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
Based on the info I had in 1992, I would for Clinton over Bush 10 times out of 10.
I -knew- Bush had stumbled into a totally avooidable ar in the Gulf. I knew he had falsely bucked up the Iraqi opposition forces and then left them hanging. I knew he had a challenge with the "vision" thing. I -know- that a desire for revenge on the part of Hussein drove him to attmpt to kill Bush in 1993 and attempt to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. It's widely thought that Iraq helped with both the Murrah building bombing in OKC and the destruction of the WTC last year. All that because Bush maladroitly stumbled into a war in the Gulf.
I --know-- that some of the people we need to help us topple Hussein don't trust us and that will make the coming war more difficult -- because of George Bush Sr.
I -know- that American credibilty was dragged through the mud because of the way we abandoned the Iraqi opposition back '91.
You must just have a penchant for picking losers. First the so-called CSA and now Bush Sr.
Because George Bush Sr. was a bid time loser.
I'd also say its still up in the air whether Bush Jr. handlers can bring him safely through the second Gulf war.
Walt
I heard he was really good in hot spots.
Walt
Not according to the Supreme Court. See the Prize Cases
Oh wait. You've seen the Prize Cases
Walt
It is a well footnoted work that received many good reviews.
He dismissed it out of hand. There can be no meaningful discussion with an attitude like that.
I sent you this by e-mail:
I did read part of the book and found this guy totally clueless:
From the ACW newsgroup:
My copy of "When in the Course of Human Events, Arguing the Case for Southern Secession", by Charles Adams just arrived today.
I haven't read all of it yet, but I'll make a few comments on what I have seen.
In general, it is a more mean spirited book than either "The South Was Right!, or "Southern by the Grace of God." Compared to Charles Adam's book those two are positively "warm and fuzzy."
More importantly it is based on a very odd set of sources.
Looking though the "Bibliographic Thoughts" to find the primary sources on which the work is based I found:
Northern Editorials on Secession, Perkins, 1942
Southern Editorials on Secession, Dumond, 1962
Union Pamphlets on the Civil War, Freidel, 1967
Southern Pamphlets on Secession, Wakelyn, 1996
Lincoln's first and second inaugural addresses
and most oddly, a series of British periodicals, including The Times.
But he begins the book by dispensing with most of this evidence:
"Men will not willingly, and with zeal, die for an economic purpose, but they will die for some 'cause' that has a noble purpose. Governments, when engaged in way, have to keep a patriotic 'cause' alive and motivational, and cover up the economic realities that are the true reason for the conflict." p. 3
"So Southerners' proclamations--from the housetops so to speak--that they seceded for slavery was political cant." p. 4
All those editorials, and political speeches, apparently, were the work of fools or liars.
So as far as primary sources, we are left with the British periodicals for an "honest account of the war." That's it.
Most outrageous was a mention of a secondary source written by Philip Foner:
". . .The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. If money makes the world go around and is the heart of war and the blood of governments, then the Foner book explains more about the Civil War than any other study."
I don't have that book by Foner, but I do have his History of the Labor Movement in the United States, vol. 1:
"Late in February, 1861, shortly before Lincoln's inauguration as President of the United States, a convention of slave owners set up a provisional government. . .Knowing that their movement to destroy the Union was unpopular among the majority of the southern white population, the secessionists refused to put the question even before a restricted southern electorate. "We live under an oligarchy," said the Mississippi Natchez Courier of February, 1861, "that has not yet dared to trust the people as to a say to its consent.' While the slave oligarchy was engineering secession and preparing for war, President Buchanan did nothing but pray that all would be well in the end, and northern businessmen, worried over tumbling markets and repudiated debts, were urging Congress to grant the slave holders any concession that would bring them back into the Union." p. 297
Two point contradict Adams:
1. It was a slave oligarchy that took that South to war, not some tax revolt.
2. The Northern businessmen were for appeasement not war.
I can only imagine what Eric Foner would do to Charles Adams if he should ever "get ahold of him." [end]
Walt
It is also widely thought that Clinton intentionally covered up the Iraq connection in Murrah so he could blame it on the 'right wing'. Which he did, no doubt with your blessings, judging by your comments past and present.
All that because Bush maladroitly stumbled into a war in the Gulf.
Maybe your memory is a little better than mine. Did Bush have Congressional approval? Did Bush have UN approval? Was the United States the only country to send troops into that war?
Well, you usually have a somewhat well reasoned response. Must be a sensitive subject.
That's not true, as my #1466 shows.
Adams' book -is- laughably poor, but I didn't dismiss it out of hand.
I did realize quickly that no serious person would accept anything he said.
Walt
That could have little to do with my decision to vote for Clinton.
Not very good analysis on your part.
Oh wait. You were using typical neo-reb confusion tactics.
Walt
Okay, I was working backwards through the posts, I feel better now!
You've never match -any- of my comments.
Walt
Not really, but in retrospect I suppose I should have included </sarcasm> tags on all those posts. The short answer is who I vote for and why is none of your concern.
Puleeze. I've read the book and it's a joke. I had longer bibliographies writing grad school papers.
What, no snappy comeback for my post 1458?
Big freakin' deal. Even the Paradigm people point out that Adams does a rotten job of documenting his claims.
Adams also quotes many recent publications and studies.
Two observations of the person who posted this - (1)he has not read the book; why comment of the book you have not read? The guy has already decided he disagrees with the work. (2) He does not understand the importance of studying editorials of that period (ie. public opinion).
C'mon Walt, you're posting opinions about a book this person has not even read.
I see nothing odd about including third party observations on the War. Most especially comming from such a cultured society as the Britts.
If you insist on name calling, something I have not done, the discussion will terminate, for my part.
Anyone can see you are pushing disinformation.
Here's the heart of the criticism of the ACW newsgroup:
". . .The New York Merchants and the Irrepressible Conflict. If money makes the world go around and is the heart of war and the blood of governments, then the Foner book explains more about the Civil War than any other study."
I don't have that book by Foner, but I do have his History of the Labor Movement in the United States, vol. 1:
"Late in February, 1861, shortly before Lincoln's inauguration as President of the United States, a convention of slave owners set up a provisional government. . .Knowing that their movement to destroy the Union was unpopular among the majority of the southern white population, the secessionists refused to put the question even before a restricted southern electorate. "We live under an oligarchy," said the Mississippi Natchez Courier of February, 1861, "that has not yet dared to trust the people as to a say to its consent.' While the slave oligarchy was engineering secession and preparing for war, President Buchanan did nothing but pray that all would be well in the end, and northern businessmen, worried over tumbling markets and repudiated debts, were urging Congress to grant the slave holders any concession that would bring them back into the Union." p. 297
Two point contradict Adams:
1. It was a slave oligarchy that took that South to war, not some tax revolt.
2. The Northern businessmen were for appeasement not war."
[end]
Now, unless Foner found two diametrically opposed interpretations for two different books, then Adams is misrepresenting him.
But the record is very clear that what Foner said in the one book is the truth -- it -was- the slave oligarchy that caused the war, and northern merchants -were- for appeasement.
Adams cannot be correct on this one point, and the fact that he was so far off base, in the eyes of this reviewer, discredit anything else he might be selling.
Adams' book (which I have a copy somewhere) is just another neo-reb attempt to skew the perception of these events by an appeal to half-truths, partial quotes and flat lies -- the exact thing we see on FR every day.
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.