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
Just am catching the tail end. Saw the kid singing the G-burg address. What was the rub earlier?
Walt
O.k., one instance, and one only. I said it would be a short answer.
Guess you didn't check the reference.
"Before he enters on the execution of his office, he shall take the following Oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
President Lincoln did that.
Walt
The Supreme Court has said much the same thing on numerous occasions, beginning in 1862.
Walt
To you perhaps, single-cell cerebrum, but not to anyone aspiring to look critically of the rights and wrongs of the various actions leading up to the war of secession.
"In any case, the common sense of what President Lincoln said is so obvious that you don't even quote it."
The matter of equitable disposition of costs is secondary to the issue of the existence of the right of secession. And the "common sense" of his words is in the eye of the beholder. You just can't seem to understand that your view of the world does not always (I might even say does not often) coincide with truth and reality, which are elusive even to intelligent people.
Well, that just goes to show how wrong the Supreme Court can be, doesn't it. I think that the decision not to indict and try Davis and Stevens is of much more profound relevence than those few Supreme Court edicts.
Yes indeed, he took the oath; in that instance he did abide by the Constitution. I acknowledged as much and don't understand what cause you have to quibble.
It would be a strange concept of perfection according to which member states remaining in the union only under coercion would make it more perfect than would their withdrawal. Or, in other words, a perfect union would be made up of members that belonged to the union voluntarily.
Well, that just goes to show how wrong the Supreme Court can be, doesn't it.
What the Court thinks matters. What you think doesn't.
Walt
That's a stupid remark. Should I keep my opinion to myself because it hasn't the weight of law? There are certainly reasons enough why you should keep your opinions to yourself, not least that most of them are idiotic.
I've realized that the big difference between the advocates of the Union and the advocates of the secessionists is that the former give the lurkers a lot more credit than do the latter.
I cite the Supreme Court. You say that doesn't matter.
I don't think the lurkers will agree with you.
Walt
Well, George Washington was there and he disagreed.
George Washington to John Jay, 1786:
"Your sentiments that are affairs are rapidly drawing to a crisis, accord with my own. What the event will be is also beyond the reach of my foresight. We have errors to correct. We have probably had too good an opinion of human nature in forming our confederation.
Experience has taught us, that men will not adopt & carry into execution, measures the best calculated for their own good without a coercive power. I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere 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. To be fearful of vesting Congress, constituted as that body is, with ample authorities for national purposes, appears to me the very climax of popular absurdity and madness."
I don't know why we would give more weight to your opinion than to that of George Washington.
You've belittled GW before. As I said in an earlier post, I don't think the lurkers are ready for your position.
Walt
Now that's an interesting statement to be coming from you, Walt, cause you sure don't apply it to The Lincoln's unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus.
The supreme court clearly ruled on the matter and that ruling was directly affirmed by a lower court in a later ruling to The Lincoln which The Lincoln ignored. If what you say is true and "what the Court thinks matters," surely it must matter with habeas corpus. Yet you deny this at every opportunity. Why is that, Walt?
The Constitution nowhere says what the president may or may not do in regards to Habeas Corpus.
You neo-rebs are such hypocrites. Secession if permited because it is not explicitly forbibben. But suspension of the Writ (described as a privilege in the Constitution any way) is just the opposite. No fair-minded person will accept your interpretation.
It's just more-- "Boo-hoo-hoo! Mean old Lincoln kicked our butts!!"
Walt
The sovereignty of the United States rests upon the people, not the states.
The --People-- have maintained the Union. It belongs to them, not the states. The big four court cases-- Cohens, McCullough, Martin and Chisholm from early in the nation's life make this plain. In all of those cases, the nature of the government is emphasized:
"Here we see the people acting as the sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the state governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a state to govern themeselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner.
By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc."
--Chief Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia 1793
"In the case now to be determined, the defendant, a sovereign state, denies the obligation of a law enacted by the legislature of the Union...In discussing this question, the counsel for the state of Maryland deemed it of some importance, in the construction of the Constitution, to consider that instrument as not emanating from the people, but as the act of sovereign and independent states. It would be difficult to maintain this position....
