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
It was very enlightning. Recall, she had never used the name Clinton until 1992. In Washington circles, she was Hillary Rodham. Once I made the connection, nothing that happened for the next 8 years surprised me.
I don't blame Bush I for not getting a good outcome on getting rid of Saddam. There were no good choices, as you suggest.
I DO blame Bush I for his maladroit policy that got us into the Gulf War in the first place. And he shouldn't have encouraged the rebels if he wasn't going to back them up.
I think our present mess stems largely from all that.
You won't find me saying anything good about Clinton now, count on that.
Walt
We're straying pretty far from Dr. DiLusionals latest Lincoln character assassination, but exactly what Bush policies were those?
Gone off the deep end?
I said nothing to demean any veteran for their service, or reasons for serving. Yet you do just that - belittling those desiring to serve during times of engagment. Your words are an affront to those thousands that have enlisted - not during peace times - but specifically in defense of our country.
I'm not suggesting that it is US law - you finally understand! Justice Grier wrote the opinion of the majority, and by his own words opined that the legal justification of the blockade was via International (between nations) law. Despite your oft repeated assertions that they cited the Militia Act as justification, if the Acts contained the necessary powers there would be no need to justify the blockade by the "Law of Nations", simply cite the revelant US law and be done with it.
And last time I looked, the Supremacy clause does not include international law, nor does it require US laws to operate in foreign countries.
And U.S. law -- the Militia Act.
Walt
We're straying pretty far from Dr. DiLusionals latest Lincoln character assassination, but exactly what Bush policies were those?
The oft-shown tape of April Glaspie meeting with Saddam in which she assured him we had no interest in his dispute with Kuwait.
Walt
It's not just an assertion, is it?
Walt
Seems like the parties trying to get possession of the ships and cargoes were playing the international law card. The Court ruled that the president did have power to blockade "the so-called confederate states" (the Court's phrase), as well as suppress the rebellion, based on the Militia Act and another act from 1807.
Walt
Like DiLorenzo's "work", the Glaspie "wink and nod" to Saddam are the stuff of myth, Walt. It simply did not happen that way. The dispute was over who was taping into who's oil along the border, not whether Kuwait was an independent nation or Saddam's Province #19.
Saddam did what he did because he was a G-D madman who was convinced that the US would never react because of the "Vietnam" experience. He did the same damn thing 10 years earlier by invading Iran shortly after the Shaw left. He didn't think the Iranian armed forces would fight him. A million Iraqi deaths later, he understood differently. The guy is basically a Hitler with bad generals.
"Eight days before his Aug. 2, 1990, invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein met with April Glaspie, then America's ambassador to Iraq. It was the last high-level contact between the two countries before Iraq went to war.
GLASPIE: In March 1991, she told a Senate committee that 'we foolishly did not realize [Saddam] was stupid.'
From a translation of Iraq's transcript of the meeting, released that September, press and pundits concluded that Ms. Glaspie had (in effect) given Saddam a green light to invade.
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts," the transcript reports Glaspie saying, "such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America."
The Persian Gulf War began Jan. 17, 1991. But before the official end of the war (April 11), Glaspie was called to testify informally before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
She said she was the victim of "deliberate deception on a major scale," and denounced the Iraqi transcript as "a fabrication" that distorted her position, though it contained "a great deal" that was accurate.
The veteran diplomat awaited her next assignment, later taking a low-profile job at the United Nations.
In November 1992, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tarik Aziz, gave Glaspie some vindication. He said she had not given Iraq a green light. "She just listened and made general comments," he told USA Today. "We knew the United States would have a strong reaction." Glaspie is now US consul general in Cape Town, South Africa."
From the New York Times:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 22 -- On July 25,President Saddam Hussein of Iraq summoned the United States Ambassador to Baghdad, April Glaspie, to his office in the last high-level contact between the two Governments before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2. Here are excerpts from a document described by Iraqi Government officials as a transcript of the meeting, which also included the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz.
A copy was provided to The New York Times by ABC News, which translated from the Arabic.
The State Department has declined to comment on its accuracy.
HUSSEIN: The price at one stage had dropped to $12 a barrel and a reduction in the modest Iraqi budget of $6 billion to $7 billion is a disaster.
GLASPIE: I think I understand this. I have lived here for years. I admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. I know you need funds. We understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.
And a third:
Excerpts from an article by David Figrut titled: Operation Desert Storm:
Outright Disinformation Scheme
On July 25, 1990, eight days before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, a quiet, largely unreported meeting took place between Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie at the Presidential Palace in Baghdad, which has since been destroyed by the war. The transcript of this meeting is as follows:
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:
"I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I have lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your other threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders?"
