Echoes of Protectionism: A Century-Spanning Pattern in U.S. Tariffs and Population Policies
Greetings everyone I feel compelled to start another batch of “Don’t Repeat History” articles this time under the overarching theme of history dealing with economics regarding such topics as tariffs which this article dives into or central banks, taxation and other related topics that Liberland has I would argue a different approach to this centuries old problem in that Austrian economics has not been fully implemented on a national scale such as what Liberland is attempting to do currently. Because of the repeating patterns that I recently noticed with how America is currently diving head first into tariffs AGAIN I feel compelled to revive this series again as I have periodically since I first starting publishing this series almost a year ago.
In the annals of American economic history, patterns often emerge not as rigid cycles but as recurring themes driven by crises, populism, and the perennial tension between open markets and national self-preservation. One such intriguing observation I posit is that there is a roughly 100-year rhythm in U.S. protectionist policies, manifesting prominently in the 1820s, 1920s, and 2020s. This pattern, rooted in tariffs designed to shield domestic industries and immigration measures that control labor flows and demographic shifts, reveals a persistent undercurrent of economic nationalism. While not a flawless loop—as history rarely is—these similarities across these eras are striking enough to warrant serious consideration. For a libertarian haven like Liberland, where free trade and open borders are foundational principles, examining these U.S. periodic cycles serves as a cautionary tale against the allure of protectionism, which often promises security but delivers stagnation and conflict.
The 1820s: Foundations of Tariff Walls and Forced Displacements
The early 19th century marked a pivotal shift in the young United States toward policies that prioritized domestic growth over unfettered global exchange. Emerging from the War of 1812, which exposed vulnerabilities in supply chains and manufacturing, America embraced protectionism as a tool for industrial infancy. The Tariff of 1816 initiated this trend with average duties around 35%, escalating to about 40% by 1820. This culminated in the infamous Tariff of 1828, dubbed the “Tariff of Abominations” by its Southern critics, which imposed rates averaging 45-50% on imported goods. These measures aimed to protect nascent Northern industries such as textiles and iron from British competition, while also generating federal revenue. Proponents, including figures like Henry Clay and his “American System,” argued that high tariffs would foster self-sufficiency and economic independence.
Yet, protectionism in this era extended beyond mere trade barriers and went into the realm of population control, albeit in a form that diverges from modern immigration debates. While European immigration was largely encouraged—unrestricted and vital for populating the expanding frontier—the treatment of Indigenous populations tells a darker story of exclusionary policies. The Indian Removal Act of 1830, signed by President Andrew Jackson, authorized the federal government to negotiate (often coercively) the exchange of Native American lands east of the Mississippi for territories in the West. This policy, brewing throughout the 1820s amid settler pressures and economic ambitions, facilitated the displacement of tens of thousands from tribes like the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole.
The infamous Trail of Tears, primarily unfolding in 1838-1839 under Jackson’s successor Martin Van Buren, exemplified the human toll: forced marches in brutal conditions led to the deaths of over 4,000 Cherokee alone out of 15,000-16,000 relocated. Driven by “squatterism”—illegal white encroachments on Native lands—and the desire to open vast acres for cotton plantations tied to slavery, this act can be seen as a proto-immigration policy in a settler-colonial context. It wasn’t about barring foreign entrants but about forcibly removing existing inhabitants to prioritize opportunities for white settlers and European immigrants. Historians view it as ethnic cleansing, intertwined with manifest destiny, which justified such actions as essential for national expansion and economic protection.
In libertarian terms, this era’s protectionism—combining high tariffs with demographic engineering—highlights the dangers of state intervention. Tariffs distorted markets, fueling sectional tensions that foreshadowed the Civil War, while forced removals violated property rights and individual liberties on a massive scale. Liberland’s ethos of voluntary association and minimal government stands in stark contrast, reminding us that true prosperity arises from free exchange, not coerced reallocations.
