POLITICALLY CORRECT HISTORY - LINCOLN MYTH DEBUNKED

LewRockwell.com ^ | January 23, 2003 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo, PHD

[one2many]

<!-- a{text-decoration:none} //-->

CONTENT="">

Politically Correct History by Thomas J. DiLorenzo The political left in America has apparently decided that American history must be rewritten so that it can be used in the political campaign for reparations for slavery. Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Chicago inserted language in a Department of Interior appropriations bill for 2000 that instructed the National Park Service to propagandize about slavery as the sole cause of the war at all Civil War park sites. The Marxist historian Eric Foner has joined forces with Jackson and will assist the National Park Service in its efforts at rewriting history so that it better serves the political agenda of the far left. Congressman Jackson has candidly described this whole effort as "a down payment on reparations." (Foner ought to be quite familiar with the "art" of rewriting politically-correct history. He was the chairman of the committee at Columbia University that awarded the "prestigious" Bancroft Prize in history to Emory University’s Michael A. Bellesiles, author of the anti-Second Amendment book, "Arming America," that turned out to be fraudulent. Bellesiles was forced to resign from Emory and his publisher has ceased publishing the book.) In order to accommodate the political agenda of the far left, the National Park Service will be required in effect to teach visitors to the national parks that Abraham Lincoln was a liar. Neither Lincoln nor the US Congress at the time ever said that slavery was a cause – let alone the sole cause – of their invasion of the Southern states in 1861. Both Lincoln and the Congress made it perfectly clear to the whole world that they would do all they could to protect Southern slavery as long as the secession movement could be defeated. On March 2, 1861, the U.S. Senate passed a proposed Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution (which passed the House of Representatives on February 28) that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with slavery in the Southern states. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Document No. 106-214, presented by Congressman Henry Hyde (Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, January 31, 2000). The proposed amendment read as follows: ARTICLE THIRTEEN No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. Two days later, in his First Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln promised to support the amendment even though he believed that the Constitution already prohibited the federal government from interfering with Southern slavery. As he stated: I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution . . . has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose, not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable (emphasis added). This of course was consistent with one of the opening statements of the First Inaugural, where Lincoln quoted himself as saying: "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." That’s what Lincoln said his invasion of the Southern states was not about. In an August 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley he explained to the world what the war was about: My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. Of course, many Americans at the time, North and South, believed that a military invasion of the Southern states would destroy the union by destroying its voluntary nature. To Lincoln, "saving the Union" meant destroying the secession movement and with it the Jeffersonian political tradition of states’ rights as a check on the tyrannical proclivities of the central government. His war might have "saved" the union geographically, but it destroyed it philosophically as the country became a consolidated empire as opposed to a constitutional republic of sovereign states. On July 22, 1861, the US Congress issued a "Joint Resolution on the War" that echoed Lincoln’s reasons for the invasion of the Southern states: Resolved: . . . That this war is not being prosecuted upon our part in any spirit of oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and all laws made in pursuance thereof and to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several states unimpaired; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease. By "the established institutions of those states" the Congress was referring to slavery. As with Lincoln, destroying the secession movement took precedence over doing anything about slavery. On March 2, 1861 – the same day the "first Thirteenth Amendment" passed the U.S. Senate – another constitutional amendment was proposed that would have outlawed secession (See H. Newcomb Morse, "The Foundations and Meaning of Secession," Stetson Law Review, vol. 15, 1986, pp. 419–36). This is very telling, for it proves that Congress believed that secession was in fact constitutional under the Tenth Amendment. It would not have proposed an amendment outlawing secession if the Constitution already prohibited it. Nor would the Republican Party, which enjoyed a political monopoly after the war, have insisted that the Southern states rewrite their state constitutions to outlaw secession as a condition of being readmitted to the Union. If secession was really unconstitutional there would have been no need to do so. These facts will never be presented by the National Park Service or by the Lincoln cultists at the Claremont Institute, the Declaration Foundation, and elsewhere. This latter group consists of people who have spent their careers spreading lies about Lincoln and his war in order to support the political agenda of the Republican Party. They are not about to let the truth stand in their way and are hard at work producing "educational" materials that are filled with false but politically correct history. For a very different discussion of Lincoln and his legacy that is based on fact rather than fantasy, attend the LewRockwell.com "Lincoln Reconsidered" conference at the John Marshall Hotel in Richmond, Virginia on March 22. January 23, 2003 Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland. Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo Archives Really Learn About the Real Lincoln Now there is a study guide and video to accompany Professor DiLorenzo's great work, for homeschoolers and indeed anyone interested in real American history. http://www.fvp.info/reallincolnlr/

Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page

[mac_truck]

The mathematical proof I offered demonstrated the negative influence in a country's welfare that is inescapably brought about by a protective tariff

Your mathematical "proof" shows only that there is a potential COST involved with the application of a tariff, that's all. That there is an "inescapable negative influence on the welfare of the country" as a result of adding a cost to certain imports, is pure bullshit.

