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
Or maybe it's because all your insisting that the tariff was the reason for the southern rebellion is a pile of crap.
Who me? Anyways, I am still waiting for you to prove that it wasn't the case, or at least a part of it.
I am signing off for now, I see you are looking for a big cut and paste tonight....
Could be, though I think the story about the illegitimate child still comes out on top. Or maybe it's the fact that he was both the 22nd and 24th President. This was the closest the 19th century came to human cloning. President Cleveland is also known for having a daughter who had a candy bar named for her that everyone assumes was named after a baseball player.
Grover Cleveland Alexander, though, must be the only person to have been named after one President, and played by another in the movies.
You are correct. There was a speech sometime in the 1840's where John Calhoun discussed the concept at length and describing essentially the curve itself with a revenue maximization point and protectionism or revenue raising to either side of it. Before him Alexander Hamilton discussed the concept way back in the Federalist papers, which are mentioned in that journal article.
The desire to use tariffs to promote manufactures at home was understandable.
That is what the protectionists argued and that is at least one major desire of them by pushing the issue, but it is also an economically fallacious argument beyond very basic and limited levels. When trade is not impeded, comparative advantages emerge, the nation as a whole is economically better off from the free trade, and industry develops anyway. That is what the yankee protectionists never understood. Protectionism worked great for them in their own little protected industrial enclaves, but for everybody else, and pardon my wording for lack of a better phrase, it just plain sucked.
By that stage in the game I think Buchanan was of the belief that the union was already gone. He thought he was going to be the last president and that the United States would dissolve permanently only 2 days later. Thinking this and knowing that Lincoln would sign it anyway if he did not, Buchanan signed it.
It was split - sectionally, not on party. And if you think the Democrats would have stopped it you are mistaken. The vote in the House before the election was on strictly sectional lines, not party. Northern Democrats supported it there.
Oh. So now it wasn't just a "sideshow" but an escalating campaign over time. That would make your earlier characterization deceptive, Walt.
That's as idiotic a statement as it was the first time you made it. Half of the Confederacy seceded for reasons other than slavery - something you would know if you read anything other than your 'Blue Avenger' comic books...
;>)
Hitler was just as honest as you seem to be. On the one hand, you insist that “[the Supreme Court Justices] have the final say as to what is law in this country.” On the other hand, you whine and complain that the Supreme Court’s Dredd Scott decision “is one of the worst decisions in the history of the Court. It was an attempt at social engineering...[which] said that blacks had no rights white men were bound to honor -- even though -- blacks could vote in five states."
Which is it? Constitutional ‘law of the land,’ or mere “social engineering?” You can’t have it both ways.
Bon appetit, friend Walt...
;>)
May I ask where all this "worldwide brotherhood of workers" stuff is coming from, Walt? Sure, it appears heavily as a theme in socialist propaganda handouts but as far as the core theory of socialism is defined ("control of the means of production by the people"), it is simply not there.
Nationalists want people to have loyalty to nations.
Not really. Nationalists want unity and strength exercised toward THEIR particular nation and often seek to extend that nation to the world, but they rarely if ever encourage competitors by telling people to simply "have loyalty to nations," any old nation filling that role.
That is incompatible with a brotherhood of all workers.
No, and again, where did this worldwide brotherhood stuff come from? As for your alleged incompatibility it is simply not so. I've explained this in detail to you at great length, all of which you've ignored. I also directed your attention to statements by the founding thinkers of National Socialism, all of them avowed German marxists and all of whom saw German nationalism as the way to achieve socialism.
I'll even repost them here for you:
"The result of Bismarck's decision of the year 1879 was that Germany took on the role of the revolutionary; that is to say, of a state whose position in relation to the rest of the world is that of'a representative of a higher and more advanced economic system. Having realized this, we should perceive that in the present World Revolution, Germany represents the revolutionary, and her greatest antagonist, England, the counter-revolutionary side." - Paul Lensch
"Because in the sphere of ideas Germany was the most convinced exponent of all socialist dreams, and in the sphere of reality she was the most powerful architect of the most highly organized economic system. In us is the twentieth century. However the war may end, we are the exemplary people. Our ideas will determine the aims of the life of humanity. World History experiences at present the colossal spectacle that with us a new great ideal of life penetrates to final victory, while at the same time in England one of the World-Historical principles finally collapses." - Johann Plenge 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?
