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
and scalawags, halfbacks & turncoats will be very happy in the Socialist States of Amerika, come dixie FREEDOM.
i doubt that i will live to see our new nation's birth, but i believe my 13 YO niece WILL.
free dixie,sw
Congrats to DiLo for snagging Ben Affleck! Who knew?
You're old man was right.
...apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
there are THOUSANDS of enemies of freedom for dixie (and NOT incidently of the USA) in high places, including Capitol Hill-- nancy pelosi, for one, comes to mind!) who HATE all things southron with a passion that surpasses understanding.
over my career i've met all too many damnyankees who TRULY believe that EVERYTHING/EVERYBODY in the southland is stupid,ignorant,inbred and inferior in all ways to nothernborns. they are the TRUE bigots, as they hate us all separately & equally. they despise our sacred flag, our southron heroes,our culture, our mores, our speech pattern and most of all US.
for that reason and MANY others, i believe that the north & the south are in an untenable relationship that MUST fail in the long term. the south will be free.
free dixie,sw
Well, that's not true.
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."
That is from 1860.
How about this:
"The Union of the Constitution was a Union of slaveholding States. It rests on Slavery, by prescribing a representation in Congress for three-fifths of our slaves. There is nothing in the proceedings of the Convention which framed the Constitution to show that the Southern States would have formed any other union; and still less that they would have formed a union with more powerful non-slaveholding States, having a majority in both branches of the Legislature of the Government. They were guilty of no such folly."
--Robert Barnwell Rhett, 1860.
Why would you tell such a lie?
Walt
free dixie,sw
And I was referring to your comment. You called the U.S. Constitution "that pact with the Devil out of Philadelphia," did you not?
Sigh.
No, I was referring back to a previous post where I noted that William Lloyd Garrison called the Constitution as a pact with the Devil because it contained slavery.
Walt
I'm no fan of Pelosi, and I hate being put in the position of defending her, but I really don't believe there's any evidence to support your contention that she hates all things Southern. In fact, I think her rather public support for Clinton would tend to contradict your paranoid point. Stop refighting an unjust rebellion that was put down 137 years ago. Your mindset is positively Serbian.
Go ahead, but document your quotes please.
Are you nuts? The rebel battle flag is sacred? What idolotrous religion do you subscribe to? And would you be equally supportive of efforts by descendents of the Waffen SS to "sanctify" (your word) the swastika? Maybe they could put it on the Bavarian flag?
our southron heroes,
You're free to heroize anyone you damn well choose, just as you're free to mispell "Southern". And I'm equally free to say your hero was an idiot. And that includes the Great Robert E. Lee (may Allah praise him).
our culture, our mores,
Huh?
our speech pattern
Jesus you have a thin skin. You're telling me nobody makes fun of Brooklyn accents? New Jersey accents? California Central Valley accents? Minnesota accents? Canadian accents? Not only are you insanely paranoid, but you seem insecure in your identity. I pity you.
and most of all US.
That's it. Everyone's out to get you. Black helicopters will rendevous over your domicile at 0-dark-30.
there is plenty of room on the north american continent for six free countries. (the strength of that trading group would be enormous! it would make EUCOMM look positively PUNY!)
the old rebel familes have NOT forgotten the taste we had of liberty between 1861-1865. and we will not EVER forget.
what we southrons have in mind is a peaceful partition of the current landmass into 2 or 3 countries, as was done when Czechoslovakia became the Czech Republic & Slovakia.
free dixie and THEN curse us to your heart's content.
for the southland,sw
southrons (and yep, we dixie liberty folk do prefer the 19th century spelling) do HONOR our hero-martyrs, who fought to the death against all odds, trying to defend dixie liberty.
frankly, in re-reading your post, i'm becoming convinced that you may be one of the anti-southron bigots i'm talking about. teasing someone about his "jersey accent" is NOT the same thing as the HATEFILLED/HATEFUL sort of villification of a complete culture that i'm talking about.
even paranoids have real enemeies.
free dixie,sw
Your words may have been based on Garrison's, but for lack of quotation marks or any reference whatsoever to suggest you intended them to be nothing more than a quote of Garrison, I may only reasonably conclude that choice of words to represent your own views. So answer the question: do they represent your views?
...the above coming from the same person who recently argued at great length that when Wigfall was addressing the North through the word "you," he really meant to address himself. There is great cause to believe that, having found yourself unable to compete any further in substantive argument, you now turn to diversion tactics such as the above. Suit yourself
Go back and look at #268.
Next moron, please.
Walt
Your original statement in which you called the Constitution a "pact with the Devil" was in post 189 Walt. 189 comes before 268 therefore you could not have been quoting 268 at the time. Try again.
That's just not rational. Are your moth shipments coming in from the Far East in a timely fashion?
Walt
You could have saved a lot of key strokes.
That you purport to have been quoting a non-existant post 268 in post 189? No Walt, that isn't rational at all for you to do, and that is precisely my point.
This is getting beyond ridiculous. Are you saying that post # 268 in this thread doesn't exist?
In that post I clearly ascribed a desire to burn the Constitution to William Lloyd Garrison. He called it a pact with the Devl because it allowed Slavery.
Your trying to win some off-the-wall debating point, I suppose something along the lines of: "Aha! Walt wants to burn the Constitution!" is just cracked. I won't even dignify it with an answer.
The context of this thread was very plain that I was quoting Garrison. I don't want to burn the Constitution. I'm the one who keeps throwing up his hand and swearing to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic, while you are the one with "hateful heart and deceitful speech."
Who am I quoting there?
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.