Now according to you

under a free market, that market will adjust and incorporate such costs on its own and continue to trend toward trade where the comparative advantages exist.

So, when a tariff, or other COST raises the comparative price of a product, the market adjusts by seeking the product at a better comparative advantage.

Theorectically, the added COST of shipping cotton from Charleston, to Belfast, NI versus New York City (or god forbid, to a textile mill in South Carolina), would also have made European products more expensive. Now we see why you danced around the question earlier.

The effect of tariffs on FOREIGN products meant the United States paid MORE for manufactured goods from England, and (according to your own thesis) should have produced an increase in DOMESTIC trade to avoid that COST. Specifically between the south and the north, which had offsetting and complimentary comparative advantages.

That you consider this to be a "negative influence on the welfare of the nation", provides insight into how little you understand or care about the history of the United States.

Evidently your literacy level leaves as much to be desired as your glaringly deficient understanding of markets

LOL! -Thanks, coming from you thats a compliment.

[GOPcapitalist]

Your mathematical "proof" shows only that there is a potential COST involved with the application of a tariff, that's all.

No. It shows that, by its very nature, that cost outweighs the protective returns to the producer in the benefitting industry. The result, due to the dead weight losses, is inevitably a net loss in the overall welfare of the country when compared to what occurs absent the tariff.

That there is an "inescapable negative influence on the welfare of the country" as a result of adding a cost to certain imports, is pure bullshit.

Not at all. It is a mathematical certainty caused by the sloped curves of supply and demand. Though I suppose this is hard to describe without a way to draw those curves, I will attempt a description for you:

First visualize a supply-demand diagram (a positively sloped and a negatively sloped line that intersect in the first quadrant). Since this graph represents a candidate good for a protective tariff, it is likely that the world price is lower than the autarky price at the intersection. The world price under free trade will accordingly be lower than the intersection point, which is why the domestic producers want a tariff.

Under free trade, that world price - represented by a vertical line to the corresponding Y variable of price - creates a consumer surplus of that which is above it but to the left of the demand curve. Enact a tariff, and that world price line rises with the tariff, thus removing part of the consumer surplus. to the other side of that line. That which is below the new post-tariff price line but to the left of the supply curve is the part redistributed to the producer. But since the demand curve, at the point of the pre-tariff price, extends to the right of the supply curve at that same price, there still remains a part of the consumer surplus that is not redistributed. Mathematically this part is divided into government reciepts from the tariff (mathematically contained in the "rectangle" between the new price's two intersects and the old pre-tariff price) and the deadweight losses (the triangular segments of the consumer surplus on either side of the square). Because those deadweight loss segments are removed from the economy, that of the consumer surplus that returns by way of the producer and government is inevitably less than that which was removed in the first place. Hence a net loss will occur from a protective tariff.

Theorectically, the added COST of shipping cotton from Charleston, to Belfast, NI versus New York City (or god forbid, to a textile mill in South Carolina), would also have made European products more expensive.

You are still missing the point and spouting a command-style approach to economic distribution that completely neglects the demand portion of the equation. A producer's goal is to sell a good at the market price. He'll take a buyer from anywhere so long as that price is paid, and in fact he has to since agricultural markets are very close to perfectly competitive. In other words, why send all the cotton to NYC if NYC only demands X ammount of cotton that they will pay for? This is especially so when Europe is also demanding Y ammount of cotton and offering to pay the same market price. As a result, the cotton goes to whoever buys it by whatever means they may use to get there. In theory, some transit means will under certain conditions cost more than others, but as a whole this is negligable and adjusted for by the market.

The effect of tariffs on FOREIGN products meant the United States paid MORE for manufactured goods from England

No they didn't. If that were so, trade would not have occurred as it did because everybody would have bought the domestic products instead of the foreign ones.

and (according to your own thesis) should have produced an increase in DOMESTIC trade to avoid that COST.

Not when Britain is comparatively better at manufacturing the same product than the domestic producers are. In fact, that is precisely why the domestic guys wanted a tariff - they claimed that they could not compete with the lower prices from abroad, and demanded "protection" from that competition.

Specifically between the south and the north, which had offsetting and complimentary comparative advantages.

Complementary comparative advantages in one area does not preclude the existence of greater comparative advantages in another. Europe at the time had greater comparative advantages in many industries than the north did. That is why the north wanted tariffs to protect them in the first place.

That you consider this to be a "negative influence on the welfare of the nation", provides insight into how little you understand or care about the history of the United States.

Much to the contrary. That you are spouting a mixture of antiquated 200 year old mercantilist nonsense and command style economic planning in the year 2003 indicates, if nothing else, that you have not the slightest clue how markets work. You fail to even comprehend the straight-forward and easily followed mathematical proof of my argument, much less rebut it. It truly makes me wonder whether I should laugh at you or pity you.

LOL! -Thanks, coming from you thats a compliment.

If you desire to take pride in your ignorance, who am I to stop you? I suppose that there is bliss in ignorance after all, as you certainly appear to have found it!

