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
Congress can and does legislate policy and induce that policy to be executed by the president, but Congress has not constitutional right to dictate the policy of the president for him or deny him his own right to formulate non-legislative policy. Denying the president this right is a form of legislative veto, which the supreme court has ruled unconstitutional.
According to persons outside of the ultra-left Chomsky crowd and you, Iraq for one. His responsive handling of the Soviet collapse is often cited as another.
Lied his way into office...was George Bush struck dumb? Was the Republican party incapable of getting its message across?
Walt
How many KIA did we have on Desert Storm? Enough to validate your vote for Bush?
Walt
He should have said that in public.
Walt
So what's your point? Terrorism has moved to the home front. 9/11 did that in case you did not notice. Long brewing problems often do that throughout history, or have you forgotten what prompted US involvement in WWII?
When terrorism exists as a wide scale practice against Americans, it is only a matter of time that they attempt it in America. Terrorism had been a problem for decades against Americans, as had arab hatred for America. There are video clips of them burning our flag as they riot in the streets dating back to the 60's. Barry Goldwater even used one in a campaign commercial. Now they've taken it to our soil and now we're responding in full force.
My point regarding Bush I's blame centers directly on whether or not Saddam Hussein is involved in supporting Al Qaeda.
That he's involved is likely. That he's involved as much as Osama bin Laden is impossible. Clinton was responsible for Bin Laden getting away, and Bin Laden was 100 times more principle in that attack than Hussein. Therefore it follows that Clinton bears responsibility well beyond anything you irrationally attribute to Bush.
We can reasonably infer that if he is supporting Al Qaeda, he is doing it from humiliation because of Desert Storm.
Not really. Saddam Hussein was an islamo-arab nationalist long before the Gulf War. He was a warlike tyrant long before the Gulf War. He promoted an anti-western arab expansionist agenda long before the Gulf War. He used and supported terror tactics long before the Gulf War. That you do not know this indicates your fundamental lack of understanding of Ba'ath politics and your lack of qualification to comment on them.
More so your attempts to blame America for the terrorists are straight out of the Chomsky school of left wing bullsh!t. If that is how you want to be known around here so be it. It's definately consistent with your other beliefs.
Ex Parte Bollman & Swartwout, by Marshall. Affirmed by U.S. Circuit Court in Ex Parte Merryman, by Taney. Live with it.
I do, quite nicely.
Your opinion in that it is definitive. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court's opinion is that it is not.
Walt
He didn't try to kill any former presidents prior to the Persian Gulf war.
He was a warlike tyrant who was given the green light to invade Iraq by the Bush administration.
Walt
Reagan's backers DID point all that out in public, Walt. Legislative vetoes are unconstitutional. Attempts by congress to dictate the president's positions for him are unconstitutional. Many members of congress at the time feared that if the issue was pressed any further, their precious war powers act would be declared unconstitutional as well.
The only people who did not hear any of this are left wing bullsh!t artists such as yourself who have nothing better to do than blame America and Republicans for all the problems in the world while simultaneously absolving their own from any scrutiny whatsoever. You have really shown your true colors here today, Walt, and they are what we've expected to find all along.
The Ba'ath Party is secular.
Walt
I don't recall the exact figure but roughly 200 - an amazingly small number in relation to what we did and to how many of them we took out. That's why the Gulf War is universally seen as a success in non-Chomskyite crowds.
Do you believe Bill Clinton was telling the truth then when he said the economy was in the dump in late 1992? If not, then yes. He lied his way into office.
Was the Republican party incapable of getting its message across?
When you've got a major party candidate telling constant lies and a media cheering him on and supporting those lies, it is inescapably difficult to counter them on a comparable scale. Throw in a Perot and the task becomes near impossible.
Why did Oliver North have a "shredding party"?
Why did Bush I pardon five people just before his adminstration ended?
The Reagan administration did secretly fund -- with U.S. government property -- an army -- in --secret--, got it?
These facts are not at issue. But it is interesting to see you try and rationalize something away besides the treason of the slave power.
Walt
Do you believe Bill Clinton was telling the truth then when he said the economy was in the dump in late 1992? If not, then yes. He lied his way into office.
What did he do, impound the Republican's teleprompters and microphones?
Walt
But culturally and politically it is extremely islamo-arab nationalist. As I said, your ignorance makes you unqualified to discuss the problem of Saddam further.
Uh, Walt. When exactly did Bush give Saddam a green light to invade the country he was already the dictator of?
You can't get much more definative than a standing and affirmed supreme court precedent written by the most famous chief justice in American history. Therefore if it is not a definative ruling, nothing else is either.
No, just spewed lies about the economy over his own and let his allies in the media carry them as if they were truth.
Where does it say he can secretly sell government property?
This is very strange.
None of this is at issue.
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.