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
They uniformly cite slavery as the overriding cause of the schism.
Your big --aha!-- that the ordinances don't mention slavery is just do much doodle.
Walt
Napoleon also sent troops to Egypt. He had as little success as Hitler. And yet his "system" was a continental one.
Hitler's goal was similar, as General Fuller said.
Walt
In typical Walt fashion, you simply marginalize and downplay any tangible evidence that does not fit with your preset position. It would be laughable if it were not so sad.
Back in the real world, the turning points of World War II are interpreted in three battles.
One is the stalemate in Stalingrad, which personified the collapse of Hitler's push into Russia. One is Midway, which turned the Pacific theater. And one is El Alamein. Those three battles turned the war, Walt. Others after them were great and glorious victories, but the Nazi and Japanese pushes were cut strategically at those three battles. Wars do not turn on meaningless engagements in inconsequential regions, Walt.
You know, instead of selfishly bumping the thread, you could have been researching whether or not Nashville had a ship-to-shore radio.
Maybe they radioed back to Beauregard and he locked and loaded based on that.
Walt
Misspoke? Try arguing to no end that you were "right" when everything told you that you were wrong, and doing it just for the sake of arguing.
All the so-called seceded states did have ordinances or documents of secession. Only 4 of the first 7 followed up with declarations of cause.
Your implications from those four documents is a half truth. Not one of those 4 declarations out of 11 confederate states was an official act of statute. They were nonbinding legislative resolutions stating the opinions of the persons who signed them.
The real statutory documents, the secession ordinances, do not say a word about slavery beyond geographical references.
Yet not "STRICTLY continental," which is what you said about Hitler.
And as I indicate, the Afrika Corps was left to die by Hitler; he had bigger fish to fry.
I am again wondering why I would give your opinion credence over that of General Fuller, who, by the way, is often given credit for the concept of "the expanding torrent" that the Germans developed into an operational technique called in the west -- "Blitzkrieg".
Walt
Yet not "STRICTLY continental," which is what you said about Hitler.
Hitler sent no troops to Antarctica. To follow your logic, he couldn't possibly have had global asperations based on that alone.
Walt
Great. Maybe they had one of those neaty-cool marine radars too.
Walt
My research says the Morril Act passed congress in 1862, not 1861 or 1860 as one of your posts said. There was an "income tax" bill that passed in 1861 that was never enforced and a new "graduated" income tax bill was passed in 1863.
Neither was Lee's letter of January 23, 1861 saying that the Union was meant to be perpetual, an official statute. It is still an important document.
Walt
Seems like Old Buck signed the Morrill tariff on March 2, 1861.
Walt
Ditto, dude.
Your logic fails you. An action is not the same as an inaction, Walt. You said Hitler's war was "strictly continental." Hitler engaged in major acts of warfare outside the European continent. Your statement is therefore in error. If you don't like this, you shouldn't have made the statement in the first place.
Your research is in error. It passed the House on May 10, 1860. It passed the Senate in early March 1861 and was signed into law on March 2nd. Prior to that, Lincoln had pledged to make it a top priority in the next session if it did not pass by his inauguration on the 4th.
Nobody denied that it was. You seem to be of the opinion though that they were among the only documents of any relevance and that they take precedent over the official statutory documents, the ordinances. That notion is just plain silly.
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.