Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln
October 16, 2002 | Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 1,561-1,572 next last
To: WhiskeyPapa
This is getting beyond ridiculous.

On your account, yes it is Walt.

Are you saying that post # 268 in this thread doesn't exist?

No. I am saying that at the time you made your comment in post 189 that post 268 did not yet exist. Therefore you could not have been referencing post 268 in post 189. Got it?

Your trying to win some off-the-wall debating point,

No Walt. I am simply trying to establish your elusive opinion on the matter.

The context of this thread was very plain that I was quoting Garrison.

No Walt, it wasn't. Post 268 DID NOT EXIST at the time you posted 189.

361 posted on 11/14/2002 12:00:09 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Any further substantive argument delivered to you would have no more effect than if I delivered them to a wooden post. You have eyes but do not see. Wigfall was clearly talking about southern tariffs, not Northern ones.
362 posted on 11/14/2002 12:12:02 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
It's amazing that today, so many misinformed and otherwise intellegent looking people will look you straight in the eye & try to tell you the war was fought over slavery when that absurd revisionist notion never even appeared in any history book published north or South until well after Bruce Canton started publishing his series of historical fiction books approximately 75 years after the war.

"The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true." - U.S. Grant, in his Memoirs, 1885.

363 posted on 11/14/2002 12:14:57 PM PST by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Any further substantive argument delivered to you

For their to be further substantive argument from you requires that there exists prior substantive argument from you. You have provided prior argument but it is deficient in substance, hence the problem with your statement.

would have no more effect than if I delivered them to a wooden post. You have eyes but do not see.

Again, I need only note the author of that statement's recent treatment of Wigfall's speech regarding the Northern object of his address. In other words, you are projecting again.

Wigfall was clearly talking about southern tariffs, not Northern ones.

So when Wigfall said "you" and "your" to identify the object of that part of his speech, he was really saying "us" and "our" in reference to himself and the South? Strange...

364 posted on 11/14/2002 12:21:14 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: yankhater; Landru; Mudboy Slim; flicker
"You will not find filthy dreadlocked, communist, hippie, liberals at a battlefield unless its to watch a spotted owl"

Hey yankhater. You left out Rush's "maggot-infested, FM types" from your description of the lefties!

365 posted on 11/14/2002 12:21:32 PM PST by sultan88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
No Walt, it wasn't. Post 268 DID NOT EXIST at the time you posted 189.

But it existed when you asked me if I favored burning the Constitution.

Next moron, please.

Walt

366 posted on 11/14/2002 12:25:52 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; GOPcapitalist
A little bio on Garrison.

------------------------------------------

William Lloyd Garrison

Born in 1805, in Newburyport, Massachusetts, Garrison, from a white family of moderate means, became an apprentice to the editor of a newspaper when he was only thirteen. Soon after his apprenticeship ended, he and a young printer named Isaac Knapp bought their own newspaper, the Free Press. One of their regular contributors was John Greenleaf Whittier, later to become known as the poet laureate of abolition. Garrison's dedication to the abolition of slavery was already apparent; on the fiftieth anniversary of the country, Garrison said, "There is one theme which should be dwelt upon, till our whole country is free from the curse--SLAVERY." The paper lasted only six months; when it folded, Garrison went to Boston, where he worked as a printer and editor until he was offered a position in Baltimore, as co-editor with Benjamin Lundy of the Genius of Universal Emancipation.

While in Baltimore, he was sued for libel by the owner of a ship that transported slaves. Garrison had called him a highway robber and a murderer. He was convicted and sentenced to six months in jail; he served only seven weeks, when money was donated to pay his fine.

On January 1, 1831, Garrison, back in Boston, published the first issue of The Liberator, the conclusion of his editorial left no doubt as to his intentions:

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language, but is there not cause for severity? I will be harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not with to think, or speak, or write, with moderation. No! No! Tell a man whose house is on fire to sound a moderate alarm...but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present...

I am in earnest--I will not equivocate--I will not excuse--I will not retreat a single inch--AND I WILL BE HEARD.

Garrison's outspoken stand in favor of immediate freedom for slaves made him and his newspaper unpopular with pro-slavery forces both North and South. In Columbia, South Carolina, the Vigilance Committee offered a $1500 reward for the arrest of anyone distributing The Liberator, and the Georgia House of Representatives offered $5000 for Garrison's capture and trial. In Boston, however, in July of 1831, Boston black leaders honored Garrison at the The African Meeting House.

Garrison's activities did not end with the newspaper; late in 1831, he became the central figure in the organization of an anti-slavery association. In December, a committee of five men was appointed to draft a constitution for such an organization--Garrison, David Lee Child (husband of Lydia Maria Child), Samuel E. Sewall, Ellis Gray Loring, and Oliver Johnson. On January 1, 1832, the constitution was approved, but its preamble was to be revised and reported on at the next Meeting. On January 6, joined by others, they met again, at the African Meeting House.

