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
Walt
From the abstract and Roberts's article McGuire and Van Cott's work seems to be based on a logical fallacy. One can imagine that if the country split apart today, each fragment would draft laws and shape a constitution to reflect particular views on the issues of the day. But that would not prove that those issues had caused the split.
"Cause" is a tricky thing. An issue like the tariff may have contributed to worsening tensions or even swayed some people to take up one side or another. But left alone, the tariff question would never have brought war. Indeed, it could have been easily resolved, had slavery not embittered the situation. A list of differences between societies may not be a list of causes for a conflict between them. "Causes" have to have real explanatory force and power.
Another problem is the vagueness of the provision cited in the Confederate Constitution. If what's been posted here is true, the Confederacy retained the sugar tariff, which was clearly intended "to promote or foster" sugar growing. Therefore, a lot depends on how one reads, "any branch of industry." Does "industry" mean "production" of any kind, or does it refer to manufacturing, as opposed to agriculture?
In any event, there's a problem with the view of the Confederacy as idealistically free trade or committed to lower taxes. It may merely be that an agrarian region was opposed to taxes that would benefit industry, rather than to high taxes in general.
True, true.
It's funny that old "liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable ANDREW JACKSON" wound up on a CSA stamp. Well, his image did. Only problem was that inflation was so high, and the denomination of the stamp was so low, they were worthless. You couldn't put enough on an envelope to pay the postage.
Walt
Your mama should wash your mouth out with soap, you nasty tempered little boy.
Reread the paragraph before that. The one where he talks about the south exporting $250 million and importing $250 million - $250 million what I have no idea. Where he talks of the 40% tariff giving the south a treasury of $100 million. He's talking about the southern treasury, you boob. The southern war chest, the southern almight dollar, the southern tariff. Not the Northern one. Nowhere in that speech does he talk about a Northern tariff driving the south away. He is taunting the North, predicting ruin for her when the south has left. As it turns out, he was no better at predicting the future as you are at reading his predictions.
Walt
The Articles of Confederation are (is?) our founding Constitution, not that pact with the Devil out of Philadelphia.
Walt
Exactly what market did Wigfall expect the North to lose that was going to break them? Certanly not the south. That the few hundred thousand people in the south who could afford anything manufactured in the north were a blip compaired to the millions of customers in the north. Perhaps he thought cutting off the Mississippi would strangle the midwest. If so, he was wrong. Goods moved east on railroads, the Ohio river and across the Great Lakes until Grant opened the Mississippi in July 63. It was the south that cut itself off first with an insane embargo of cotton and second by never investing in a navy or industry.
As far as direct taxation, the CSA did it too, and to every lowely farmer, not just "high-wage" individuals like the north. The Union income tax did not kick in until income was over $800/year --- a lot of money in the 1860s.
Wigfalls predictions were about as reliable as the National Enquirer's. Both sides agreed the guy was a nut case.
Still P.O'd about that Marine Corps birthday thing, ain't cha?
Be nice to me. The Vols are 5-4.
Walt
There was no middle class in Ivanhoe.
Walt
What are you complaining about? You seen the records of my two alma maters lately? Reminds me of my good old student days at B-school. While the Wildcats were getting thrashed by lesser schools we would chant, "That's all right. That's OK. You're gonna work for us some day." And when the offense lined up on first down we would urge them on by chanting, "Punt...punt...punt...punt." Ah, college life.
Give my regards to Saint Bill and Hillary's Heavenly Choir then, because you're wrong.
Well we did do Apollo in the middle of the Vietnam War --- neither fiscally trivial endeavors. And then came the 'stagflation' of the 1970s.
To believe you, I'd have to believe that Herr Klinton is not a native of Arkansas, a state most prominent in the war of the Southern Rebellion.
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.