Posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot
Evidence Builds for DiLorenzo’s Lincoln by Paul Craig Roberts
In an excellent piece of historical research and economic exposition, two economics professors, Robert A. McGuire of the University of Akron and T. Norman Van Cott of Ball State University, have provided independent evidence for Thomas J. Dilorenzo’s thesis that tariffs played a bigger role in causing the Civil War than slavery.
In The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo argues that President Lincoln invaded the secessionist South in order to hold on to the tariff revenues with which to subsidize Northern industry and build an American Empire. In "The Confederate Constitution, Tariffs, and the Laffer Relationship" (Economic Inquiry, Vol. 40, No. 3, July 2002), McGuire and Van Cott show that the Confederate Constitution explicitly prohibits tariff revenues from being used "to promote or foster any branch of industry." By prohibiting subsidies to industries and tariffs high enough to be protective, the Confederates located their tax on the lower end of the "Laffer curve."
The Confederate Constitution reflected the argument of John C. Calhoun against the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. Calhoun argued that the U.S. Constitution granted the tariff "as a tax power for the sole purpose of revenue – a power in its nature essentially different from that of imposing protective or prohibitory duties."
McGuire and Van Cott conclude that the tariff issue was a major factor in North-South tensions. Higher tariffs were "a key plank in the August 1860 Republican party platform. . . . northern politicians overall wanted dramatically higher tariff rates; Southern politicians did not."
"The handwriting was on the wall for the South," which clearly understood that remaining in the union meant certain tax exploitation for the benefit of the north.
October 16, 2002
Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions Evidence Builds for DiLorenzo’s Lincoln by Paul Craig Roberts
In an excellent piece of historical research and economic exposition, two economics professors, Robert A. McGuire of the University of Akron and T. Norman Van Cott of Ball State University, have provided independent evidence for Thomas J. Dilorenzo’s thesis that tariffs played a bigger role in causing the Civil War than slavery.
In The Real Lincoln, DiLorenzo argues that President Lincoln invaded the secessionist South in order to hold on to the tariff revenues with which to subsidize Northern industry and build an American Empire. In "The Confederate Constitution, Tariffs, and the Laffer Relationship" (Economic Inquiry, Vol. 40, No. 3, July 2002), McGuire and Van Cott show that the Confederate Constitution explicitly prohibits tariff revenues from being used "to promote or foster any branch of industry." By prohibiting subsidies to industries and tariffs high enough to be protective, the Confederates located their tax on the lower end of the "Laffer curve."
The Confederate Constitution reflected the argument of John C. Calhoun against the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. Calhoun argued that the U.S. Constitution granted the tariff "as a tax power for the sole purpose of revenue – a power in its nature essentially different from that of imposing protective or prohibitory duties."
McGuire and Van Cott conclude that the tariff issue was a major factor in North-South tensions. Higher tariffs were "a key plank in the August 1860 Republican party platform. . . . northern politicians overall wanted dramatically higher tariff rates; Southern politicians did not."
"The handwriting was on the wall for the South," which clearly understood that remaining in the union meant certain tax exploitation for the benefit of the north.
October 16, 2002
Dr. Roberts [send him mail] is John M. Olin Fellow at the Institute for Political Economy and Senior Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He is a former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal and a former assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury. He is the co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions
for the families that had a multitude of their civilian family members murdered, raped,robbed and/or the POWs in their family murdered/tortured by the damnyankees it is precisely the same.
in the case of our family, 92 innocent civilians & 5 POWs were MURDERED, because they were not white.
free dixie,sw
go look it up for yourself, if you don't believe me. DE had ALL their slaves still in bondage a YEAR after Richmond fell, for one.
as i've said numerous times, the damnyankees wanted to free southern slaves, but NOT their own. face it the ONLY things damnyankees are really good at are hypocrisy & arrogance.
free dixie,sw
as a point of information, wee willie SELECTED NY as his "natural & ideal home"; need i say more.
free dixie,sw
You're on a roll, buddy. Compare an uprising to preserve slavery that was suppressed, to the genocidal extermination of six million people. Brilliant. You really have no shame. My mother was an immigrant, and a Holocaust survivor. I happen to take this s--t rather personally.
their civilian family members murdered, raped,robbed and/or the POWs in their family murdered/tortured by the damnyankees it is precisely the same.
