No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
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
You should not tell lies.
Don't you know you'll go to Hell?
Walt
No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.
I have a BA in History from that great state university in Knoxville.
Walt
Oh, no it's not.
Try reading Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation:
...the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the Union shall be perpetual...
I may have been brainwashed, but at least I can form a coherent sentence.
and NO, all the damnyankee, self-serving lies of the imperialist,arrogant,hatefilled, anti-semitic left of the DIMocRAT, socialists of the NE will change my belief in FREEDOM
It is ironic that your post says exactly the opposite of what you meant to say. From now on, I'll approach f.Christian when I need coherence.
to quote Professor Tyrone S. Brown of Dillard University, "the hateful imperialists of the northeast NEVER cared a damn about anyone except themselves, money and power
Fortunately, I suppose, for us, Abraham Lincoln wasn't hateful, wasn't an imperialist, and wasn't from the Northeast.
I could have, but I chose to attend accredited schools instead.
Oh, no it's not.
Try reading Article XIII of the Articles of Confederation:
...the articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the Union shall be perpetual...
free dixie,sw
Ha.
Vandy's in Nash Vegas.
Walt
Yes you do. You canonize those who waged war against them. You accuse them of being imperialists, murderers, war criminals and tyrants. You do hate the United States, and your hatred is irrational.
i DO favor FREEDOM for dixie, as many southron freepers do.
And, if I understand you correctly, you define "freedom" as the destruction of the United States, and the creation of a successor state where the existence of absolute tyrany and oppression, namely slavery, would have been preserved in perpetuity by the Constitution. You hate your country, and you need at least to grant yourself the dignity of being honest about it to yourself.
But liars go to Hell. And you tell lots of lies.
Here's a chance to tell the truth.
Is Oklahoma part of the United States? Was it part of the United States when it was an indian territory?
Walt
If it makes you feel better, I'm a graduate of the University of Virginia.
All these comedians out of work...
Walt
With an internship at the House of Detention. How big was your cell?
Walt
What would your reaction be to a president who did not attempt to supply a besieged garrison? The word Impeachment comes to my mind. Anderson and his 40 men had become living, breathing symbols of the Union to the people of the north. Lincoln had no choice but to attempt a re-supply mission. Divis had no choice but to force Anderson's surrender. A protracted standoff worked in Lincoln's favor in keeping the Upper South in the Union and Davis understood that fact.
98.6 F
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.