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
I'm not pushing any "disinformation" here, just pointing out that fact.
He does quote the book, does he not?
Walt
It's actually a valuable resource of objectivity.
“In Mr. Lincoln’s message, we appreciate the calm thoughtfulness so different from the rowdyism we have been accustomed to receive from Washington. He is strong in the justice his cause and the power of his people. He speaks without acerbity even of the rebels who have brought so much calamity upon the country, but we believe that if the miscreants of the Confederacy -were brought to him today, Mr. Lincoln would bid them depart and try to be better and braver men in the future. When we recollect the raucous hate in this country toward the Indian rebels, "we feel humiliated that this 'rail splitter' from Illinois should show himself so superior to the mass of monarchical statesmen.
"Mr. Lincoln's brotherly kindness, truly father of his country, kindly merciful, lenient even to a fault, is made the sport and butt of all the idle literary buffoons of England. The day will come when the character and career of Abraham Lincoln will get justice in this country and his assailants will show their shame for the share they took in lampooning so brave and noble a man, who in a fearful crisis possessed his soul in patience, trusting in God. ‘Truly’, Mr. Lincoln speaks, 'the fiery trial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to the latest generation.' There is little doubt what the verdict of future generations will be of Abraham Lincoln.
"Before two years of his administration has been completed, he has reversed the whole constitutional attitude of America on the subject of Slavery; he has saved the territories from the unhallowed grasp of the slave power; he has purged the accursed institution from the Congressional District; he has hung a slave trader in New York, the nest of slave pirates; he has held out the right hand of fellowship to the negro Republicans of Liberia and Hayri; he has joined Great Britain in endeavoring to sweep the slave trade from the coast of Africa! There can be no doubt of the verdict of posterity on such acts as these. Within the light of the 'fiery trial' of which Mr. Lincoln speaks, another light shines clear and refulgent—the torch of freedom—to which millions of poor slaves now look with eager hope."
-- Edinburgh Mercury
Walt
Were they for appeasement to the point of allowing the port at Charleston to operate as a duty freeport? What would that have done to Northern commerce? What about the whole question of Federal tarrifs to protect private business?
"Again, if one state may secede, so may another; and then when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to creditors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money? If we now recognize this doctrine, by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do, if others choose to go, or to extort terms terms upon which they will promise to remain... "
A. Lincoln, 7/4/61
Secession was definitely an attack on the United States.
At least that is what a majority of Americans thought in 1861.
I mean after all, Lincoln's call for volunteers in April had been met to overflowing; the Congress supplied $400 million right away and much more later.
Even when Union war dead exceeded rebel war dead by a considerable margin, the people kept faith with the Lincoln administration.
Even while rebel armies were riven by destertion, Union armies were maintained by voluntary reenlistments.
What you are pushing, as usual, is just so much bunkum and bosh.
Walt
ACW Poster:
IMO, that's not very credible. I would have to see more to discredit Adams' work. Ironically, Adams has laid out all his references (p. 63) so folks like the ACW poster can review the correct sources. It's all there.
Lastly, Adams' book is not a neo-reb work as you stated. Adams is not a Southerner by birth. But I do acknowledge that anything that does not fit neatly into your skewed vision of the war is a "neo-reb" chant.
Does this sound like a man who is displaying the courage of his convictions , or is this a real first rate, second rate man?
I found my copy.
"In the summer of 1862, Prince Napoleon and his companions traveled to the United States, first visiting the North and having conversations with Lincoln, Seward, and General Scott. They visited Northern military camps and noticed a large number of foreigners in the ranks—recent immigrants who had been attracted to the pay, many of whom could not speak English.
Then the visitors traveled, to Virginia, first under a Union escort and then by Confederate cavalry to the camps of Generals Johnston and Beauregard. Mingling with young confederate soldiers, they asked for their thoughts on the war. First, a soldier mentioned defending his homeland, Virginia, from foreign invaders: "We do not want to have anything to do with the Yankees, neither will we suffer a single Yankee foot on our territory; and they having once violated it, it is all over between us." Another remarked, "Have we not the right of separation, since we possess the right of union? They very well know that, without us, their commerce is ruined for we are the cultivators. But we will no longer be cheated. We will continue the war two years—four, if necessary. . ..we will have nothing more to do with the Yankees'
These "young Confederate soldiers," as they were described, had the issues of the war in good focus, from the South's point of view. Defense- repelling foreign invaders—was the primary motive for these soldiers, and they "vowed a mortal hatred for the Yankees." And then came the economics, which even these young soldiers were aware of: "Without us their commerce is ruined," and "we will no longer be cheated,"
-Adams p. 109
But two can play at that game:
"The experience of one week with the Rebel Army satisfies me that the men are in a high state of discipline and have learned implicit obedience. When separated from their officers they do not show the same self-reliance that our men possess,—do not seem able to discuss with intelligent ease the political subjects which claim every man's attention at this time. All of them show a lack of energy and spirit, a want of thrift and cleanliness, which are altogether paradoxical to our men. A constant fear of their officers is associated with their prompt obedience of orders. Many, while they expressed their contempt for "the Yankees," would lament the war and express a desire to throw down their arms and return to their homes, if they could only do this without molestation. Jackson's name was always mentioned with a species of veneration, and his orders were obeyed with a slavish obedience unsurpassed by that of Russian serfs.
