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.

"-- Taney was a slave owner with strong leanings towards slave power interests --" Wrong again!

Upon his father's death, Taney freed his slaves. As a Maryland litigator in the 1820s, Taney had declared, "Slavery is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away."
Thanks for the correction. This is from the same website you cite:

Yale's daguerreotype of a portrait by Matthew Brady made around 1848 shows him at the height of his powers and one of the most respected figures in Washington. Taney is remembered and respected for such opinions as Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge , Abelman v. Booth , and Ex Parte Merryman . That began to change in 1857, when the Supreme Court faced the case of Dred Scott , a slave who claimed his freedom as a result of being taken by his master to a free state. As the author of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford , Taney struck down the Missouri Compromise and ruled that the Constitution did not recognize the citizenship of an African American who had been born a slave. This decision sparked bitter opposition from northern politicians and a heated defense from the South and was one of the most important events leading up to the Civil War. This single opinion cast a shadow over Taney's distinguished legal career and his personal reputation for integrity.

Taney should never have ruled on anything submitted by Merryman.

I do notice that Taney and Robert E. Lee both died on my birthday. How odd.

Walt

After the rebels fired on Old Glory Greeley called for force to put down the rebellion

Greeley was slow to understand what an independant South with a low tarrif would do to the Northern economy with their high tarrif.

Low tariffs?

Tariffs were higher in the so-called CSA. What a bunch of laughably incompetent bums.

From a newsgroup:

"In point of fact, the long-standing Federal sugar import tariff imposed to protect Louisiana sugar growers was extensively debated at the Montgomery Convention and, in spite the highly-touted Confederate devotion to free trade principles, was retained in the Confederacy through out the ACW.

Additionally, the Confederacy placed tariffs on exports, including a duty on exported cotton. I repeat here for emphasis --- tariffs on Southern cotton exports were prohibited by the US Constitution. So much for high secessionist principles concerning tariffs! They talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk, as goes the modern formula for hypocrisy.

It is humorous to note that the prewar Federal iron import tariff, so despised by Secessionist firebrands, was continued by the Confederacy after some of the realities of fiscal and industrial policy set in. On 16 February 1861 the Provisional Confederate Congress blithely passed a bill providing for free import of railway iron. A month later, however, fiscal realities set in and an ad valorem import tax was imposed on such goods at the rate of 15% --- a rate confirmed in the Confederate Tariff Act of 21 May 1861.

For further details, see Robert C. Black's THE RAILROADS OF THE CONFEDERACY (Chapel Hill, NC: U. of NC Press, 1998)."

You can't make the excuse for the so-called congress acting for the so-called CSA that they were forced by the exigencies of war to impose import tariffs in February, 1861.

They expected to win in a walk --- Yankees can't fight, don't you know.

Walt

The south could have easily withdrawn from the union if they had followed constitutional procedures. But that would have entailed treaties establishing recognized national borders and no small expense upon the departing states to make their sister states whole for the common investments. The south's intention was not a peaceful separation but the establishment of a government with sufficient military strength to repudiate debts and to claim western lands for the expansion of slavery that they could not get through the electoral process. They sought to do with force and threats of force what they could not achieve at the polling place. That, by any definition, is a common rebellion.

Excellent comment. Well worth repeating.

Taney was a slave owner with strong leanings towards slave power interests -- needs to be considered in its proper light. Taney was flirting with treason himself. He had no standing to make any ruling at all. He should have recused himself.

What absurd logic! A slave-owner that could never rule on a case involving slaves would also mean that a NON-slave owner could never rule on cases involving freemen. DUH! Treason, for about the zillionth time, does not include all of the acts which you happen to disagree with, including issuing judicial opinions that blasted Lincoln's actions. But specifically, pray tell, how does his ex parte Merryman decision involve slavery?

But Lincoln showed himself a pretty canny lawyer too. He didn't need to arrest Taney -- that much is obvious because of the triumph of Union arms. I mean, after all, the traitors --were-- thrown down, their conspiracy --was-- foiled. Appeals to force do not legitimize illegal actions.