[mac_truck]

Protection of an industry diminishes the consumer surplus by raising the price (we'll denote that as "C"). A portion of that consumer surplus is redistributed to the producer surplus (denoted as "P"), though far from all of it. Of the remainder of C-P, it divides between two parts. The first is that which returns in a small ammount of government revenue (we'll call this "G"). The remainder is a dead weight loss that escapes the home economy (we'll call that "L").

What is the exact ratio of G to L? What is the reason that L even occurs and how is it measured? Why don't other COST increases (like transportation) have an L factor also?

Expressed mathematically: C=P+G+L, or the area that shifts as a result of the tariff's price rise. Absent the protective tariff, the economy retains all of C as a consumer surplus. The economic welfare of the country without a tariff, denoted as "W," includes all of C. Now let's look at what happens mathematically with the tariff. Subtract C from Wt (Wt means W with the tariff) because of the price rise after the tariff. P is transfered out of C to the fishing industry and returns to the economy, so add it back to Wt. You may also add G to Wt as it returns in the form of government expenditures, though they will as a general rule be spent less efficiently there.

Yeah, you do the hokey pokey and you shake it all around...

Since L is lost, the tariff leaves us with Wt + -C + P + G. Since C = P + G + L, it may be substituted in giving us Wt + -P + -G + -L + P + G. Combine the terms, and Wt = -L.

That makes Wt < W

When you create a formula that assumes an action creates a "dead weight loss", of course. You could have just as easily stated

W = economy without tariff, Wt = economy with tariff. Wt= W-L.

Therefore Wt < Wt.

Once again, this formula is your straw man and its not fooling anyone. The invisible graphs won't work either (lol).

Why don't you try researching the actual costs of producing manufatured goods in the mid-19th century from both the american and european (british) perspectives. Write a formula based on that and demonstrate how tariffs ruined the american economy.

[GOPcapitalist]

What is the exact ratio of G to L?

It all depends on the tariff type and the shape of the supply and demand curves. Typically though L is more from the cases I've seen.

What is the reason that L even occurs and how is it measured?

Mathematically, it occurs because demand and supply curves are sloped while the difference in government revenue is measured vertically. The deadweight losses (L) are measured mathematically as well by simply calculating the area of the two deadweight loss regions on a plotted tariff graph. Since these are often triangular in linear functions, you calculate it by 1/2 base x height. Why don't other COST increases (like transportation)

Unlike the tariff, they are automatically built into the market. The tariff is a government policy imposed to alter the free market conditions.

Yeah, you do the hokey pokey and you shake it all around...

No. You take money out of the private sector, give it to the government, and the chance that the government will spend it in a comparatively inefficient manner is virtually certain.

When you create a formula that assumes an action creates a "dead weight loss", of course.

It's not an assumption. It's a mathematical certainty. Supply is positively sloped and demand is negatively sloped. If I draw a horizontal line at the world price level crossing those two curves below their intersect, and then draw a parallel horizontal line above it indicating the new price including the ammount of the tariffs, the distance between the price line's intersect with each curve decreases. G mathematically covers the area in between the two new intersects and down vertically from them to the old price line. That still leaves two triangles on either side of G, and they are L - the deadweight losses.

Once again, this formula is your straw man and its not fooling anyone.

Do you even know what a straw man is? It certainly doesn't appear so. Nor does it appear that you have a clue what you are talking about. The formula I posted for you may be found in any scholarly economics text on the nature of tariffs. That formula says you are wrong and its application mathematically proves that you are wrong. You may not like the fact that you are wrong, but that is not my concern. My point is to show that according to the rules of economics you are wrong, and to that end I have done so without any credible refutation whatsoever on your part.

The invisible graphs won't work either (lol).

Hey, don't blame me. It's not my fault that you lack the mental capacity to visualize a simple mathematical plot in your mind seeing as this method of communication does not permit any other way to convey it to you.

Why don't you try researching the actual costs of producing manufatured goods in the mid-19th century from both the american and european (british) perspectives.

I certainly could, pending time to do so, but seeing as I can say with certainty right here and right now that Europe had the comparative advantages, doing such research is not a priority. How do I know this, you may ask? Because if it were not so, there would have been no reason for the domestic guys to advocate a tariff in the first place - they would have had the market all to themselves by way of a lower price than the imports.

Write a formula based on that and demonstrate how tariffs ruined the american economy.

No need to. You may find it already demonstrated in both the New York Times and the Times of London shortly after the previous year's trade stats came out in 1862.

[mac_truck]

The formula I posted for you may be found in any scholarly economics text on the nature of tariffs. That formula says you are wrong and its application mathematically proves that you are wrong.

Huh?

What did I say that your formula proves otherwise?

Have you been talking to yourself again?

[GOPcapitalist]

Huh? What did I say that your formula proves otherwise?

In an act of random idiocy on your part, you declared it a "straw man" and alleged incorrectly that it had been designed to reach an assumption.

[mac_truck]

Your formula proves that? I don't think so.

[GOPcapitalist]

Your formula proves that? I don't think so.

Then either you did not read the formula as you claim, or you should be able to show the mathematical error within it.