Saddam Hussein:
"As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we [the Iraqis] meet [with the Kuwaitis] and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death."
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:
"What solutions would be acceptable?"
Saddam Hussein:
"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Saddam's view, includes Kuwait) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"
(Pause, then Ambassador Glaspie speaks carefully)
U.S. Ambassador Glaspie:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."
If this is an urban legend, it seems pretty well supported.
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."
The Court's phrase.
We would never have won the Cold War on that basis.
Your statement is straight out of "1984".
When one enlists in the peace time military, one never knows what the situation might be during the term of enlistment or obligation. You are the one belittling the service of veterans, not me.
Walt
Nonsense - please post the exact quote of mine where I derided any veteran - even you - due to you enlisting during peace.
Most of the "media analysis" and tin hat conspiracy stuff relies on an Iraqi transcript of the meeting which was, like DiLorenzos crap, both incomplete and doctored.
Glaspie did tell Saddam that the US had no interest in inter-mural politics in the Arab world --- That IMHO is a good, common sense policy. Murbuarak of Egypt, Hussain of Jordan, The Saudis and the Emirates pirates were already involved and mediating the dispute between Saddam and the Kuwaitis. And, I migh add, they were not siding at all with Saddam or buying his stories. The US had no special hand to play in resolving the disputes. But Glaspie also told Saddam at that meeting that the use of force would be a concern to the US. Glaspie's boss, James Baker, said the same damn thing the next day even invoking the UN Charter in making it clear that a military resolution was not acceptable. Baker's statement is firmly in the record, but never repeated by the tin foil hat chorus!
Walt, it is one thing for a cop to say I have no business in an argument between you and your wife. But if you decide to start punching her out, then it is a cop's problem. Galaspie said that the dispute was not our concern, but that military action was our concern.
The other bit of smoke and mirrors here from the myth makers, Saddam foremost among them, is that he was somehow justified because Kuwait was; 1. Violating their border and slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields, and/or 2., Pumping too much oil and depressing global oil prices to Iraq's detriment.
Without getting into the dubious merits of either of those justifications, (which the other Arab nations didn't buy either) it must be kept in mind just who financed Iraq's war with Iran. The lion's share of money came from "loans" (more like extortion) from Kuwait and Saddam was very deep in debt to them --- something like twice his entire GDP. Kuwait's financial support for Saddam during the Iran war was the reason we ended up putting US flags on Kuwaiti tankers and running an escort service in the Gulf to keep the Iranians from blowing them out of the water. With Iraq's debt situation and residual sanctions left from that war, Saddam simply was in a fiscal box. If somehow the loans could be "forgiven" Saddam would be back in business and be able to rebuild his military. What better way to make the banker forgive your loans than to kill the banker and take over his bank?
It all really is as simple as that. If there was a US policy screw-up, it was in not realizing exactly how totally insane Saddam is. We were treating him as if he were any other semi-rational 3rd world despot. I doubt Bush II will ever make that mistake.
See The Christian Science Monitor for more information. And please --- don't underestimate how dangerous this guy is.
The Militia Act gives the president the power to call out the militia of the several states and insure that the laws of the United States are enforced --when Congress is not in secession.
The Court said in the Prize Cases ruling:
"All persons residing within this [rebel] territory whose property may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are nonetheless enemies because they are traitors."
Your position just won't stand up to the record.
Walt
That all sounds like good information and I appreciate it.
Walt
He's dangerous in the same way the 9/11 hi-jackers were dangerous when they slit the throats of stewardesses on the hijacked airliners. You said Saddam had bad generals. Arab culture doesn't produce good soldiers on the western model either. In our culture, and not just in the military, you are expected to take responsibility for your actions, to train your subordinates, and to work together for common goals. The reason the Israelis kicked the snot out of all the Arab armies they faced is because Arab culture doesn't support any of these important ideas. The Arabs can't build cohesive combat units that will stick together and fight together in the same way we do.
The Arabs are sneaky and cowardly, even if they might individually get into a fanatic state on occasion. I met a guy not long after Desert Storm who was in the 101st Airborne. He and his buddies were processing Iraqi POW's when one of them reared up with a knife and stabbed this guy. His buddy covering the searches butt-stroked the POW to the back of the head and killed him. That sounds about right to me.
You're right though. If they can fire a Stinger surface to air missile at a 747, or park a car with a dirty nuke in it on a city street they will do it in a heartbeat.
Walt
Right here:
"...I wanted combat experience."
For you to get combat experience, some other American veterans would have to become deceased veterans.
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.