"How the rebels manage to get along no one can tell. They are badly clad. Many of them without shoes. Uncleanliness and vermin are universal. The odor of clothes worn for months, saturated with perspiration and dirt, is intense and all-pervading... About nine o'clock two seedy-looking individuals rode up Market street as fast as their jaded animals could carry them, Their dress was a dirty, faded, gray, their arms rusty and seemingly uncared for, their general appearance raffish, or vagabondish...A dirtier, filthier, more unsavory set of human beings never strolled through a town—marching it could not be called without doing violence to the word. The distinctions of rank were recognized on the coat collars of officers; but all were alike dirty and repulsive. Their arms were rusty and in an unsoldierly condition. Their uniforms, or rather multiforms, corresponded only in a slight predominance of grey over butternut, and in the prevalence of filth. Faces looked as if they had not been acquainted with water for weeks: hair, shaggy and unkempt, seemed entirely a stranger to the operations of brush or comb. About nine o'clock two seedy-looking individuals rode up Market street as fast as their jaded animals could carry them. Their dress was a dirty, faded, gray, their arms rusty and seemingly uncared for, their gen- eral appearance raffish, or vagabondish.
Sunday, September 14th.—Major-General Banks' corps d'armee, commanded by Brigadier-General A. S. Williams passed through town this morning on its way to the front. The men were in the best possible spirits, all eager for the fray. They are fighting now for and among people who appreciate their labors, and who welcome them as brothers. Brigadier-General Gordon said that "the reception of the troops by the citizens of this place was equal to a victory in its effects upon the men of his command."
The veteran troops were all in vigorous health, and the new levies made up of strong, athletic men, whose intelligent faces beamed with strong desire to press rapidly upon the retreating foe. We had never greater reason to be proud of our army."
-- Privately publish phamphlet of Dr. Steiner, U.S Sanitation Commission.
I don't think Adams book will repel much criticism. It is just more of the neo-reb rant.
Walt
Of course not.
Walt
There was no pretense involved. No one ever said that the north was fighting for slavery then and no one says it now. This -cannot- be a correct statement by Adams. The vast majority of northerers did not give a fig for the blacks, and wanted free blacks among them only a little more than southern whites did.
Look: President Lincoln opposed the timing of Congress' outlawing of slavery in the District of Columbia in 1862; he rescinded Fremont's and Hunter's and Butler's emancipation proclamations in 1862 for the same reason -- it inflamed people in the north who wanted it made clear that they were fighting for Union and not emancipation.
Adams' statement cannot be true.
What -is- true is that after several failed attempts at compensated emanciation in 1862, Lincoln resolved on military emancipation -- not as he said, for personal reasons, but on military grounds in order to help suppress the rebellion.
Walt
Depends, at the time there was no legal basis for Fremont to liberate the slaves in Missouri. Missouri was not in rebellion and slavery was legal according to the laws of the state. It took passage of the 13th Amendment for slavery to be ended in states not in rebellion. So your quote sounds more like a man respecting the law.
To allow Charleston to operate as a duty free port while requiring tariffs be collected at all other ports would have been unconstituional. Had the southern secession been allowed then Charleston could have operated as a duty free port AND given out lollypops to the crews of the ships that called there and that would not have had any affect on the traffic in and out of the Northern ports at all.
And yet he --quotes-- the book.
Walt
When you quote this particular passage from Adams, it shows that -you- are unfamiliar with one of the major themes of the war too. The northerners fought to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. They --accepted-- the freeing of the slaves because it weakened the power of the rebellion.
Adams suggested something that anyone even generally familiar with the record knows is false, and you went for it hook, line and sinker.
Walt
Oh goody - back to the case where the court held that the blockade was legal against southern states by virtue of " jure belli - International law? I love that case!
Either the states were still members of the union or they weren't. In one case the blockade was illegal, the other not. If still states then the ratifications of the 13th were null and void, else valid. In either case, both would have been states, their refusal to ratify the 14th legal, and the miltitary governments instituted unconstitutional.
The power to declare war is a delegated power to the legislature, not the executive. The President has the power "on extraordinary Occasions" to convene Congress, yet he delayed that action for months while he assembled an army, instituted a blockade etc. I guess Lincoln considered the events a every day occurance, no need to convene Congress (which could have ended his illegal actions). Additional, the grant of Congress (almost entirely Northern) attempting to legitimatize his actions was an ex post facto law - still unconstitutional to this day.
Additionally, in Texas v. White, if the states remained states, the the act of the Texas legislature repealing the requirement for the bonds indoresment by the Texas government would be a lawful act of the state (meaning the bonds were rightfully held and payable to White & Chiles), exactly the opposite of the decision by Chase - who held that the actions of the legislature were null and void, despite his decision that they were still a state.
When the 1st state seceded, did the state declare war on the US, or did it remain out of the Union peacably?
When each state seceded from the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union - which required unanimous consent for changes - did the others then attack taking their secession/ratification as a declaration of war?
But please, enlighten me as to your rationale. Scurry off to some "moderated" newsgroup to find some revisionist tripe to explain your position. Please enlighten us about you rally feel about the Confederate flag and all that it stands for, how the founders didn't really mean what they wrote, that the 10th Amendment is null and void, that US laws apply to foreign coutries.
One problem Walt, is that Lincoln is not stating that seccsion is illegal, he's stating that it would be illegal to leave without settling the bill. And a delegation was sent to Washington to meet with him to discuss this, aided by the efforts of US Supreme Court Justice Campbell. The south was more than willing to repay any debts, Licoln was unwilling to allow the golden goose to leave.
Nonsense, according to the resolution they were to 'negotiate friendly relations' between two governments and discuss 'all questions of disagreement between the two governments.' That would have required Lincoln to recognize the southern rebellion as legal and to treat with the Davis regime as if it were a soverign government. That killed the scheme right off the bat.
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.