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
"Five million bales of cotton, each bale worth fifty dollars at least - fifty-four dollars was the average price of cotton last year - give us an export of $250,000,000 per annum, counting not rice, or tobacco, or any other article of produce. Two hundred and fifty million exports will bring into our own borders - not through Boston and New York and Philadelphia, but through our own ports - $250,000,000 of imports; and forty per cent upon that puts into our treasury$100,000,000. Twenty per cent gives us $50,000,000. What tariff we shall adopt, as a war tariff, I expect to discuss in a few months, and in another Chamber."
Whose border is he referring to? Whose ports? Certainly not the United States. He is obviously referring to an independent south. The south's cotton. The south's ports. When he says "What tariff we shall adopt, as a war tariff..." he is referring to the south, not the North. Otherwise why would he expect to discuss it in another chamber in a few months time?
Having established the shining future for the south, Wigfall goes on to predict the grim future for the North. The south is the strong one because it isn't numbers that matters, it's money. The almighty dollar that the south has in abundance because of her cotton. The North will be nothing because of the loss of the cotton producing states. The North will be forced do direct taxation, bankrupting her capitalists while the South sits on her 40% tariff and watches the money roll in. That's what he is saying. Nowhere does Wigfall give any reason for the southern acts of rebellion to come. His speech is an in-your-face diatribe against the North, not a list of reasons why the south will rebel. Those reasons came a month later in the Declarations of the Causes of Secession and the speeches of the southern secession commissioners. And all those say that it was defense of slavery that was by far the single most important reason for the southern rebellion.
Slavery was an important issue but certainly not the primary one. This fiction has been captured by the PC crowd since the new Deal and made into a major plank for the Democratic party, assuring the unwavering voting support of the vast majority of American blacks for the past 70 years....regardless of issues.
Many people rank the fight for states rights versus federalism as number one!
Taxes, tarrifs, States rights, abolitionism, and Northern vs southern economic issues all contributed.....
Subsequent to the war, the "Carpetbaggers" from the north descended on a defeated south and were among the first to "simplify" this slavery fiction as being easy to understand justification for their economic plunder of the south.
The record simply doesn't support that.
Soon to be CSA congressman Lawrence Keitt, speaking in the South Carolina secession convention, said, "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it."
Keitt's comments are typical; slavery was the most important reason for the war. Your statement is based in myth, not the record.
Keitt was later KIA at the head of regiment --- defending the slave power.
Walt
There were -no- federal taxes. None, nada, zilch. Not much of an issue, huh?
"Antebellum Americans had been one of the most lightly taxed peoples on earth. And the per capita burden in the South had been only half that in the free states. Except for tariff duties-which despite Southern complaints were lower in the late 1850's than they had been for more than 50 years- virtually all taxes were collected by state and local governments."
--Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson
Walt
I'm sorry but I think you have it backwards. Subsequent to the war the southern leaders were anxious to downplay defense of slavery as their reson for rebellion. Prior to the war and during it they were loud in their insistance that secession was the only possible method for defending slavery. For every reference to a tariff, there are dozens that reference slavery.
It is the southern Agrarians---John Crowe Ransom and others---who make a better case for a South with the BLOT of slavery that had other worthwhile institutions to offer, but could not overcome its racism. Denial is not a river in Egypt.
Walt
That is absolutely correct. Southerners were well grounded in defending slavery on --constitutional- grounds. That is why William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution a pact with the devil. It was the -moral- attack on slavery that irked the slave power --that, and the fact that the Constitution can be changed.
Walt
Yeah, and they drive BMW's and cut you off on Georgia 400.
Walt
Where did I say that?
Right here where you remarked "The Georgia secession document even mentions "the free trade environment now prevailing" or words to that effect" in order to argue that the protectionist movement was not a cause.
THAT statement of mine neither indicates, suggests, or says that the protectionist movement was not a cause.
I might -hold- that position, but not based on that comment, fuzzy head.
As "Yankhater" indicated, tariffs are not in the set of issues that drive people to the barricades.
Tariffs are the issue the "Lost Cause" apologists fastened on after the war. The disinformation campaign continues, as your involvement suggests.
Walt
What are you complaining about? You seen the records of my two alma maters lately?
Yeah, but I'm southern born. Football is important to us. While I was an undergrad at that great state university in Knoxville, UT had it worst string of years and its worst year ever; they went 4-7 in 1978.
On the other hand, UT has had a lot of success lately. UT won more games than any other school between 1995-2000. When our guys come on the field, we expect a dismantling of the other team. We haven't seen that this year at all.
Last year I was at the Memphis game (which we won 49-7) and they flashed a graphic -- UT has won more games than Alabama, Notre Dame or Michigan since 1926 -- that was a teaser -- UT has won more games than any other college since 1926. That's not too shabby. And just purely to dig at a rival -- UT has won @ 140 more games than that state school in Gainesville, Fl.
Walt
Yeah, that was because all the blood to be spilled could easily be wiped up with one hankerchief.
Walt
Your true colors come through. Needless to say, are you now holding that the Articles of Confederation are the document by which our country should be run?
No, goofball. I was referring back to the original comment:
Any nation that had slavery incorporated into its founding constitution was in no way correct.
Sorry you can't follow the thread for more than a few hours.
Walt
s it true that Cleburne had a serious wound that caused him to spit up blood? Prior to the Battle of Franklin, that is.
Walt
Here is a link to the Cleburne Memorial (pdf format)
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.