
‎	‏John Taylor's‭ ‬Tyranny Unmasked continues the Old Republican tradition of opposition.  Taylor's frustration with the current state of the Union is clear in his work,‭ ‬perhaps even more so than in‭ ‬Construction Construed.  Making comparisons between the operations of a theocracy and the current United States,‭ ‬Taylor points out the dangerous path the Union is currently taking,‭ ‬and makes arguments for the return to principles that seem forgotten by the current administration.
‎	‏Taylor addresses what he sees as an attempt to recreate the government of England in the United States,‭ ‬and not in a favorable way.  This would mean supporting the manufacturing industry rather than agriculture,‭ ‬which Taylor vehemently opposed.  He disagrees with the idea that an overflowing treasury is the key to happiness,‭ ‬and points out that this situation has not improved the happiness and freedoms of the majority of England's citizens,‭ ‬nor that of the citizens of the United States.  Yet because the current situation in the United States consisted of high duties that supported manufacture and punished agriculture,‭ ‬Taylor was forced to argue against the concept of precedents altogether,‭ ‬and yet again make the point that bad policy should not continue just because it currently exists or existed in the past.
‎ ‏	Taylor blames the current state of the Union on these bad policies.‎  ‏He claims that banks,‭ ‬exclusive privileges,‭ ‬taxes,‭ ‬and war have ruined the economy.  He calls for a return to pre-war Jeffersonian policies,‭ ‬as that was a time of plenty and success for the economy.  He addresses the idea that agriculture cannot be a better choice than manufacture,‭ ‬because it does not bring profit‭  ‬to all of the states.  By this logic,‭ ‬Taylor claims,‭ ‬some states must be responsible for the success of all the others.  This is entirely the opposite of the federation of states that Taylor claimed was the basis for the country.  He argued instead for a free market,‭ ‬which would allow each state to grow or manufacture according to its ability,‭ ‬and trade what it produced with other states that produced different things.  He believed that the limitations placed on trade only served to make capitalists richer,‭ ‬and agriculturalists poorer.  
	He argued vehemently against the method of trade proposed by the capitalists,‎ ‏which he viewed as a transfer of property rather than a fair exchange.  He questioned the stated motive of the trading restrictions,‭ ‬that the privileged European nations would harm the Union's trade.  He claimed that a nation cannot harm another nation with its monopolies,‭ ‬but that the government of a nation could certainly harm its own people,‭ ‬and he believed that was the current situation in the United States.  He argued against trading goods for paper money,‭ ‬which was essentially useless as its value was unstable,‭ ‬only to have to then trade that paper money for the other goods that you traded your goods to get in the first place,‭ ‬when you should be able to just trade goods for goods.