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
Anyone who refers back to #1234 will see you for the charlatan you so clearly are.
But nullification?
In his letter to Daniel Webster, dated March 13, 1833, James Madison wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the U. S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
My original statement is correct, and yours is a fabrication.
The framaers DEFINITELY declared on the permanence and supremacy of the Constitution. Not a single one can be quoted to support your position.
CSA apologists will tell any kind of lie.
Walt
The USA enlisted a large number of men in the spring of 1861 for three years. The so-called CSA enlisted a large number of men in the spring of 1861 for one year. After that first year, the so-called CSA had to conscript those volunteers for the duration. After three years (and before what they all knew would be a bloody summer) over 100,000 Union veterans re-enlisted voluntarily.
These facts help give the lie in the record to the CSA myth that these weak people continue to perpetrate. I guess they need myth for a crutch.
Walt
Not hardly - my gggranfather and 5 brothers volunteered, as did thousands of Southern Confederates. When that term of service expired thay re-enlisted - voluntarily.
And you're not a justice on the US Supreme Court. The states overruled Chisholm, the Federal congress, and the states SPANKED the moronic decision by Jay et al.
Sorry Wlat, there's nothing for us to apologize for. The South respected the Constitution and abided by it, even suffering protectionist tariffs and internal (Yankee) improvement for years.
OTOH, it was the Yankee socialists that refused to abide by the terms of the Constitution, and by a decision of the Supreme Court.
I don't have to rely on words written 40 years after the Constitution to prove my case, nor resort to distortions and twisted mythological lies as "evidence" that secession was outlawed. Rather the mere fact that the states seceded from the Articles of Confederation - which state twice that they "be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual". Now either you can LIE that the states did not secede - meaning the Constitution is null and void, or else accede the fact that secession illegally occurred, and that the subsequent Constitution contains no provision for "perpetualness", nor any prohibition against secession.
I pity you sometimes, that you actually believe the drivel you write post.
Curious Walt, what exact power was it again under the Constitution that these men were 'enlisted' for three years? Never mind, you already know the answer to that (there wasn't one), and you know it's just another example of the northern Tyrant wiping his rear with the Constitution.
Quite the contrary, I would think, had I had that opportunity. Actually, interchanges with people whose opinions are quite different from my own are normally quite stimulating, but just not in your case.
Curious Walt, what exact power was it again under the Constitution that these men were 'enlisted' for three years? Never mind, you already know the answer to that (there wasn't one), and you know it's just another example of the northern Tyrant wiping his rear with the Constitution.
Article 1, Section eight, para. 12 of the Constitution.
Walt
And you're not a justice on the US Supreme Court. The states overruled Chisholm, the Federal congress, and the states SPANKED the moronic decision by Jay et al.
Not the same way Sherman spanked Georgia.And the states didn't overule Chisholm.
The people did.
Just as the -people- have preserved the Union.
Walt
Sorry Wlat, there's nothing for us to apologize for. The South respected the Constitution and abided by it, even suffering protectionist tariffs and internal (Yankee) improvement for years.
The south did not respect the Constitution; that is a joke. The Constitution has a conflict resolution process. It allows for amendments. The rebels completely ignored the law and the Constitution.
The Constitution clearly allows the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare. Secession is inimical to both.
And the Constitution states that the Constitution and the -laws- passed in pursuance shall be the supreme law of the land. These include the Militia Act of 1792 and the Judiciary Act of 1789, both the rebels p*issed all over -- just like they P*ssed on Olg Glory.
The famous Doctore Steiner relates:
"A clergyman tells me that he saw an aged crone come out of her house as certain rebels passed by trailing the American flag in the dust. She shook her long, skinny hands at the traitors and screamed at the top of her voice, "My curses be upon you and your officers for degrading your country's flag." Her expression and gesture as described to me were worthy of Meg Merilies.
Unilateral state secession is treason.
Walt
"The doctrine laid down by the law of Nations in the case of treaties is that a breach of any one article by any of the parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of people under one Constitution, the nature of the pact had always been understood to exclude such an interpretation."
-- James Madison, (Remarks to the Constitutional Convention, July 23, 1787).
You've seen this before.
Walt
The south did have a right to secede -- a revolutionary right. But they didn't have the power to establish their revolution.
However, there is no right to state unilateral secession under U.S. law. That was made plain in the Supeme Court's ruling in the Prize Cases. That ruling, as you know, gives the president the power under acts passed in 1795 and 1807 to suppress insurrection against a state or the United States.
Walt
And just how did Lincoln violate the Constitution, bill?
Wake up, reb. Your hero Davis stands heads and shoulders above Lincoln in the tyrant department. But I'm not lame enough to wish him dead for it.
This assertion is perfectly characteristic of your typically muddled thinking. Rights do not exist under the law, they exist or they don't completely independently of the law, U.S. or any other. Only privileges can be established or denied under the law. An authority that recognizes a right only if the claimant to that right has the power to enforce its claim by force is called a tyranny.
Dream on, just please don't post the results to me.
Think big, Chief. Be creative. Had the southern leadership not launched their rebellion then Lincoln would have been nothing but a hack Illinois politician and probably a one-term president at that. PLUS the south would not have brought all that death and destruction upon iself. AND you could have kept your slaves for God knows how long. So if anyone needed killing if was about half a dozen fire-eating southern nitwits.
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.