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
That's nice and all, but it still says absolutely nothing about habeas corpus.
Chief Justice Marshall ruled in McCullough:
That's nice too, but Marshall also specifically ruled in Bollman that habeas corpus was a matter of the legislature, contradicting any of the implications otherwise you dishonestly purport to have existed.
President Lincoln had all the power and precedent he needed to suspend the Writ.
Sorry Walt, but that is simply false. The existing precedent on habeas corpus, Bollman, specifically said this was not so and that it was for the legislature to decide. The standing case brought in response to The Lincoln's actions, Merryman, affirmed Bollman. The Lincoln didn't like the precedent and the ruling against him so he unconstitutionally ignored it without an appeal.
To say that it is nowhere "even remotely" extant, is simply partisanship
No Walt. It's a matter of constitutional fact. Only by torturing the plain text meaning of the document and willfully ignoring precedents that directly say you are wrong are you able to suggest anything otherwise.
Mine are well grounded in the words of the people who actually participated in these events.
Really, cause the sure don't announce themselves. I guess the guy who wrote your "moderated newsgroup" clipping must be very very very old! In the meantime, I will happily point out that your attention has been directed to two individuals who actually did live in the 19th century and who actually ruled on the matter in a way DIRECTLY OPPOSITE of the version you claim, John Marshall and Roger Taney. It has also been noted that Taney's ruling was the ONLY court ruling at the time to take up the question in direct response to The Lincoln's action itself, and it ruled against him.
First off, selling the furniture out of the White House isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. Does that mean the president can do it?
Second, you are incorrect. It is not a power of the president because in no place does the Constitution even remotely hint at extending the suspension power to the president, though it does to the legislature and in doing so indicates that such an extension must be specified, or "herein granted." Try again.
The act of formation of a Union does not prevent is dissolution.
Sorry Walt, but that is simply false.
That is your opinion, which is at odds with that of the current Chief Justice. Your whole position on this is nothing but a snooze.
Walt
Coming from you, that has about as much credibility as Jesse Jackson giving a sermon on the sin of adultery.
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.
But last I checked, Maryland remained in the union (even if by force) and Taney remained the highest ranking justice of the United States. He had every right and proper jurisdiction to rule on a case before him. The Lincoln had no right to ignore it and committed an impeachable offense in doing so. You simply don't like the way Taney ruled and the implications of illegality by The Lincoln that his ruling entailed. Therefore you attack Taney and grasp at straws to discredit his sound and precedent-based ruling. Try again, Walt.
First off, selling the furniture out of the White House isn't explicitly forbidden in the Constitution. Does that mean the president can do it?
By your lights, secession is allowed because it is not specifically forbidden. Suspending the writ by the president is disallowed because it is not specifically made reference to. It is a double standard. It costs you all your credibility.
Now, lest you cite Article 1 sec. 9 -- THAT applies to the Congress, not the president, per you.
The Constitution nowhere specifically says a word about what the President may do about the Writ. You are two faced, unless you will admit that other implied things -- like secession -- are forbidden too.
Walt
No Walt, and by saying so you only display your complete and utter ignorance, not to mention idiocy, when it comes to matters of economics.
Tariffs are classified into two main categories - revenue and protectionist. In fact these categories are graphable on a bell shaped curve of the tariff rate set opposite of its revenue capacity. Revenue tariffs are designed for what their name suggests, collecting revenue, and are not used as a tool to impede free trade. They are generally moderate in their rates, not unlike a sales tax is when placed on a good, and only minimally impact trade in a negative way.
Protectionist tariffs on the other hand are designed intentionally to curtail trade. They are often extremely high in their rates, or at least enough to make the import good's price non-competitive. They impact free trade significantly as that is what they are designed to do.
The low rate confederate tariffs of May 1861 were revenue tariffs. The Morrill act by comparison was protectionist. The difference is reflected in the average rates. Morrill led to a rate ot 45% by 1863. The Confederate tariff was only 13.3%
I also note you don't provide a reference.
My reference is the May 1861 tariff act - the same one your article refers to.
Most likely he has. That only puts him at odds with two other Chief Justices. So what's your point?
What is at issue here is --your-- opinion versus that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
No Walt. What is at issue here is --my-- opinion based on the historical precedents pertaining to habeas corpus versus --your-- opinion based on an irrational desire to protect The Lincoln from any and all concessions of error or flaw on his part.
In supporting my opinion I have called upon the current standing court precedent on habeas corpus, the opinion of two chief justices, and the actual ruling made in response to The Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.
In supporting your opinion you have called upon a cut n' paste charade of nonsense from some newsgroup, a speech at a law school by Bill Rehnquist, and your own irrational bloviations.
I think it is obvious who has the stronger case here.
And he says the issue of whether the Writ may be suspended by the president has --never-- been authoritatively answered to this very day.
That's nice, but John Marshall said it had some 180-something years ago. Roger Taney also said it had some 140-something years ago. Two beats one, Walt. You lose.
