Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln

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.

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

"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.

Rightly or wrongly, many 19th century Americans did not want to be relegated to the position of Spain or Jamaica, Australia or Argentina: that of a provider of raw goods for British industry.

And as I have noted, there is no better way to NOT be relegated to such a position than to let the market work freely and produce where it says to produce rather than Britain. You keep repeating yourself in asserting that fear, yet at the same time that fear is no compelling reason for protectionism.

Well, that says it all. Agree with it or not, I don't think Hamilton's or Lincoln's tariff policy can be compared to slavery.

What is it then? First you insert morality, then you want it taken out, and now you want it back under consideration.

If you want to discuss morality, tell me - regardless of any other issue is it moral or immoral to make one's fortune off the backs of others by way of designing a self-beneficiary government policy to boost your business? If it's moral, tell me why. If it's immoral, that makes the desire to implement those policies, protectionism, immoral as well.

Moreover, it's not clear that tariffs were as destructive as you claim. Even without tariffs, the development of technology and the opening of new lands made agriculture increasingly less profitable and industrial development advisible.

I think the problem here is becoming increasingly clear. You're citing excuses rather than arguments for protectionism. Sorry but that simply doesn't fly. The presence of some gains from protectionism is inevitably outweighed by far greater losses in practically every situation regardless of how much you anecdotally inflate and promote the numbers of those few who gain. That's simply the way tariffs work. The effects of a protectionist tariff as an economic policy are readily identifiable beyond any of the silly little hypothetical situations, single case possibilities, and appeals to historical "understanding" you offer as excuses on its behalf. The entirity of those gains is almost always surpassed several times over by the losses. This is a matter of mathematical certainty, not pick and chose anecdotal excuse making.

As for agriculture in 1860, southern production was at an all time record high.

This is a matter of mathematical certainty, not pick and chose anecdotal excuse making.

That's part of the problem with the Rockwell school. There's no allowance for the degree of knowledge people had at the time or the particular situation. There is the one mathematical answer that can be applied to all conditions. I am glad that you know the answer to 19th Century America's economic problems, but I suspect that applying it would also have created many difficulties and conflicts and I'm not sure the results would have been as successful.

The protectionist argument was that on the whole the development of industry through tariffs would benefit the country in the end. I don't think there's much use for tariffs today, but they did play some role in getting an industrial free labor economy started. Certainly Washington, Hamilton, Madison and Monroe thought so.

Condemn protectionism morally and one can't avoid condemning the greater offense of slavery. To do otherwise would truly be relativism. Given the options of the day, the free soil, protectionist, unionist package was far better than the expansion of slavery, free trade, secessionist bundle. Slavery, not protection was the poison pill.

So I'm not inclined to savage those who saw protection as a way of promoting national unity. To the degree that protection worked against national unity and concord, there is some room for condemnation, but I don't see tariffs as the central question of the era. Tariff discussions took place in the context of the conflict between two very different societies, economies and ways of life.

I am apparently not going to convince you and, given what you've already said, you are unlikely to say anything that will convince me. I have raised a number of points that you have not addressed -- Confederate support for sugar tariffs, the role of protectionists in promoting an industrial capitalist economy and the contempt of agrarian free marketeers for such a way of life, the protective effects of revenue tariffs in regions without much industry -- but given the impasse, I am willing to let the discussion lapse.

That's part of the problem with the Rockwell school. There's no allowance for the degree of knowledge people had at the time or the particular situation.

Sure there is. You simply do not wish to allow for the presence of that knowledge among participants in the politics of that time. Free trade was thought highly of among Southerners and its theory was developed in their political thinking. In addition the economic basis for free trade developed by Ricardo had been around for almost half a century and the practice of a free trade system had been policy for some time.

There is the one mathematical answer that can be applied to all conditions.

No, not really. There are basic rules of economic behavior out there though, and their validity may be shown graphically though. The Laffer curve, for example, is one of them. Another is a tariff's implications for an economy.

The protectionist argument was that on the whole the development of industry through tariffs would benefit the country in the end.