--John Marshall, majority opinon McCullough v. Maryland 1819
"That the United States form, for many, and for most important purposes, a single nation, has not yet been denied. In war, we are one people. In making peace, we are one people. In all commercial regulations, we are one and the same people. In many other respects, the American people are one; and the government which is alone capable of controlling and managing their interests in all these respects, is the government of the Union. It is their government and in that character, they have no other. America has chosen to be, in many respects, and in many purposes, a nation; and for all these purposes, her government is complete; to all these objects it is competent. The people have declared that in the exercise of all powers given for these objects, it is supreme. It can, then, in effecting these objects, legitimately control all individuals or governments within the American territory.
The constitution and laws of a state, so far as they are repugnant to the constitution and laws of of the United States are absolutely void. These states are constituent parts of the United States; they are members of one great empire--for some purposes sovereign, for some purposes subordinate."
--Chief Justice John Marshall, writing the majority opinion, Cohens v. Virginia 1821
"The constitution of the United States was ordained and established, not by the states in their sovereign capacities, but emphatically, as the preamble of the constitution declares, by "the people of the United States." -Justice Story, Martin v, Hunter's Lessee, 1816
The sovereignty of the United States rests on the people, not the States.
It was dishonorable for the slave holders to wait 40 + years and then say they disagreed.
Walt
Crap. Fat fingers. Should read "Secession -is- permitted....
Walt
Lincoln ignored no ruling made during his adminstration. Merryman was an ex parte decision by Taney acting on his own.
From the ACW moderated newsgroup:
"I will point out a number of flaws in this argument:
Article I, section 9 does NOT state specifically that the writ of habeas corpus is reserved to the Congress, it only outlines when it is to be used. Lest you claim it is a Congressional right becaause of its placement in the first Article, I would point out to you the text, and context of Section 10, as well. Seen together, these are issues, not specifically Congressional or State issues.
(Personally, I see the laundry list of things in Section 9 as being a list of things that may not do, not a list specifically reserved to the Congress, or the states.)
Article IV, Section 4 states:
"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."
Clearly, acting in accordance with the power vested in him by this section of the Constitution, Lincoln had every right to issue a "limited" suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Since you cite 'Merryman', I would remind you that what Merryman did to get his butt slung into jail was to burn a bridge to inhibit the passage of Federal troops into the state of Maryland, at a time when great mobs of secessionists were controlling the streets of Baltimore (which caused the suspension) causing the deaths of several citizens and troops.
How then, would you suggest that the Administration act during those events to protect the free passage of all anywhere in the United States? I will cite for you several other relevant passages of the Constituion of the United States:
Article I Section 9 states in part:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
(Fact: There WAS a rebellion, and the public safety DID require it.)
and
Article I, Section 10 states in full:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emits Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
(Fact: All three clauses in this section were being violated by the slave states, openly, sub rosa, and by force of arms, and that includes Maryland --governor and legislators, mayor and chief of police in Baltimore!)
If you think for one minute the Lincoln Administration was not faced with an unprecedented crisis of the highest severity, then you are not thinking clearly.
Roger B. Taney was a slaveowner from Maryland. He had no business making rulings on issues dealing with slavery, and modern scholars are indeed taking another look at his decisions in light of that fact. He should have recused himself from Dred Scot, and he had no business issuing ex-parte Merryman, even though he did so as a Circuit Court judge, and not as a Supreme Court Justice. He had a vested interest in the subject areas against which he ruled.
Subsequently, the Congress, which was called into session, took Lincoln off the hook for this so called violation, making it clear that he DID have the right to suspend habeas corpus.
Had Congress been in session Lincoln most assuredly would have gone to them and asked for the suspension. Congress was not in session, and there simply was no time to waste.
Make no mistake about it, the actions of the slave states were a highly concerted conspiracy, and events were timed to occur so that the Federal government would [supposedly] be handcuffed into inaction by the very document those states sought to subvert."
[end]
But President Lincoln out-foxed them at every turn. And he did it under the laws.
Walt
Not to an honorable person.
The secesh were no better than common thugs.
And you don't seem to be.
Walt
After being constantly called a socialist by the neo-rebs on this board for no greater sin than agreeing with James Madison that unilateral secession is not constitutional, I find it very amusing that you use Socialist historian Charles Beard and his totally discredited "economic determinism" as support for your arguments.
But in a way it makes sense. Beard, like the neo-rebs, also felt that the job of a historian was not to accurately and dispassionately document history but to manipulate historical interpretation to achieve contemporary objectives. His objective was a socialist America. I'm not sure what the objectives of the neo-rebs are, and I'm not even sure they know what they are.
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.