No Walt. My position is that secession is allowed because the act of preventing it would require coercion and such coercion is unconstitutional.
Suspending the writ by the president is disallowed because it is not specifically made reference to.
No Walt. It isn't allowed because in no reasonable way is there anything to even remotely suggest that the constitution permits that power with anything other than the legislature. Try again.
The act of formation of a Union does not prevent i[t]s dissolution.
No one says the Union is not dissoluable. But it can only be desolved by amendment or revolution.
Walt
But which is perfectly consistent with standing court precedent, the historical situation itself, and the rulings of two chief justices. Two still beats one, Walt. Try again.
No Walt. My position is that secession is allowed because the act of preventing it would require coercion and such coercion is unconstitutional.
But you've seen this many times:
According to the Militia Act of May 2, 1792, as amended Feb 28, 1795, Sec. 2:
"And it be further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislatures of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session."
And, as you have also seen many times, the majority opinion in the Prize Cases cites the Militia Act -- which is pretty much the imprimature of constitutionality.
George Washington wrote in 1786 that a coercive power was necessary to execute the government's powers. And he made sure it was provided.
You are simply not being reasonable.
Walt
So it's 'Red rover Red rover, send Walt right over', huh?
I think we've talked this out. Did this thread get moved to chat? I sure hope so.
Walt
Calling forth the militia to execute the laws says nothing of a right of the president to suspend habeas corpus. Try again.
Nonsense!
1. Taney ruled as a circuit court justice. The Supreme Court never heard the case. Until the full court hears a case the constitutionality is undecided.
2. Merriman (who was a major instigator) was released once the civil disorders in Maryland were ended.
3. Congress overwhelmingly affirmed each and every one of Lincoln's actions when they returned for the emergency session, making Taney's ruling moot and the case for impeachment beyond ridiculous.
I'd also remind you that the judicial branch does not have veto power over executive branch decisions. Only Congress has that power. Checks and Balances.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems that your view of events is that any action Lincoln took to defend the Union from forces that totally rejected the US Constitution was somehow by definition, unconstitutional. That's like saying I should be allowed to walk up and start beating the hell out of you but if you raise a hand to defend yourself, only you would be guilty of assault.
Your stand seems to be saying that the only Constitutional path Lincoln could have followed was to allow Washington to be overrun, the Union fractured, and the Constitution destroyed. That's just plain silly.
First, the constitutionality of who may suspend habeas corpus had already been decided several decades earlier by the Supreme Court in Bollman. As for this case, the ruling was the highest standing court decision on the matter upon its issue. If The Lincoln disputed it or wished not to follow it, he had to appeal it to the full supreme court. He refused to do so and instead simply ignored it. That in itself is a violation of the judicial process by The Lincoln.
2. Merriman (who was a major instigator) was released once the civil disorders in Maryland were ended.
That is irrelevant and unknown to the case while it was pending. Nor does it excuse or right the constitutional violation committed in the suspension itself.
3. Congress overwhelmingly affirmed each and every one of Lincoln's actions when they returned for the emergency session, making Taney's ruling moot and the case for impeachment beyond ridiculous.
Congress is not the arbiter of the Constitution and does not decide the constitutionality of the executive's act. As you are probably aware, the Congress acts unconstitutionally itself on a regular basis to this day. That they consented to an already-committed unconstitutional act in late 1861 in no way makes that act constitutional as it is not their call to make.
I'd also remind you that the judicial branch does not have veto power over executive branch decisions.
Nor has anyone asserted that it did. The court may, however, strike down an executive action when that action is in violation of the constitution, such as executive suspension of habeas corpus.
Only Congress has that power. Checks and Balances.
The legislative veto was struck down by INS v. Chadha.
Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems that your view of events is that any action Lincoln took to defend the Union from forces that totally rejected the US Constitution was somehow by definition, unconstitutional.
May I ask for source of that view of yours, as I have only cited The Lincoln for the tangible unconstitutional actions of suspending habeas corpus and ignoring the judicial system's ruling that said doing so was not constitutional. Try again.
A little info on the SCV. Here's an excerpt:
"Wilson also packed the SCV's Media/Public Relations Committee with some of the same extremists, along with a man named Bragdon Bowling. Bowling is connected directly to Lyons through an apparently clandestine circle within the SCV - what members call the “John Wilkes Booth Camp” (SCV “camps” are its local chapters). Although there is no such official camp, the circle named after President Lincoln's assassin includes Kirk Lyons and a number of his friends. The group came to light after photographs of its meetings appeared on a Web site after last year's Virginia state SCV convention in Roanoke. Asked about the Booth group, Bowling initially told the Intelligence Report, “There is no Booth Camp in the SCV.” Confronted with the photographs, Bowling amended his earlier statement. “This is a group of people who are friends and had a party at our Roanoke convention,” he said. “Nothing official.”
Walt
Look at #1372. You changed the subject. No grown-up would do that.
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.