You discount all that. You won't take the real world events into consideration. I don't suppose that is too surprising from someone who implies the Emancipation Proclamation should be revoked.

Justice Curtis (see above) also thought the EP was illegal. And the ruling in ex parte Milligan also vindicated Taney - not Lincoln. Lincoln simply couldn't usurp powers simply because he wanted to.

You'd probably like to have the EP made null and void too. That is the only rational basis of the neo-reb rant. Mean old Lincoln kicked your heroes' butts, but worse, he advocated equal rights for all. Can't have that.

If it's illegal yes. Lincoln didn't kick our butts - unless you consider attacking innocent old men, women and children and starving them into submission to be kicking their butts; nor did he advocate equal rights for all those blacks he wanted to deport/expatriate. Lincoln claimed that the EP was a "war measure", but the issue of seizing private property in time of war had already been decided by the US Supreme Court.

"Our duty is to determine under what circumstances private property may be taken from the owner by a military officer in a time of war. And the question here is, whether the law permits it to be taken to insure the success of any enterprise against a public enemy which the commanding officer may deem it advisable to undertake. And we think it very clear that the law does not permit it."

Who said it and when?
Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, Mitchell v Harmony, 13 How. 115 (1852).

Justice Curtis (see above) also thought the EP was illegal.

President Lincoln can address this himself:

"It was in the oath I took, that I would, to the utmost of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and break the oath in using the power. I understood too, that in ordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practically indulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I have publically declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on slavery.

I did understand however that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving by every indispensible means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to to the preservation of the of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it..."

4/4/64

I think, all things considered, President Lincoln did a daggum good job. You'd have to say that too--if you loved the United States.

Walt

If it's illegal yes. Lincoln didn't kick our butts - unless you consider attacking innocent old men, women and children and starving them into submission to be kicking their butts...

Yeah, that would qualify. It was a thorough butt-whipping.

This is where your position is totally bogus and easily shown to be so.

You won't allow that President Lincoln had to, or was allowed to, take --any-- action to oppose the secessionists. That is just false. But it's why we'll never reach agreement. You won't be reasonable.

I think President Lincoln had the right, responsibility and the power to oppose secession. That is pretty much the judgement of history also.

Given that, just for the sake of argument, you'd have to agree that burning crops, public buildings, and vacant houses (the one first person account I quoted the other day quoted some of Wheeler's men telling this person that her home would not be burned if she stayed in it) is a better course of action than bringing the CSA armies to bettle and killing every soldier. That is all Lincoln could have done, if you don't want his armies striking at the sinews of war.

It's a parallel that I often make with the strategic bombing of Germany. By your lights, since we are not allowed to involve civilians in any way, we'd would have had to fight a fully supplied German Army and Air Force.

Sorry, but it was better to cut off their supply of petroleum products, and more humane in the long run -- just as President Lincoln's policies were.

Walt

I'm not a lawyer, thank God, but I think a personal opinion written by a judge with a vested interest

Any ruling is a personal opinion of the judge who writes it, and you have yet to substantiate exactly what personal interest Taney had in the case.

-- Taney was a slave owner with strong leanings towards slave power interests --

You've said that. Now explain exactly what if anything slave ownership has to do with a ruling on the judicial process of habeas corpus and how it in any way, shape, or form created a vested interest for Taney in Merryman's case. Otherwise your charade will be treated for what it appears to be - an unrelated personal smear on the judge since you have foudn yourself unable to refute his ruling.

Taney was flirting with treason himself.

The Lincoln evidently thought so as well. In reality though, Taney was a properly seated judge with the constitutional authority of the judiciary branch to rule on cases before him. Unless you are denying this power to him, you are full of nonsense.

He had no standing to make any ruling at all.

Sure he did. He was a properly seated judge of the judiciary system established under the U.S. Constitution serving on the circuit for the state where the case arose.

