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
We all know where Washington was comming from. Knowing full well that the British, France, or Spain, for that matter could mount a campaign against the fledgling Republic; and the experiment would be over. Washington knew there was strength in numbers.
However, one of the requirements for Statehood, at least for this State, was that it have a republican form of government and not opposed to the Constitution.
If your view of Washington's power is correct, that is, if he had the power to do so, then why didn't he just annex the rest of the territories into the Union as they settled their respectives claims with the various Indian tribes?
Changes to the existing states require the consent of Congress.
No. Only the additions of new states require consent - the secession of a state does not require consent.
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.
The removal of the state does not require approval, only the addition of the new state.
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.
There is nothing within the Constitution that authorizes Congress the power to deny a state to divest state lands. The states of Virginia and Georgia both reduced their state boundaries without Congressional approval being necessary. A territory may petition for admission, and become a state upon admission, but the Constituition is lacking delegated power to prevent a state from reducing it's boundaries.
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.
Not "any" change - just the creation of a new states.
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.
Again, not "any" change - just the creation of a new states.
"The power of Congress in respect to the admission of new States is found in the third section of the fourth Article of the Constitution. That provision is that "new States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union." The only expressed restriction upon this power is that no new State shall be formed within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of such States, as well as of the Congress."
"The power is to admit 'new states into this Union.'"
Justice Lurton, Coyle v. Smith, 221 US 559 (1911)
That too!
Supremacy is limited to the written Constitution and laws pursuant to it, not to "intent".
I never said Mark Taylor lost, I was referring to him as a Democrat - asking Governor-elect Perdue (Republican that I voted for) to abandon the flag issue. To which my reply was that losers (Democrats against the flag) don't set the agenda.
The WINNERS do.
The 11th, which prevented an individual from suing a state, was added in response to Chisholm v. Georgia. That's what the states wanted reinforced, and that's why there was no response.
Regarding the decision, the state of Georgia also prohibited any and all state officers from complying with the decision - any official so doing would be executed immediately, without the benefit of attending clergy.
Jackson was also convicted and fined in Louisiana for his contempt of the law. He also was responsible for many Native American deaths for his promotion of the "Trail of Tears" death march. How fitting that you display the same tyranny as Walt.
Nil.
The 11th, which prevented an individual from suing a state, was added in response to Chisholm v. Georgia. That's what the states wanted reinforced, and that's why there was no response.
The Justices, In Chisholm, say that sovereign powers were transferred to the federal government, that for the purposes of Union, Georgia is -not- a sovereign state. The 11th amendment says nothing about any of this. No one had any question or cavil about these statements.
It was for another generation to lie about the nature of the compact, and later generations to wallow in that lie.
Walt
Half-truths suit the neo-rebs best.
Jackson was fined for suspending the writ. Congress refunded that money to him with interest.
As for the Trail of Tears, Georgia slave holders wanted the Cherokee removed too.
Of course it always comes down to personal insults for the neo-rebs. The facts don't suit theme very well.
Wonder how Jackson's image wound up on a confederate postage stamp?
Walt
You are making Georgia a laughingstock here. Where are you getting that from?
Of course you know that Justice Story threatened to hold Virginia state justices in contempt in 1816, and they backed down. Everyone who has barked treason at the United States has backed down.
Walt
I never said Mark Taylor lost, I was referring to him as a Democrat - asking Governor-elect Perdue (Republican that I voted for) to abandon the flag issue. To which my reply was that losers (Democrats against the flag) don't set the agenda.
Yes, as I said, it was a half truth. That's as close as you ever come to the truth.
Walt
Supremacy is limited to the written Constitution and laws pursuant to it, not to "intent".
Not according to Jefferson Davis -- or Chief Justice Marshall.
Walt
"Hitler had no plans for world conquest. That is nonsense."
"Well, it's not much of a stretch from supporting the tyrant Lincoln to supporting Hitler, but I never thought you'd admit it so readily."
You are starting to sound like WhiskeyPapa. Bad sign!
If the founders intended for something to be the law, they would have included it. Instead, they fought for and obtained the 9th and 10th Amendments - which refute their ludicrous arguements.
Having "published in the field" doesn't mean squat. Any jerk can get published. The reason you shoot your mouth off is because you are the kind of jerk who shoots his mouth off; nothing more.
A laughingstock? I hold a different view - one that many of the states shared - that Georgia was correct. Georgia refused to defend herself in the case (obviously). Where do I get this stuff from? The "record":
"And be it further enacted, That any Federal Marshal, or any other person or persons levying, or attempting to levy, on the territory of this State, or any part thereof, or on the Treasury, or any other property belonging to the said State, or on the property of the Governor or Attorney-General, or any of the people thereof, under or by virtue of any execution or other compulsory process issuing out of or by authority of the Supreme Court of the United States, or any other Court having jurisdiction under their authority, or which may at any period hereafter under the constitution of the said United States, as it now stands, be constituted, for, or in behalf of the before mentioned Alexander Chrisholm, Executor of Robert Farquhar, or for, or in behalf of, any other person or persons whatsoever, for the payment or recovery of any debt, or pretended debt, or claim, against the said State of Georgia, shall be, and he or they attempting to levy as aforesaid are hereby declared to be guilty of felony,and shall suffer death, without the benefit of clergy, by being hanged."FYI, two days after this ludicrous decision, Massachusetts Senator Sedgwick introduced the legislation that became the 11th Amendment. Connecticut and Virginia also submitted amendments.
Journal of the House of Representatives, "An act declaratory of certain parts of the retained sovereignty of the State of Georgia", 21 Nov 1793
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.