Yes. You've said that. It does not make it a valid argument though, and the laws of economics show that it is far from valid. Industry develops into areas of advantage and comparative advantage on its own under free trade conditions. Tariffs serve to impede that and artificially distort the economy into something that it is not and cannot sustain fully. Now, protection for INFANT industry is permissable and beneficial to a degree, but that is not what the protectionists of 1860 wanted. They wanted indefinate continued protection of their personal resources by eliminating the foreign competition with tariffs.

Condemn protectionism morally and one can't avoid condemning the greater offense of slavery.

Who ever said slavery was not condemnable? My point is that shouting "but...but...but...the south had slaves!" is simply not an answer or excuse to the intrinsically immoral act of using the government to make yourself fat to the detriment of everybody else. You have yet to address that issue and instead only respond with a tu quoque variation of shouting slavery. You are peddling a non-answer by attempting to excuse and obscure the protectionist's sins by addressing it only as a matter of relativity to the sin of slavery. That simply will not fly.

I have raised a number of points that you have not addressed -- Confederate support for sugar tariffs

You have obviously neglected to read my responses then as I addressed that point specifically. Condemnable as they may be, the small minority of southerners who benefited from the sugar tariff in no way makes the entire south into tariff lovers. One could just as easily say there were old whig southerners who favored tariffs, which is true in itself, but just as pertanent to that argument is the fact that they were a small minority of the southern population. Any population is bound to have minority political opinions within it. That does not mean that minority opinion is somehow on par with or overriding to the majority opinion.

the role of protectionists in promoting an industrial capitalist economy

The practice of business sleeping with government is not true capitalism.

Many thanks, and by all means share Walt's recent praises of Clinton among other things with freepers who encounter him without the proper background and therefore may be inclined to assume conservatism. I put together a Public Service Announcement for precisely that purpose:

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
The following is a collection of recent statements from freeper "WhiskeyPapa" aka "Walt" on FR that accurately demonstrate his far left political leanings. Each statement is verifiable at the link accompanying it. It has also been said that, in addition to voting for Bill Clinton, this same individual has admitted on FR to have bragged of never supporting a Republican presidential candidate. Among his candidates of choice, it is said, were Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, and most Al Gore, this in addition to Clinton. In addition to the following statements, WhiskeyPapa is known most famously for his obsessive anti-southern tirades, support of PC censorship against the south, and for throwing racial mccarthyist style accusations of bigotry at other freepers in a manner not unlike the tactics practiced by the radical left.

"All these deaths of U.S. citizens --the death of EVERY U.S. citizen killed by Arab terror in the United States, can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush I." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=452#448

"I'll say again that based on what I knew in 1992, I would vote for Bill Clinton ten times out of ten before I would vote for George Bush Sr." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?q=1&&page=401#420

"As you doubtless know, the separation of powers in that Pact with the Devil we call our Constitution, gives only Congress the right to raise and spend money." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432

"Nationalism and socialism are opposites." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=570#516

"First of all, the AJC [Atlanta Journal-Constitution] is -not- an "ultra-leftist" newspaper, and you know it." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/13/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784464/posts?page=70#70

"I feel that admiration for Reagan has rightly diminished over time, and rightly so." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02
SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=432#432

Once again, my interest is not in contemporary economic theory, but in what people living at the time thought and how things looked to them.

Economists were far more divided on free trade and protection than they are now. It was still a living question, not a settled matter or fixed dogma. And the very association of free trade with plantation slavery, drove many who desired freedom towards protection as an alternative. I don't fault them for making that decision.

The prominence of economists among today's Confederate apologists is striking. They confidently insist that they have the answers, but they aren't always asking the same questions that people asked then or considering the state of knowledge at the time. The devotion of 21st century economists to 19th century slaveholders would be quite comic if it weren't so chilling.

As I've said, our approaches are so much at odds that there's no point in continuing. We aren't asking the same questions. If anyone's been following the discussion this far and wants to continue, Gabor Boritt's book "Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream" looks worth reading.

Once again, my interest is not in contemporary economic theory, but in what people living at the time thought and how things looked to them.