Don't be ridiculous. Y'all STARTED the damn war. If you didn't want folks killed, Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard would never have starting shelling the United States Army installation at Ft. Sumter. As for the treatment of POWs, I think Henry Wirtz eliminated any moral authority for the rebel cause.
in the case of our family, 92 innocent civilians & 5 POWs were MURDERED, because they were not white.
And what, exactly, does that sad fact have to do with the Civil War?
may i humbly suggest you head over to DU;you'll be very happy.
free dixie,sw
And in the new and improved southron republic will you put yourself forward as head of the thought police, ready to hunt down dissent and begin deportation proceedings? Only 'right thinking' people are allowed to remain citizens regardless of birth? Ah, it will be just like the old days under Davis.
as a point of information, wee willie SELECTED NY as his "natural & ideal home"; need i say more.
It's the southron way. In 1889 it didn't take Varina Davis long to beat feet to New York City once she had the old boy safely planted.
You had 5 family members fighting for the Union?
regardless of who started a war, it does NOT make it all right to COMMITT WAR CRIMES, like murdering/raping thousands of INNOCENT civilians and/or POWs in any military force's custody.
also, may i suggest that you go read the letter of 1989 from the Judge Advocate General of the US Army ot the Board for the Correction of Military Records, reference: the "judicial murder committed against CPT Henry Wirz, late of the CSA Medical Deapartment". a short abstract of that document follows:
the Captain was tried by a military tribunal, in violation of both US law and international custom upon evidence, which was known by the presiding officer of the tribunal at that time,to be perjury suborned by high-ranking officers of the US government. On that basis alone, setting aside the obvious dishonesty of the entire proceeding, the Board must set aside the verdict & sentence of the tribunal, correct CPT Wirz's service records to indicate those facts and make appropriate apologies to the family of CPT Wirz.
FYI, i am not your buddy.
free dixie,sw
"The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year, for the more I see of these Indians, the more convinced I am that they all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers." Gen. W.T. Sherman
Genocidal extermination sounds exactly what the great yankee, Gen. W.T. Sherman intended to practice.
LMAO. Its kind of hard to think of anybody more treasonous than yourself. You actively promote armed insurrection against the United States. And yet you have the gall to tell reasonable folks to go join a rebellious website. Get thee gone. If you don't like this country, go find another one.
her gr-gr-grandfather was another CSA POW who was murdered in cold blood by the US Army, while a POW at PLPOWC.
free dixie,sw
Yes, if I can count myself.
Are you referring to the April Glasby mess? Cause most tend to agree that the war itself was handled well.
Remember the video of these poor people fleeing on foot in very extreme weather, with nothing to eat?
I don't particularly remember the specific video. That happens a lot in the third world, so it's hard to remember them all.
Don't forget that he pardoned Admiral Poindexter, Caspar Wienburger and others late in 1992 to keep them out of prison.
Good. Iran-Contra was largely a democrat-fabricated scandal built upon a congressional attempt to infringe upon administration foreign policy jumbled with a string of unconstitutional legislation and some bureaucratic mishaps.
Do you think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? It's pretty much accepted that the 1993 attack on the WTC was the work of his agents.
Yes, but to hold Bush Sr. responsible for the unforseable events of a decade later simply because he didn't go all the way into Bagdhad to get a suspected indirect participant in the 9/11 plot is just plain silly. If anything, the person who let the plot's DIRECT participant Osama Bin Laden slide bears immensly greater responsibility, and that person is Bill Clinton. Remember the aspirin factory bombings in 1998? Reports indicated that they knew where Osama was a week or so earlier and asked Clinton for the go ahead. Had they fired then there's a good chance they would have hit him. But Clinton had a jury to testify for the next week about his girlfriend and corruption, so he held off knowing a missile strike would take his own problems off the front page. So Clinton testified and a day later he approved the missile strike against the camp where Osama had been a week earlier, but Osama had moved out and it missed. If you want to blame anybody for that, Walt, Clinton - the guy you voted for - is your man.
George Bush Sr. will -always- be remembered as one of the very worst presidents.
Most polls and historical studies place him as middle of the road. Clinton on the other hand has firmly solidified his place as the most corrupt president in history, though the verdict will not be in on his administration for at least a couple years.
free dixie,sw
free dixie myass
Are you not going to defend George Bush Sr.?
Presumably you voted for him.
I'll say again that based on what I knew in 1992, I would vote for Bill Clinton ten times out of ten before I would vote for George Bush Sr.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.