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
Well if you say so, then it must the word from on high. Since your rants never have a source, I can only assume you get your information from some supernatural informant. (or maybe that little voice in your head)
free dixie chicks.
In some senses, regional conflicts still do occur in the tariff debate.
I watched the Louisiana senate debate on Meet The Press last Sunday. Both candidates were strongly opposed to the recent steel tariffs because they hurt the Port of New Orleans where most of the South American steel enters the US, but they both also support Sugar tariffs because that helps Louisiana sugar farmers.
If the debate had been for the Pennsylvania senate seat, we would have seen both candidates take exactly opposite positions -- in favor of steel tariffs to keep the mills open and opposed to sugar tariffs which hurt Pennsylvania food processors.
Some things never change.
"Lt. Gov. Mark Taylor said Wednesday the state flag referendum which Gov.-elect Sonny Perdue promised in his campaign would be "hopelessly divisive" for Georgia and declared in an interview with the Associated Press, "We need to leave this flag issue alone."
Taylor, who will become the ranking Democrat in the Statehouse in January when the Republican administration comes to power, said the state should stick with the flag adopted last year even though it angers some Southern heritage groups because it all but eliminates the Confederate battle symbol.
Rather than debating a symbol, state policy-makers should focus on jobs and schools and should protect the state's image as one that maintains "a vibrant business climate and celebrates the diversity of our state," he said.
Walt
Which is exactly what Henry Carey, the leading American Economist at the time said a decade before the Civil War. The Harmony of Interests: Agricultural, Manufacturing & Commercial
He argued that the only way to avoid being an economic surf of Great Britain was the development of industry at home. He made a rather sophisticated argument that promoting domestic industry through protective tariffs not only helped manufacturing interests but would also promote increased wealth among farmers and merchants. If you look at the growth of the middle class through the 2nd half of the 19th Century when protective tariffs he advocated were in place, it seems his ideas did work. We became completely economically independent and a full "equal" with the British.
free dixie,sw
Isn't that the truth. What can you say about a person who despises Reagan, loves Clinton, and thinks Hitler was not a threat to world peace?
LOSERS don't set the agenda for the state. The WINNERS do. And they can celebrate "our" diversity by restoring the falg.
There is not a nickel's worth of difference between the way Washington, Madison, Jackson and Lincoln viewed the Union. So that interpretation is not well supported.
Walt
The Article addressed the formation of NEW states only. It does not grant the federal government any power over what a state does with it's own territory. It does not grant a power to remove a state, nor prevent a state from seceding.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
Changes to the existing states require the consent of Congress. If North and South Dakota wanted to combine into a single state, then that would entail the removal of a state from the Union and that would require congressional approval. If California decided to split into two then that would mean the removal of one state and the creation of two new ones. That, too, would require congressional approval. The approval for any change in status of a state is a power reserved to the United States and not a power granted the states by the 10th Amendment. The consent of the other states is required for entry into the Union, it is required for any change in status while in the Union, clearly it should be required for leaving the Union as well.
OK, but maybe you would want to do something about the flag as well.
I don't know about other States but I have looked at my State's (Indiana) Monument For Statehood, the request, and the Enabiling Act, the grant, and there is no language preventing Indiana from leaving the Union at any time.
The Article addressed the formation of NEW states only. It does not grant the federal government any power over what a state does with it's own territory. It does not grant a power to remove a state, nor prevent a state from seceding.
Jefferson Davis would disagree with you. He indicated that the intent of the framers must be considered on constitutional issues. He is also clearly on the record saying that the central goverment may coerce the states.
Walt
We don't have a perfect government. But do have the best one yet devised. The Articles of Confederation kept the states very strong. There was no president, no national judiciary, no way for the central government to compel taxes. Money was to be raised by "requisition" on the states.
In the event, the Articles were hopelessly inadequate. The framers got together and decided to make a stronger central government, one that,as Washington said, had "a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several states."
Now the framers soft-pedaled this in selling the new government. But the power was always there.
All you can say about President Lincoln is that he was the first president who had to SHOW that the power was there.
Walt
Lieutenant Governor Taylor was re-elected. He didn't lose anything. Another half truth from a neo-reb. What else is new.
Walt
I don't know about that. In 1832, President Andy Jackson made it very clear that he would be glad to personally lead the US Army into South Carolina and hang anyone who thought they could nullify US law or unilaterally secede. George Washington did lead the US Army into Western Pennsylvania in 1795 to put down a revolt of people who thought they could ignore US law and kill US government officials.
Even if I were to embrace your enterpretation, which I don't, you will notice it says "as energetic"; meaning the same as the laws of that State.
Even if I were to embrace your enterpretation, which I don't, you will notice it says "as energetic"; meaning the same as the laws of that State.
Does every state not control its domestic activities? And especially as Washington was writing while the articles in force, the states were the complete master of their domestic affairs.
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.