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
A man respecting the letter of the law? The same man who takes it upon himself to declare war ? An act that should only have been done by the Congress of the United States of America?
Adams has suggested nothing. What he has done is show beyond ant doubt that the war, as far as Lincoln was concerned, would not be fought over slavery.
Of that, I see you freely admitt.
I think a basic understanding of economics would argue to the contrary.
If I was in the market for steel rails for my new railroad I would order a superior product from London and take shipment in Charlston. Thereby receiving the best product at the best price.
Lincoln didn't declare war. You declare war on another country and the confederacy was a group of states in rebellion, nothing more and nothing less. Congress gave the president the power to mobilize the militia to put down invasion or rebellion when Congress was not in session. Lincoln's actions were perfectly legal.
Assuming that you were a southern railroad and the London product was superior and cheaper than the Northern rails then you would be right. And since there was no rail manufacturing down south then you would have no choice but to order them from abroad. However, I still fail to see how a southern free port would affect Northern imports.
And therein lies the rub. And therein lies the case of States Rights vs. Federal rights. It is indeed about money and who has the loudest voice in Washington.
Would that we could have resolved the issue way back then; but alas, after much blood and suffering, the issue is still alive and undergoing a new awakening.
To be more precise they were a group of Sovereign States in the legal process of leaving the Union.
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!
No you don't. You're playing your disinformation card.
You've seen this before:
From the majority opinion:
"The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
...On this first question, therefore, we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion which neutrals are bound to regard."
The "act of Congress of February 28th, 1795..." is the Militia Act, which reads in part:
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."
You might think it a puts a brave face on your bankrupt position to say you "love" the Prize cases ruling.
But the record won't support what you say.
In fact, the record proves just the opposite of what you say.
Walt
Well, I am still awaiting more replies from you. I see 4 or 5 from you already. It must hurt to be accused of cozening up to Clinton. I can't blame you there for being a little upset.
and In fact, the record proves just the opposite of what you say.
Read it again Walt. "On this first question, therefore, we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion which neutrals are bound to regard."
International Law, as documented by Hugo Grotius' De Jure Belli ac Pacis (On the Law of War and Peace) published in 1625.
In fact, the record proves exactly what I say.
Adams has suggested nothing. What he has done is show beyond ant doubt that the war, as far as Lincoln was concerned, would not be fought over slavery.
"Adams suggested", "Adams indicated", "Adams said", it's all the same thng.
Adams --based on the quote you provided-- alleged (that's another verb, don't you know) something that no one ever denied. That's a straw man argument. It knocks down something never set up. He is ignorant of the record, and so, apparently, are you.
Few in Europe were convinced that the war was fought to free the slaves, he says, and you parrot.
Well, I tell you again, that there is no support for that in the record. Northerners made it amply plain that they cared nothing for the blacks.
It's that simple.
You took as gospel possibly the most ludicrous statement in the whole book.
Can I recommend a good general history of the war? Try "BattleCry of Freedom" by Dr. James McPherson. It's wonderful.
"...Anderson's exhausted garrison surrendered. Able to man only a few of Summer's forty-eight mounted guns, they had fired a thousand rounds in reply—without much effect.
On April 14 the American flag came down and the Confederate stars and bars rose over Sumter.
This news galvanized the North. On April 15 Lincoln issued a proclamation calling 75,000 militiamen into national service for ninety days to put down an insurrection "too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings." The response from free states was overwhelming. War meetings in every city and village cheered the flag and vowed vengeance on traitors. "The heather is on fire," wrote a Harvard professor who had been born during George Washington's presidency. "I never knew what a popular excitement can be. . . . The whole population, men, women, and children, seem to be in the streets with Union favors and flags." From Ohio and the West came "one great Eagle-scream" for the flag. "The people have gone stark mad!"
In New York City, previously a nursery of pro-southern sentiment, a quarter of a million people turned out for a Union Rally. "The change in public sentiment here is wonderful—almost miraculous," wrote a New York merchant on April 18. "I look with awe on the national movement here in New York and all through the Free States," added a lawyer. "After our late discords, it seems supernatural."
The "time before Sumter" was like another century, wrote a New York woman. "It seems as if we never were alive till now; never had a country till now.
Democrats joined in the eagle-scream of patriotic fury. [uh oh...] Stephen Douglas paid a well-publicized national unity call to the White House and then traveled home to Chicago, where he told a huge crowd: "There are only two sides to the question. Every man must be for the United States or against it. There can be no neutrals in this war, only patriots—or traitors" A month later Douglas was dead—a victim probably of cirrhosis of the liver—but for a year or more his war spirit lived on among most Democrats. "Let our enemies perish by the sword," was the theme of Democratic editorials in the Spring of 1861."