The text of the preamble called for immediate emancipation, which created some disagreement in the group. Child, Sewall, and Loring did not sign, but twelve others did, including Garrison and Johnson, and the New England Anti-Slavery Society came into existence, the first organization in the country based on the principle of immediate abolition. Child, Sewall, and Loring later reconsidered, and joined the Society. Oliver Johnson, writing in 1879, described that meeting:

Of that...meeting my recollections are very vivid. A fierce north-east storm, combining snow, rain and hail in about equal proportions, was raging, and the streets were full of slush...They were very dark too...It almost seemed as if nature were frowning upon the new effort to abolish slavery...On that dismal night, and in the face of a public opinion fiercer far than the tempest of wind and hail that beat upon the windows of that ...[school-house], were laid the foundations of an organized movement against American slavery that at last became too mighty to be resisted...

As they left the meeting, Garrison remarked, "We have met to-night in this obscure school-house; our numbers are few and our influence limited; but, mark my prediction, Faneuil Hall shall ere long echo with the principles we have set forth. We shall shake the nation by their mighty power." Writing in 1910, local historian Mary Caroline Crawford described the meeting as "a landmark in American history" and went on to comment, "Great is the pity that no Rembrandt has arisen among Americans to send down through the ages the shadowy interior of that 'obscure school-house' in which, while storm and sleet were raging outside, the bravest of all American ventures was launched by a little handful of devoted Boston citizens."

In 1833, Garrison, with Samuel May and John Greenleaf Whittier, were the principle Massachusetts delegates to the convention that formed the American Anti-Slavery Society. In that same year he helped Prudence Crandall in her struggle to open a school for black girls. For his efforts, the pro-slavery forces in the community threatened to arrest him and turn him over to the state of Georgia for the $5000 reward. On his way to the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London, Garrison was able to avoid the sheriff and board the ship for England.

He was no more popular when he returned. On October 21, 1835, Garrison was dragged through the streets of Boston with a rope around his neck. He was rescued and turned over to the mayor, Theodore Lyman. Lyman, claiming it was the only way to assure his safety, charged him with disturbing the peace and ordered him jailed. The mob, however, attached the carriage transporting him and almost captured him again. On the wall of his jail cell, Garrison wrote:

Wm. Lloyd Garrison was put into this cell Wednesday afternoon, October 21, 1835, to save him from the violence of a 'respectable and influential' mob, who sought to destroy him for preaching the abominable and dangerous doctrine that "all men are created equal..."

In 1840, the American Anti-Slavery Society was split, largely because of disagreements about supporting the newly formed Liberty Party and its Presidential Candidate, James G. Birney. A new society, the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, was formed, leaving Garrison with a weakened organization. There were more problems that year at the world convention in London, over the refusal of the convention to seat women delegates. By the end of the year, Garrison announced the formation of a new organization, the Friends of Universal Reform, sponsored by Maria Chapman, Abby Kelley Foster, Oliver Johnson, and Bronson Alcott (father of Louisa May Alcott).

Why did Garrison always seem to be a source of controversy? It is obvious why the pro-slavery forces hated him, but why were there so many differences with other abolitionists? Garrison had strong opinions about the methods that should be used to bring about emancipation. He did not believe that it could be done through the political process, and would not support any kind of political action. He attached organized religion and its leaders for not doing enough to fight slavery; in addition, he opposed any attempt at active resistance, believing only in nonviolent disobedience. He also did not limit himself to the issue of slavery; his opinions were just as strong, and as outspoken, on the subject of women's rights. Moreover, he could not remain broke with many of his former associates and supporters. He used The Liberator to attack, along with slavery and discrimination against women, smoking, drinking, the military, the clergy, the government, and cruelty to animals.

Although for a time it seemed as though he would end up with no supporters at all, his popularity seemed to grow in later years. In 1854, one month after the Anthony Burns incident, Garrison, speaking at a rally in Framingham on the 4th of July, burned a copy of the Constitution while 3000 people cheered.

Much later, in 1865, Garrison spoke at a celebration honoring the passage of the 13th Amendment. When he stood, the ovation was so great that he could not speak for several minutes. When he did, he said, "I am unspeakably happy to believe that the great mass of my countrymen are now heartily disposed to admit that I have not acted the part of a madman, fanatic, incediary or traitor." Later that year Garrison published the last issue of The Liberator. From then until his death in 1879, he concerned himself with other reform movements, especially temperance and women's suffrage. Archibald Grimke said of him, "Garrison, more than any other man, embodied the moral forces of the conflict, the story of his life being essentially the history of the moral uprising against Slavery."

Source: http://www.nps.gov/boaf/garris~1.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------

Garrison was one gutsy little dude. BTW, notice above how much those freedom loving Southroons in South Carolina and Georgia respected the 1st Amendment. ;~))

Garrison was the anitlog of the Southern fire-eaters. Just like them, he was totally uncompromising on the slavery issue. His view of the Constitution as a 'pact with the devel' was what caused the very ugly split between him and Fredrick Douglass. Garrison saw the Constitution's recognition of slavery as evil while Douglass saw the recognition of individual liberty in the constitution as the ultimate hope for blacks.