He should have recused himself.

Why and on what grounds?

But Lincoln showed himself a pretty canny lawyer too.

No. The Lincoln simply decided himself to be above the law and ignored the ruling as if it were never made.

He didn't need to arrest Taney

Some evidence exists that he desired to, you know. Taney also thought The Lincoln would try it as well.

We may be taking this all from the wrong tack. If all you can point to is Merryman, you can in a sense pretty much be countered with a "so what?"

No, not really. Merryman is only the physical case that happened in 1861. It makes it indisputable that The Lincoln knew what he was doing was unconstitutional under court precedent and that he was willing to violate a court ruling for him to stop.

Low tariffs? Tariffs were higher in the so-called CSA.

Care to post the stats on that one, Walt? The first confederate tariff act was to adopt the existing pre-Morrill US tariff schedule, a pro-free trade schedule under which the average rate was 19%. The US average rate in the first year after Morrill kicked in was 36.69%, and the year after that the yankees hiked it to 47.56%.

Comparatively the pre-Morrill schedule was in place in the south until the Confederate Congress adopted its own tariff in May 1861. The average rate on the May 1861 act was 13.3% with the highest rate, charged on 12 out of 431 ad valorem articles, was 25%.

It is humorous to note that the prewar Federal iron import tariff, so despised by Secessionist firebrands, was continued by the Confederacy after some of the realities of fiscal and industrial policy set in. On 16 February 1861 the Provisional Confederate Congress blithely passed a bill providing for free import of railway iron. A month later, however, fiscal realities set in and an ad valorem import tax was imposed on such goods at the rate of 15% --- a rate confirmed in the Confederate Tariff Act of 21 May 1861.

To suggest that this 15% tariff in May 1861 ammounted to anti-free trade protectionism is idiocy, Walt. The tariff's low rate indicates very clearly that it was for revenue purposes and therefore not designed to curtail free trade. That 15% rate was in fact lower than any average tariff rate in the U.S. between 1850 and 1860 - a period known to be friendly to free trade. It was also one third of the yankee average tariff rate that kicked in for 1863.

As you know, Chief Justice Rehnquist disagrees with you.

And as you know, Chief Justices Marshall and Taney disagreed in actual court opinions with Rehnquist's purported views from a speech at some law school. Two beats one, so you lose.

It's hard to imagine that you can afford to pay an ISP, get a computer, keep your power turned on, and log on to FR, and you can't follow the argument.

Chief Justice Rehnquist, we can reasonably infer, has heard of Chief Justice Marshall and Chief Justice Taney. And since he wrote a book on civil liberty in wartime -- a book that takes its title from one of Lincoln's speeches, I think we can infer that he had heard of the cases from Marshall and Taney you think important.

What is at issue here is --your-- opinion versus that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And he says the issue of whether the Writ may be suspended by the president has --never-- been authoritatively answered to this very day.

And with all due respect --which ain't much--, his opinion holds more weight than yours.Walt

Taney should never have ruled on anything submitted by Merryman.

Why not? The case was within his jurisdiction as a jurist under the judicial system in place by way of the United States Constitution. You have yet to show any conflict of interest what so ever in the case, or any reason why Taney's action was not in his jurisdiction. Absent this information, one may only conclude that he was proper in making the ruling and that The Lincoln committed an illegal, unconstitutional, and impeachable offense by ignoring that ruling.

Taney was flirting with treason himself.

The Lincoln evidently thought so as well. In reality though, Taney was a properly seated judge with the constitutional authority of the judiciary branch to rule on cases before him.

So what? Anybody can tell you've no interest in fairness and balance.

I believe at least one Supreme Court justice resigned to follow his state. Most of the judges and elected officials in the so-called seceded states went to the sesesh side. Taney was a Marylander. Maryland was rife with secessionist sentiment.

The fact that he was "properly seated" is just more of your blue smoke and mirrors.

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.