--BCF pp. 274-75.
See, if you'd read that you would have known that Adams was totally clueless -- as clueless as you.
Walt Walt
Where is that legal process described? How are the debts to be divided up?
What the so-called seceded states did is no more legal than purse snatching.
Walt
In fact, you are depending on half truth, as usual.
The majority opinion cites the Militia Act, which requires that U.S. law operate in all the states.
Walt
That has nothing to do with U.S. law. It's pitful to suggest that it does.
Walt
Sorry, the were a group of states engaged in an illegal rebellion.
Not hurt. I'm more amused that you would assume that anyone who is against the southern rebellion would automatically be a Clinton supporter. Shows how your mind works, I guess.
This remains probably the most ludicrous thing I have ever read.
When I went on Desert Storm I realized that no possible outcome could provide me an "experience" of the type you apparently crave which could be worth the loss of even one of my Marines.
But, to use your logic, I couldn't "validate" any combat experience I might gain unless --somebody got killed--. Isn't that right? If one goes on an operation that was so benign that there were no casualties, that wouldn't -be- combat, would it?
I was thinking on Pearl Harbor Day that you must have shed a tear, not for the 2,000 + U.S. servicemen who lost their lives that day, but for the fact that no similar event had happened in your lifetime that would validate -- for you-- a chance to have some glorious "combat experience."
I watched last night on the "Discovery" channel the special about the dive on the Bismarck. Seems like the Brits rescued 119 survivors out of a crew of @ 1,400. The Hood had a crew of @ 1,400. There were three survivors from Hood.
Just think what a glorious thing it would have been for you to be in that fight!
And surely worth the death of almost 3,000 other people, right?
I bought the "Band of Brothers" DVD set. One of the veterans was Lieutenant "Buck" Compton. He was medevacked with combat fatigue after watching two of his close friends each lose a leg in a German artillery barrage at Bastogne.
They interviewed the real Buck Compton for the production. He's white headed now. He still couldn't talk about that day 50 years ago.
But I guess it wouldn't faze --you-- if someone else lost a leg -- as long as YOU got combat experience.
It's just too weird. Your callous comment belittles the sacrifice of every American veteran.
Walt
I held my nose and voted for Bush-I in 92 based on what I knew at the time. I was P.O.ed over the "read my lips" tax increase that the spineless Bush allowed the Dems to box him in to. I realized that Clinton was nothing but a two-bit corrupt southern governor when I watched his Super Bowl "60 Minute" lip-biting act but had still not totally written him off. It was the information I got afterward on both him and more importantly, the Hilda-beast, that made me see them as a potentially dangerous pair. Her involvement with "Neighborhood Legal Services", Elenor Holmes Norton's "Children Defense Fund," AND The Institute of Policy Studies made me see that she at least was a Marxist biding time in a corrupt little backwater like Arkansas in an effort to bring all her 1960s Radical Left dreams to reality. Anyone who has a Stalinist like Michael Lerner as a personal 'guru' is a clear and present danger to the republic. When she became the darling of the media and the "co-presidency" stuff started, every alarm in my body pegged at 10.
I also never bought in the little-lop eared hustler from Texas. Call it a 'gift' but I think growing up in the neighborhood that I did, I have an innate ability to pick hustlers out of a crowd. I am convinced to this day that the only reason Perot was in race was a promise by the Clinton's to give him a big cut of their Socialized Medicine scam. (Same as he did with Medicare). The intention of the Perot candidacy was not to win anything, but to divide those of us who could see through Clinton's hustle and who couldn't bring ourselves into voting for a two-bit draft dodger to allow Clinton to win with just the hard Democrat vote. It worked like a charm. Clinton only got 43% of the vote but won in a walk. Minus Perot, Bush would have won easily.
Your concern at the time was how Bush handled the aftermath of the Gulf war. Mine wasn't. The Iraqi opposition at the time was not a crowd that would have been any better for US interests than Sadam was. The Kurds couldn't hold power for a month without cutting each other's throats while at the same time driving Turkey away from the Western Camp. And the Marsh Arabs would have been sucked-up by the Iranian fundamentalists in a Tehran minute and accomplished the same damn thing through the mosques in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia that we went to war with Sadam over. IMHO, Bush-I's decision not to move on Baghdad and to simply attempt to isolate Sadam and allow time for some secular, Sunni based opposition to develop inside Iraq was the best of several distasteful options. The Clinton foreign policy team is the one who fell short on that strategy. They allowed the sanctions to become a joke because they were more interested in UN wine and cheese parties than they were in geo-politics or American interests.
Just my thoughts.
And all very good. It was a bad year for the voters in 1992, no doubt about it. I was for Perot until he imploded.
Your take on Hillary is especially interesting.
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.