367 posted on 11/14/2002 12:27:05 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Any further substantive argument delivered to you would have no more effect than if I delivered them to a wooden post. You have eyes but do not see. Wigfall was clearly talking about southern tariffs, not Northern ones.

Don't call GOPCap a moron. That's my perogative.

Walt

368 posted on 11/14/2002 12:27:47 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 362 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
But it existed when you asked me if I favored burning the Constitution.

Irrelevant. My response was to 189, not 268. 268 did NOT exist at the time you made your claim that the Constitution was a "pact with the devil" in 189.

You shot your mouth off with a goofy assertion in 189 and I called you on it. If you don't like that, don't shoot your mouth off in the first place, Walt.

369 posted on 11/14/2002 12:30:35 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 366 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
You shot your mouth off with a goofy assertion in 189 and I called you on it. If you don't like that, don't shoot your mouth off in the first place, Walt.

When I directed you to #268, it was in response to #353, not #189.

It is still a stupid question to ask me if I favor burning the Constitution. You know how I feel. Burning the Constitution is for obsessed Yankee geeks in Boston.

Walt

370 posted on 11/14/2002 12:36:46 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 369 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth; shuckmaster
It's amazing that today, so many misinformed and otherwise intellegent looking people will look you straight in the eye & try to tell you the war was fought over slavery when that absurd revisionist notion never even appeared in any history book published north or South until well after Bruce Canton started publishing his series of historical fiction books approximately 75 years after the war.

"The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery. For some years before the war began it was a trite saying among some politicians that "A state half slave and half free cannot exist." All must become slave or all free, or the state will go down. I took no part myself in any such view of the case at the time, but since the war is over, reviewing the whole question, I have come to the conclusion that the saying is quite true." - U.S. Grant, in his Memoirs, 1885.

Thanks for posting this. The neo-rebs will hold up Robert E. Lee as the perfect Christian gentleman and then tell any lie they like.

Walt

371 posted on 11/14/2002 12:40:18 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Can he do it if he puts quotes around it?
372 posted on 11/14/2002 12:41:12 PM PST by Heyworth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
When I directed you to #268, it was in response to #353, not #189.

...and that shows exactly how irrational you are behaving. My original reply, which you have intentionally avoided responding with substance to, was made to 189. 268 was another post you made in response to somebody else for reasons known only to you. It is not relevant as an object of what you said PRIOR to it because it simply did not exist at the time.

In light of your comments in 189, it is an issue.

You know how I feel.

I know that you voted for Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. I also know that you recently stated that the Constitution was a "pact with the devil." All of this evidence suggests that you do not hold the document in high regards. Am I correct in this conclusion?

373 posted on 11/14/2002 12:42:43 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 370 | View Replies]

To: Heyworth
Can he do it if he puts quotes around it?

I think he has to type his lies with one hand while he crosses his fingers on the other.

Walt

374 posted on 11/14/2002 12:43:54 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 372 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; Heyworth
I also know that you recently stated that the Constitution was a "pact with the devil."

That about says it all, doesn't it?

Heyworth -- more neo-reb lies.

Walt

375 posted on 11/14/2002 12:45:33 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
That about says it all, doesn't it?

About your liberal democrat tendencies? Yes.

376 posted on 11/14/2002 12:49:23 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: l8pilot; stand watie; Rush Limbaugh; holdonnow; Landru; sultan88; yankhater
"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."

IMHO as an unborn Kansan--LOL!!--All wars are about Power, and the Effete Elite in the North were fearin' the uppity-ness of the Effete Elite in the South, so the Power-Hungry EffeteElitists in the North used the morally-indefensible SlaveryIssue to skewer the EffeteElitists in the South.....thereby resulting in the needless deaths of many NON-EffeteElitists in both the North and South!!

I'd like to see anyone on either side of the North-South Issue to argue otherwise...MUD

377 posted on 11/14/2002 12:51:12 PM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; Heyworth
Heyworth -- more neo-reb lies.

No. Not really. Just a direct quote of what you said, Walt.

"The Articles of Confederation are (is?) our founding Constitution, not that pact with the Devil out of Philadelphia." - Walt, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=189#189

378 posted on 11/14/2002 12:51:43 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 375 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; rdb3; stand watie; sultan88
"Face it. The South was right."

"That is grotesque."

That IS grotesque!! Slavery is INDEFENSIBLE and has been since the beginning of time!! The South may have been Right about the Right to Secede, but slavery will always be a black mark against Suth'ron Heritage!!

IMHO, of course...MUD

379 posted on 11/14/2002 12:56:42 PM PST by Mudboy Slim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mudboy Slim
That IS grotesque!!

Can I quote you on that?

Walt

380 posted on 11/14/2002 1:09:38 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 1,561-1,572 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson