Posted on 11/11/2002 1:23:27 PM PST by l8pilot
Evidence Builds for DiLorenzos 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. Dilorenzos 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 DiLorenzos 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. Dilorenzos 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
There is nothing at all inconsistent in these two statements.
The Supreme Court -is- the final arbiter of the law in this country. You don't like their rulings on ACW issues, hence your blue smoke and mirrors.
Walt
Yeah, he abolished all labor unions.
That ain't very social.
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...
I keep the text I need handy. Why don't you?
What did the seceding states say publicly was the reason for their secession?
We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other; and that where no arbiter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences.
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.
The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States.
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her [New Jersey] more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her [New York's] tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.
* * *
The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared by itself to be "to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.
* * *
The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.
Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.
We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
Virginia
...the federal government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of Southern slaveholding states;
Now, therefore, we, the people of Virginia, do declare and ordain, that the ordinance adopted by the people of this state in convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, whereby the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified, and all acts of the General Assembly of this state ratifying or adopting amendments to said Constitution, are hereby repealed and abrogated; that the union between the State of Virginia and the other states under the Constitution aforesaid is hereby dissolved,...
Georgia
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war....
[N.B. See the list of "Declaration Of Cause Of Secession" for several states HERE, and note that IN EVERY INSTANCE the ONLY topic addressed is SLAVERY. TARIFFS ARE NOT MENTIONED. "States' Rights" are not mentioned except as in relation to the right of the Slave states to continue the institution].
Alabama
....And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,
Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security.
Texas
WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression;...
You can say the cause wasn't slavery until the cows come home. It doesn't mean a thing.
Walt
Correct me if I'm wrong, but had not 14 Senators from the 7 Deep South states already left Washington by early March of 1861?
Cute. You come up with some off the wall conspiracy theory and then other people need to prove it wrong.
How about you prove that it correct instead? It is your theory after all.
2.about 5% of southrons EVER owned a slave, despite the hatefilled LIES that the damnyankees tell. the VAST majority of southrons could NOT have owned a slave, had they wanted to, as they were too poor to buy one.
3. according to Professor Walter Williams, the GROSS PERSONAL ASSETS of the common GI of the CSA was LESS than 25 bucks; therefore it is SILLY/IGNORANT/STUPID (or an outright LIE)to say that the southron soldiers, sailors & marines were fighting to perserve slavery.
4. i'm NOT a neo-confederate, but rather a PALEO-confederate, from one of the old southron "militia families", who never stopped dreaming of dixie freedom.(may i gently remind my readers that ERIE fought for >400 YEARS for her freedom from the Brits! southron familes have LONG memories.)
free the southland,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
LIAR. She provided a quote, but not a varifiable source.
Thanks for your reply. Since the other was was in Italics
I assumed you were quoting me.
But I couldn't find anywhere I had said that!!!
I don't originally remember what I said, but as far as "rights" go, my position would be historical and Constitutional.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to
deny or disparage others retained by the *people*.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to the *States* respectively,
or to the *people*.
Amen!
free dixie,sw
That at least is one view, though it's likely that slavery and the power of the planters was enough to doom all such attempts at development.
While it's true that protection inhibits trade between developed countries and decreases prosperity, it's also clear that earlier in history protection helped first Britain, then the US and Germany, and later Japan to develop industries and achieve greater national prosperity.
Perhaps in theory this shouldn't have happened. Perhaps it was the wrong way to proceed. Perhaps remaining agrarian would have been a better option. But it's undeniable that protection did work for these countries in one period of their history. It's not clear that free trade would have worked anywhere near as well for them at the same stage in their development. One may have moral objections to protectionism, but it's not clear why they should carry the day and moral objections to slavery should be muted, marginalized or overlooked.
It's by no means certain that Southern opposition to US national tariffs was indicative of a more general, principled support for free trade. Southern nationalism was in the air. A tariff that gave Northern manufacturers control of the Southern market would naturally be opposed. It's less clear that tariffs that worked to exclude Northern products from Southern markets would be equally unpopular.
What characterized early 19th century America was a growing nationalism and a revolt against that nationalism in many Southern slave states. The same dynamic of growing nationalism and state and sectional opposition to nationalism repeated itself in the Confederacy. Many of those who were strongly opposed to US nationalism became staunch supporters of Confederate nationalism, and of a statist control of the economy in order to win the war.
How the hell would you know?. You have never provided a source for any of your insane rants.
I believe 12 or 13 of them had left. At least one was still there.
Your analogy is false. Berlin was not overrun until much later when Germany itself was overrun from both directions. Try again.
I haven't said anything the -least- bit controversial or new.
So blaming 9/11 on George Bush isn't controversial?
You want to argue everything, even when there is nothing to argue.
You're projecting again, Walt.
The biggest thing to come out of this weird WWII thing is you making up quotes and attributing them to me.
Exactly which quote is made up, Walt? They're all there in public view for anybody to see. Fibbing about them after the fact won't make them go away.
"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
Buying little is not the same as buying nothing, and those who buy little with the very little they have to spend are hurt the most by tariff-induced high prices.
It's by no means certain that they would have been net beneficiaries of protection, but it's highly possible that they would have.
Only in the most limited sense of a select few cases who had the benefit of affiliation with a select protected industry. Further, if those few did gain it would be at the much greater expense of everyone else, because that is simply what protectionist tariffs do. Making a few poor people richer by screwing the rest of the poor people with tariffs isn't exactly what I call advancement. Sorry x, but the laws of economics say you're just plain wrong on this one.
While it's true that protection inhibits trade between developed countries and decreases prosperity, it's also clear that earlier in history protection helped first Britain, then the US and Germany, and later Japan to develop industries and achieve greater national prosperity.
No. They only think it helped them because they never knew the alternative. Britain rose economically in the time of mercantilism, and the US protectionists tried to mimic it in many regards with Lincolnian neo-mercantilism. But that is not to be unexpected as there is nothing to say that economies cannot grow and grow strong with tariffs in place. Could they have been even stronger and grown even faster is another issue entirely, and free trade says they could. The economics of trade and tariffs are a matter of mathematical verification, and trade models mathematically verify that protectionism is an economy inhibiting fallacy.
But it's undeniable that protection did work for these countries in one period of their history.
Not really. A country can still advance with protectionism in place, especially when the rest of the world is just as screwed up if not more so in its trade barrier policy. But that doesn't mean protectionism was the source of that country's wealth, and economic trade models show that it's anything but the case.
It's by no means certain that Southern opposition to US national tariffs was indicative of a more general, principled support for free trade.
Sure it is as the south had advocated a free trade policy for decades. They did so because regionally they were hurt the most by protectionism and because the U.S. trade economy, which was almost entirely southern in exports, stood to gain across the board with free trade.
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.