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
Hitler lost that part of the war at El Alamein, Walt. Numerical losses mean little when the strategic blow is overwhelming.
El Alemein gets a lot of play. It was just about the only victory that was solely British.
The Germans took some licks, but the forces involved were very small compared to the Russian Front. When the Brits began emerging from the mine fields, the Germans grabbed all the motorized transport and left post haste. The Italian infantry was left behind for capture. Hitler was in a bad way because he knew he couldn't count on the Italians to hold the Med for long. Reinforcing NA was just a stop gap. Large numbers of very good German troops were sent to NA and thereby thrown away in North Africa after it was clear the Italian Navy was too timid and later too outnumbered to support them.
but you still forget that the Germans defended the Italian front until the very end of the war.
El Alemein per se was not that big a deal.
Walt
Not necessarily. An evenly split senate can tilt one way or the other depending upon who is in the White House. Lincoln made it very clear he was willing to influence the direction of that tilt if necessary.
History disagrees with you Walt, but just as I said, you have prechosen your position and chained yourself to it. El Alamein popped up in this conversation after you locked the chains together and happened to be inconsistent with your position. Therefore you respond to it by marginalizing the whole of the African part of the war and downplaying its significance.
That's a silly way to interpret history, Walt, but one you have thoroughly embraced and practiced time and again.
I never said or implied that.
I said his plans were strictly continental, and so they were.
Walt
No, I said the surrender at Tunis of @ 250,000 Axis soldiers in the spring of 1943 was the really big kicker, and so it was.
This is just all so odd.
Walt
Yes you did, Walt. 4 times. Don't lie about it now that you've been called on it
"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
So now Africa's a big deal? Cause earlier you were implying that it was a small scale operation of little significance. I believe you called it "a sideshow to Hitler."
First German troops deployed to Africa in February, 1941.
The investment was small then.
Later it grew. It was a two year campaign. Hitler sent a lot of troops to NA after it was clear the place couldn't be held.
Hitler thought of it as a sideshow in 1941; nothing mattered except beating the USSR. That was pretty much true the whole time for Hitler.
Walt
But the Senate was not evenly split. There were 38 Democrats and 26 Republicans and 2 from the American party. If the tariff was really the issue then the southerners had more than enought votes to kill it. So why didn't they?
But what happens if government uses its power to infringe upon or even destroy people's rights, as our Founders feared it might do? As the Declaration points out, in that case it is the right of the people to alter or abolish their government and to institute new government that would be more likely to protect their rights.
What rights were being infringed upon?
So you take him at his word? Maybe you are related to Chamberland or something, but Hitler then proceeded to declare war on the United States on December 11th, 1941. Is that in the record or not?
The macroeconomic effects were less clear and less discussed. High tariffs diminish trade and make competing industrial countries less prosperous. But the question for early 19th century America was whether they would simply be exporters of raw materials and importers of finished goods from Britain, the economic powerhouse of the time, or develop their own industries. The desire to use tariffs to promote manufactures at home was understandable.
Carlander and Majewski address an ignored aspect of the problem. Confederate tariff rates were lower, but would be applied to a larger percentage of goods, since the South had so few industries. Therefore, this lower tariff would have had a protective effect and inhibit trade, given the wide volume of goods that would have to be examined and taxed, until the South were able to develop its own industries. Because so many products and such a large percentage of goods would be taxed, the dichotomy of the protectionist North and free trade South isn't as clear cut as one might think. Virginia manufacturers were quite happy with the lower tariff, because they recognized that it would make Northern manufactures less competitive.
It's also intriguing that it was not Lincoln, but Buchanan, who would have gone far to preserve the peace, who signed the Morrill tariff.
Maybe they knew the fix was in. Everyone knew how treacherous Linclon was. Sarcastic as that sounds, I do remember a ballsy Trent Lott being neutered by Clinton in the Serb bombing funding fiasco.? You know, the president you and Walt would vote for...
Isn't Grover Cleveland most famous for having a baseball player named after him?
Walt
Hitler thought of it as a sideshow in 1941; nothing mattered except beating the USSR. That was pretty much true the whole time for Hitler.
It is pretty clear at the time that Hitler didn't think NA was all that important. He was convinced that he could rap up Russia by 1942, and all the oil and gold fillings along with it.
I never said anything like that. I said that in its purest form the brotherhood of workers would be worldwide. This was an idea popular 80-90 years ago in this country. The IWW was an agent of this; several of its leaders were lynched.
Nationalists want people to have loyalty to nations. That is incompatible with a brotherhood of all workers. That's all I ever said.
Hitler's calling the party national-socialist was clever, but it wasn't honest. Can we agree that Hitler was not honest?
Walt
Can we agree that Socialists and Nationalists are not honest?
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.