The 1920s: Post-War Nativism and Escalating Barriers
A century later, the 1920s echoed these themes amid the aftermath of World War I, economic anxieties, and a surge in nativism. Protectionism resurfaced with vigor, beginning with the Emergency Tariff Act of 1921 and the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922, which elevated duties to an average of 38-40% on dutiable imports. These protected agriculture and manufacturing sectors reeling from European recovery and global overproduction. The crescendo came with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised rates on over 20,000 items to 50-60%, often cited as a catalyst for deepening the Great Depression through retaliatory tariffs from trading partners.
Parallel to these trade walls were explicit immigration restrictions, marking a sharp departure from the relatively open policies of the prior century. The Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 introduced national-origins quotas, capping annual inflows at 150,000-350,000 and favoring Northern and Western Europeans while excluding most Asians and severely limiting Southern and Eastern Europeans. Framed as safeguarding American workers from “undesirable” competition, these laws were steeped in eugenics and economic fears, protecting the domestic labor market much like tariffs shielded industries.
This dual approach—tariffs and quotas—reflected populist pressures to preserve jobs and cultural homogeneity amid rapid urbanization and post-war dislocation. For Liberland observers, the American 1920s illustrates how protectionism, ostensibly for national benefit, spirals into global isolation and economic harm. The Smoot-Hawley era’s trade wars underscore the libertarian critique: barriers beget retaliation, stifling innovation and voluntary trade that could have mitigated the Depression’s severity.
The 2020s: Modern Echoes in Trade Wars and Border Controls
Fast-forward another century, and the 2020s have witnessed a resurgence of protectionist fervor, accelerated by geopolitical tensions, pandemics, and supply chain disruptions. Under President Donald Trump starting in 2018, tariffs targeted key sectors: up to 25% on over $300 billion in Chinese goods, 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum globally, with extensions to autos, copper, and more. By 2025, average tariffs hovered around 18-20%, justified under national security and reciprocity rationales. This trend persisted into the Biden administration, marking a bipartisan reversal of post-World War II liberalization.
Immigration policies in this decade have similarly tightened, blending economic protection with security concerns. Trump’s tenure featured travel bans on several Muslim-majority countries, drastic reductions in refugee admissions (down to 15,000 in 2021), border wall construction, and visa curtailments during COVID-19. While inflows surged post-2021 under Biden, measures like Title 42 expulsions (invoking public health to block asylum seekers) and ongoing crackdowns addressed inflation, job protection, and issues like fentanyl trafficking. These policies, often linked to tariff rhetoric on “trade imbalances,” aim to shield domestic workers from global labor competition.
Drawing parallels to the 1820s’ Indian Removal, modern restrictions can be seen as demographic controls favoring economic nationalism. Though not identical—today’s focus is on regulating inflows rather than internal displacements—the intent to “protect” core industries and labor markets persists.
Synthesizing the Pattern: Lessons for a Free Society
Surmising a 100-year pattern isn’t difficult when examining these eras side by side. Common drivers abound: economic crises (post-war recoveries, depressions, pandemics), populist demands for job security, and regional interests (Northern industries in the 1820s, Rust Belt in the 2020s). Tariffs consistently aimed at industrial protection, while population policies—whether through forced removals, quotas, or bans—served as labor market barriers. Historians describe U.S. protectionism as episodic, influenced by generational shifts and political realignments, rather than a strict cycle.
Caveats remain: The 1820s lacked formal immigration quotas, focusing instead on Indigenous exclusion to enable expansion; outcomes varied, with early tariffs aiding growth but later ones exacerbating woes. One only needs to look at the high tariff rates imposed by the United States during the “Civil War” era to see that tariff rates were ratcheted up during time period as well. (It was also when the first income tax in United States was imposed.) Yet, the recurrence is evident, potentially tied to broader theories like Strauss-Howe generational cycles.
For Liberland, this pattern underscores the perils of protectionism. In a micronation built on blockchain governance, voluntary taxation, and open borders, such U.S. histories warn against the seductive trap of barriers. True liberty thrives in free markets and unhindered movement, not in walls—be they tariff or territorial. As America grapples with its protectionist impulses, Liberland stands as a beacon of what could be: a society where exchange is consensual, and prosperity is unbounded.