And once again, Ricardan trade theory has been around since the 1820's and pro-free trade policies had been in place for the decade prior to the war. It is simply INDISPUTABLE that many people living at that time were aware of free trade theory and believed it to be the best policy. Why you are intent upon arguing against that fact on the grounds that there were also protectionists at the time who subscribed wholeheartedly to an economic theory of fallacy that was known as fallacy both then and today is beyond me.

Economists were far more divided on free trade and protection than they are now.

So what's your point? That there were more of them out there doesn't mean the protectionists were right. It is a huge stretch of historical fact, BTW, to consider Henry Carey an economist.

It was still a living question, not a settled matter or fixed dogma.

Truth does not depend upon when it was settled in consensus. That truth was uncovered in Ricardan theory. Naturally, there were many people then who subscribed to falsehood just as there are some today. But that does not change the truth of trade dynamics.

The prominence of economists among today's Confederate apologists is striking.

It shouldn't be. Economists tend to be aware of trade dynamics, rational choice politics, and above all else, the tendency of money matters to play major roles in the events of human history and especially warfare.

They confidently insist that they have the answers, but they aren't always asking the same questions that people asked then or considering the state of knowledge at the time.

You still have not demonstrated in any way, shape, or form that the people of 1860 knew nothing of the economics of trade that we know of today. You have not provided any reasons, only a few narrow anecdotal and hypothetical excuses for the beneficiaries of protectionism that were as invalid back then as they are today. Considering that the entire basis for trade theory, the Ricardan model, has been around since the 1820's, you have quite a task at hand proving it was not understood in 1860.

As I've said, our approaches are so much at odds that there's no point in continuing.

That may be so, but it does not change the fact that your promoting protectionist myths and excuses to otherwise irrational and unreasonable ends. In other words, you are defending the indefensible in action.

Only in the same way a mugger's empowered to your wallet.

Oh, you mean empowered under --law--.

What's your beef? The Constitution gives the clear power to the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare.

I think secession would compromise both. If the Congress thinks that, they are clearly authorized to act by the necessary and proper clause.

What it comes down to to is that the sesesh thought they could walk. But they couldn't.

A mugger, you say? The so-called CSA authorized a 100,000 man army while the U.S. army was only 17,000, and mostly scattered in the west. At Pensacola, there was an ordnance sergeant and his wife in charge of the U.S. armory. The contents of this armory the rebels promptly stole. But I digress.

Suppose that the feeling in the north were such that Lincoln's call for 75,000 volunteers was not met, and reaction in the north was tepid to the rending of the Union.

That wouldn't last long -- an army of 100,000 on our borders? That simply couldn't be tolerated. If the CSA had ever managed to garner any legitimacy -- which it didn't-- if it exchanged ambassadors and embassies and all that -- the United States could still have slam dunked it at any time, and that would have been sooner than later.

Walt

i used to footnote my comments, but stopped when the damnyankees & scalawags CONSTANTLY said that WHATEVER source i posted wasn't acceptable to them. i got tired of doing research for CLOSEMINDED cretins & it was time-consuming. the LAST footnoted post i did was the one that a damnyankee (WP i THINK) said the "the OR" was NOT an acceptable historical source as it was "contaminated by the rebels".

LOL. You know Jeff Davis was really a left-wing cross-dresser who organized the first gay pride parade when he was in exile in Canada. Him and Bobby Lee were an item ya know. I read that somewhere but I don't worry about sources with closed-minded Davis idolaters like you. Just trust me --- it's true, because I said so.

free condoms for dixie.

The devotion of 21st century economists to 19th century slaveholders would be quite comic if it weren't so chilling.

I find it ironic as well that so-called Libertarian economists like DiLorenzo takes the cause of the slaveocracy that had no respect or for free labor or free markets. The southern economic order was a Feudal form of socialism where a small number of very large plantations controlled the economic, social and ultimately political destiny of every thing and every one in their orbit as opposed to the dynamic free market system advocated by Adam Smith or Hamilton. In the southern order, economic power inevitably concentrated in fewer and fewer hands while in a free market the process of creative destruction assured that neither wealth or power could become highly concentrated. One is very orderly and predictable, the other very unpredictable but highly productive.

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.