Established economic powers and underdeveloped countries viewed competitive advantage in different ways. In the British scheme, Spain and Portugal would always be providers of wine to the English, and the Caribbean Islands would always provide sugar for the home country. 19th century Americans wanted to avoid such a subservient fate. And it wasn't only Northerners. Virginians, like Madison and Monroe promoted protective tariffs in the early 19th century. Virginia manufacturers and ironfounders, Kentucky hemp growers, and Louisiana sugar kings all favored higher tariffs.
We've moved beyond protectionism, but a major reason for that is that we are now in the position that Britain had in the early 19th century. We benefit from and rely on foreign trade for our prosperity. A protective tariff would be a great folly for us. In the 19th century, Americans still had to work things out on their own and figure out ways to develop home industries or reconcile themselves to being appendages to other economies.
Given Confederate support for protective sugar tariffs, and Virginia manufacturers' enthusiasm for using revenue tariffs against their Northern competitors, it's pretty clear that things weren't so black and white between North and South.
I'm not sure I know what you mean. What you quoted was something I wrote?
That is admittedly the economic benefit of protectionism to the protected industry. Regardless, the cost in opportunity on the nation as a whole caused by a protectionist tariff and lack of free trade far outweighs any isolated gains in the protected industry. This is a matter of economic fact and a central part of international trade. The problems on the whole caused by protection may be graphically demonstrated without fail, just as may be done with the isolated gains of a protected industry.
but for more impoverished Southerners it's possible and likely that the benefits of protection could have outweighed the costs.
Most likely not, as they would tend to be hit the most economically from the higher post-tariff prices. Though the prices would increase for all, the burden is less upon those with large ammounts of expendible cash after production than those producing on the margin, or the small farms. Perhaps a small few could get into a protected industry and gain from the artificial economic boost created for that industry by the tariff, but the larger whole would continue to suffer the prices. That is because a large and continuous protectionist tariff is nothing more than a perk to a select few drawn from the greater many.
In the British scheme, Spain and Portugal would always be providers of wine to the English, and the Caribbean Islands would always provide sugar for the home country. 19th century Americans wanted to avoid such a subservient fate.
The best way to do exactly that is to promote free trade and produce where the market strength is. This in turn places trade dynamics within the framework of price and production advantages rather than historical preset expectations.
Virginia manufacturers and ironfounders, Kentucky hemp growers, and Louisiana sugar kings all favored higher tariffs.
Is there any reason to expect that they shouldn't have? Political interests have written personal perks into law wherever the opportunity has presented itself since the dawn of history.
Given Confederate support for protective sugar tariffs, and Virginia manufacturers' enthusiasm for using revenue tariffs against their Northern competitors, it's pretty clear that things weren't so black and white between North and South.
Not in the least. That a small minority of any given population acts in a politically inconsistent manner from that population's greater majority in no way means that dissent to be widespread or significant beyond itself. Historical evidence in 1860 makes it clear that the majority representations of both regions advocated opposite policies. The best example of this is the Morrill Act vote in the House of Representatives, which, if I may remind, occurred before secession and therefore enjoyed the full presence of all the state delegations during the vote. The vote broke on strictly sectional lines - arguably the most sectional of any vote taken before the war. Here is how it split:
Total: 105 yes, 64 no.
Yes votes from Confederate state representatives: 1.
Yes votes from the border states of Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri: 6.
No votes from Union state representatives: 15.
Southern congressman voting in favor (including border states): 12.5%
Northern congressman voting in favor: 87%
Ah the old 'prove that something that didn't happen didn't happen' arguement. The fact that virtually none of the documents or speeches or writings of the southern leaders in 1861 mention tariffs as a reason for the rebellion seems to be pretty strong evidence. To everyone but you, of course.
Oh...am I to understand then that you are no longer even making an attempt to differentiate socialism and Nazi-ism? However, this *was* your response when challenged to differentiate socialism and Nazi-ism. It's weak, and it doesn't differentiate socialist policy from Nazi policy.
Whatever. All I said was that in its purest form, socialism posited a brotherhood of workers worldwide. There was a big movement in the American northwest 70-80 years ago that pushed the "One Big Union" -- the Industrial Workers of the World. They still exist.
Labor Unions, as I understand, are a big part of socialism. Hitler outlawed them. He didn't give a fig for socialism. Calling the party the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party, seems disingenuous to me. You don't buy that -- fine.
Surely we have talked this out by now.
Walt
Oh. So now it wasn't just a "sideshow" but an escalating campaign over time. That would make your earlier characterization deceptive, Walt.
It was always a sideshow compared to having Berlin overrun by the red horde.
I haven't said anything the -least- bit controversial or new. You want to argue everything, even when there is nothing to argue.
The biggest thing to come out of this weird WWII thing is you making up quotes and attributing them to me.
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.