of the American System

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Names of the American System

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: The intro

message: *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* 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Then you haven't read them and don't grasp history or this article well. --Northmeister 01:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which secondary source are you referring to? -Will Beback 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Articles Legacy Section

message: 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)
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Marx 

message: 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)
thread_title: Fundamental Tenets

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: (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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Interest 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Smoot Hawley 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Northmeister's recent edits

message: "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)
thread_title: Smoot-Hawley Tariff

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Ok, agreed. --Northmeister 23:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Deal 

message: {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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: For which assertion do you want me to provide a source? -Will Beback 19:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  -Will Beback 23:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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." --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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Facts 

message: *==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. 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." 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced section #1 Legacy of the American System and renewed interest today 

message: *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.
*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)
thread_title: Unsourced section #2 Supporters and opponents

message: *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)
thread_title:  Unsourced section #3 AS in the 20th century 

message: *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 , and served as a showcase for the achievements of the United States. 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.  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." 
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)
thread_title:  Unsourced section #4 - Centennial Expo 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: WILL BEBACKS ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR

message: 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)
thread_title: This is a process of restoration

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Notice of a short attempt to work this out

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

message: "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.nema.org 
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."senate.gov" 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Added my rewrite to sandbox. See what you think. --Northmeister 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added it to the article. WAS 4.250 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It got good enough to go "live", so now we can edit it  live. WAS 4.250 20:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Charles A. Beard is one of the best known popular historians of the mid-20th century. Here is a link to his book, , 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)
thread_title:  Cartoon 

message: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Suggested reading material

message: a paragraph that replaces mine that you feel corrrectly describes the relationship of "American system" to 
#Keynesian economics
#mixed economy
#classical economics
#Free Market
#Classical economics
#Supply-side economics
#Austrian School
#Monetarism
Don't worry about sources at this point. WAS 4.250 20:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Please rewrite here

message: 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)
thread_title: SOURCES IN FULL MANY CAN BE READ ONLINE

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

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

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

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

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

text: --Northmeister 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What are you talking about. I agree with most of your proposal. -Will Beback 23:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And to I, if WAS will concur - then its a go. --Northmeister 01:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for solution to definition problems

message: 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)
thread_title: Moved page per above discussion