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
Those three battles marked the high-water mark of the Axis. Only hind-sight would say that they were "turning points." No one in 1942 thought that the war had turned and over the next 3 years, any number of blunders by the allies or successes by the Axis could have resulted in a very different outcome.
No, I said he was setting up a continental "system", just like Napoleon. In that, I quote General Fuller, who probably heard of El Alemein too.
Hitler's ambitions, like Napoleon's were continental, even though they both sent forces to Egypt.
Walt
There was a book years ago called, "Ninety Days that doomed the Axis". The ninety days encompassed the Battle of El Alemein in October, 1942, Stalingrad, which fell in Feburary and Guadalcanal, which the Japs began to evacuate, also in February. But Hitler didn't lose that much at El Alemein -- he didn't have much to lose. After the Allies landed in Northwest Africa, Hitler ordered a big reinforcement of North Africa -- even though he hadn't been able to supply the much smaller Afrika Corps. This was more of his intuition. The Axis lost @ 250,000 troops in NA (lots of Italians though). Really, the surrender at Tunis was a big kicker of a defeat. I think that was like April, 1943.
Walt
When and in what State, did they marry?
Where is any evidence of either in Kentucky before the fall of 1808?
Surely no one will dispute that both were employed by Abraham Enloe as of 1-1-1804, he at the main Rutherford plantation and she at the Bostic farm.
Where is any evidence they were married at all before the fall of 1808?
Even if somehow the bearded Abe could (at 13?) win rail-splitting contests against grown men in 1822 New Salem, surely no one will deny that his antecedents were leading remarkably parallel lives in Rutherford County, NC, in 1803-08, years just before [or after!] his birth!
A myth is really better than the truth, after all. It may be closer to what is needed, demanded, by the spirit of the times. Carl Sandburg knew all about this, but all he dared do was move from his native Illinois to a spot in North Carolina near the true birthplace, where the Emancipator's poet/biographer lived out the rest of his days.
Exactly right.
The Germans had something like 300 infantry divisions. We only had 90.
But ours were larger and better supported. But by early 1945, all our units were committed. There was no slack at all. Great credit goes to General Marshall on settling on that number of infantry divisions. It took 68 weeks for them to go through their training syllabus, so he had to get it right. Of course U.S. units were all lavishly equipped and staffed; the Air Corps lacked for nothing. We also had a very large navy and merchant marine.
Walt
Hindsight is about the only way one could view a turning point beyond speculating something that is yet to happen. But for history's sake, those three battles are where the war turned.
You are fibbing again, Walt. Your statement is right here:
"Hitler's goals were strictly continental." - Walt, post 954
"The record shows that Hitler's goals were strictly continental" - Walt, post 958
"Hitler's intentions were strictly continental." - Walt, post 972
"his plans were strictly continental." - Walt, post 986
They are your words, Walt. You cannot escape them.
You tried to BS people in talking about the House of Representatives. They could pass bills until the moon turned blue. It meant nothing if the slave states could jam up the Senate. And they willingly and foolishly gave up that veto power on freedom and progress by walking out.
Walt
And you changed them to read "Hitler's war was continental", something I -never- said.
You are a clown; you will say anything.
Walt
It could have something to do with the fact that there was still an election up for grabs in November and that the push for a tariff could still be halted. The Lincoln and his party changed all that.
Hitler lost that part of the war at El Alamein, Walt. Numerical losses mean little when the strategic blow is overwhelming.
Enloe was bankrolled by Howard Hughes. That's what I heard.
And you are totally ignoring Lincoln's twin sister Mercury? Why is that?
Walt
Non-Sequitur is your man. Blame him.
Walt
and also at blueridge.net/~chadm/
No Walt. You said "Hitler's goals were strictly continental." You stated this and variations of it in at least 4 different places:
"Hitler's goals were strictly continental." - Walt, post 954
"The record shows that Hitler's goals were strictly continental" - Walt, post 958
"Hitler's intentions were strictly continental." - Walt, post 972
"his plans were strictly continental." - Walt, post 986
Now you are fibbing about it after the fact and claiming you never said that. Too bad for you it's all there recorded on the thread.
You are a clown; you will say anything.
You are projecting again, Walt. Admit your error and get over it. That, if nothing else, is the biggest impediment to your social skills - you are incapable of admitting your own errors in any substantial way. Rather than allow history to shape your understanding of any given event, you pick a preset position, chain yourself to it at all costs, and attempt to bend and mold everything else external of that position into line with it no matter how wrong it may be. If Walt thinks one way and reality says its another, reality must be wrong, according to you Walt. The same goes for anyone who points out your inconsistency with reality. You conclude they must be wrong since they are inconsistent with the uneducated position you chained yourself to at an earlier point.
Where were Nancy Hanks and Tom Lincoln in 1804? - Thomas Lincoln was in Washington County, Kentucky from 1786 to 1803. From 1803 to 1806, he lived in Hardin County, Kentucky (Mill Creek farm near Elizabethtown, Kentucky), and from 1806 to 1808 (Elizabethtown, Kentucky), from 1808 to 1811 (Sinking Spring farm), 1811 to 1816 (Knob Creek farm), etc. Each of these locations is identified by a variety of records which are readily available (tax records, mortgages, jury records, deeds, bills of sale, records of debt, etc.). While written documentation proving Nancy Hanks's whereabouts during 1804 and 1805 is lacking, there exist several oral traditions which place her in the home of Richard Berry in Washington County, Kentucky during this period.
When and in what State, did they marry? - There exists a document dated June 11, 1806, in Washington County, Kentucky. It is a bond for her marriage to Thomas Lincoln which occurred one day later on June 12, 1806. A second record, the marriage return of the minister who performed the marriage (Jesse Head), is also extant and lists the marriage as occurring on June 12, 1806, in Washington County, Kentucky.
Where is any evidence of either in Kentucky before the fall of 1808? - See reply 1.
Surely no one will dispute that both were employed by Abraham Enloe as of 1-1-1804, he at the main Rutherford plantation and she at the Bostic farm. - I will dispute it. Thomas Lincoln was in Kentucky at the time.
Where is any evidence they were married at all before the fall of 1808? - the marriage documents exist. See reply 2.
Abraham Lincoln had an older sister, Sarah Lincoln, born in 1807 in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. If older, she must have been born in North Carolina according to the Enloe legend. Was Enloe also the father of Sarah? If born in 1807, Sarah would in fact be younger than Abe. Assuming Sarah was born in 1807, and was therefore younger than Abraham according to your legend, then all subsequent information about her is confusing. She married Aaron Grigsby while living in Indiana with her family in 1828 (age 21) when Abe was either 19 or 24. Surely the difference between 19 and 24 would have been obvious? The earliest record in Lincoln's own hand known to exist is dated 1824 and consists of his writing in a homemade school assignment book. If he was born in 1804 then he would be 20 years old at the time of the writings, too old for school by any standards of the time.
About the only part of your post I'll agree with is the fact that in this case you do find myth more attractive than the truth. And the truth is that the evidence is against your story.
They could have killed it in the Senate regardless. Why the change?
I'd like to, but currently a group of us is engaged in a heated discussion over issues involving World War II and, earlier, the Gulf War. A liberal disrupter named WhiskeyPapa who is continuously allowed to post here for some unknown reason has been arguing that George Bush Sr. was to blame for 9/11 and, now, that the nazis were not the socialist movement that history says they were. As you can probably relate to, such positions are not only wrong but downright offensive to the truth, especially what he said about 9/11. Therefore I continue to expose his statements.
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.