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
Uh, Walt. When exactly did Bush give Saddam a green light to invade the country he was already the dictator of?
Typo-- should read "greenlight to invade Kuwait."
Walt
To the contrary Walt. The separation of powers is not only at the center of the Iran Contra issue. It IS the issue.
Don't look on me, I'm not the one who feloniously advocated the overthrow of the United States government.
Incorrect. That was Saddam's own misinterpretation - perhaps willful - of statements made by April Glasby, not Bush. Saddam, seeking expansion of his own to reestablish what he saw to be the unity of an old pre-British islamic province, was taking a gamble on whether there would be retaliation. He gambled wrong. Try again.
But culturally and politically it is extremely islamo-arab nationalist.
What's a source for that?
Walt
We know indisputably that he was involved in the 1993 World Trade Center attack. If he had any direct involvement with 9/11 is not material. He has been;
1. Violating the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement.
2. Continuing his NBC development.
3. Aiding other terrorist organizations aside from Al Qaeda that have attacked both US interests directly as well as our allies.
4. If he does not have NBC delivery capabilities now, he surely will in the near further and one would be a nuts to think that he would be reluctant to use them himself or to transfer them to those who would quickly use them against us or our allies.
The time is right to take him out for several reasons.
1. In 1991, there was no viable replacement for a Sunni dominated Iraq. The opposition then were the marsh Arabs (Shiites) who would have quickly turned Iraq into a Islamic Republic or a province of radical Shiite Iran. Or the Kurds in the North who would have not only degenerated into inter-tribal civil war not so different than Afghanistan, but also destroyed our relationship with Turkey, our only predictable ally in the Moslem world. Now, there is a viable, well funded and highly organized Sunni opposition who can replace Saddam and hold Iraq together as a secular republic with a pro-Western orientation. Bush I was right to pull back from toppling Saddam via either of the opposition groups that existed in 1991. The situation is very different today.
2. Saddam is the lynch pin that holds the official anti-Westernism of the Mid East together. The Islamic radicals of Iran are in trouble and seeing Iraq go to a pro-Western secular republic will be the straw that broke the Ayatollahs back. The pro-Western majority of Iran will welcome Saddams demise. Socialist Syria will have a "epiphany" and decide that they are really pro-Western too. The Saudis and other "moderate" Arabs will understand that they can no longer play "good" cop vs Saddams "bad" cop and be much easier to deal with. Ousting Saddam has no downside now whereas 10 years ago it may not have been the smartest thing to do in terms of long term commitment of US forces for occupation. It could well have been disastrous in terms of further radicalizing the mid-East. Contrary to the impression we get from the popular media, in the year 2002, there are many millions of people on the "Arab street" who have had more than their fill of radical Islam and anti-Americanism. They would much rather be modern and prosperous and out from under the heels of tin-pot dictators and religious zealots. Showing that we have the resolve to arrange a face to face between Saddam and Allah is the key to giving those people a chance.
No it isn't. The Ba'ath party is Arab Nationalist. Pious Islam is the enemy of Arab Nationalism. Look at Iraq. The Sunni Muslims are the secular majority, whereas the Shi'ites, our allies and Saddam's sworn enemies, are fundamentalist loonies of the Ayatollah Khomenei variety. The Middle East is not a monolothic entity.
I haven't followed this thread and I don't know what's going on, but just wanted to clear that up...
Incorrect. That was Saddam's own misinterpretation - perhaps willful - of statements made by April Glasby, not Bush.
Oh, I think we can infer that it was willful.
But this is pitiful. You blame Glaspie (I think her name is), not Bush. Who did she work for? Isn't the president ultimately responsible? Did President Lincoln know the names of CSA prisoners executed in retaliation for CSA bushwhacking? Was he responsible for that?
Walt
No it isn't. The Ba'ath party is Arab Nationalist. Pious Islam is the enemy of Arab Nationalism. Look at Iraq. The Sunni Muslims are the secular majority, whereas the Shi'ites, our allies and Saddam's sworn enemies, are fundamentalist loonies of the Ayatollah Khomenei variety. The Middle East is not a monolothic entity.
Thanks. I knew that GOPCap's statement wasn't ringing true.
Walt
Any thorough political examination of Arab politics. The Ba'ath party espouses a sort of pan-arab unity, largely compete against the western world. Roughly translated the party means Renaissance. This is a referrence to the Islamic scientific high marks around the 10th and 11th centuries and political high marks in the centuries after that. In short, it's a party of islamo-arab nationalism.
No, but based on statements he's made in the past, President Lincoln is responsible for the action of every single Union soldier, but President Bush is not responsible for the statements of his ambassadors.
It's sorta pitiful.
Walt
Walt
It is Arab nationalism that is inextricably tied to Islam. They seek a renaissance of the high marks of islamic culture in arabia. Though it is true that certain strains of mohammedan fundamentalism are at odds with Ba'ath politics, this in no way precludes the inescapably islamic nature of arab nationalism.
We need a good thread on this.
The time is right to take him out for several reasons.
The time may be right in a sense, but is it worth the cost?
Nobody would like to see him trying to touch the ground with his tip-tip-tippy-toes while dangling from a noose more than I would. I just don't know if the geo-political gains are worth the risk/expenditure. He's 66 years old. He's not going to be there forever. He's not likely to give up WMD's to people who can hurt us -- he knows we can hurt him worse.
I tend to think taking him out is just part of the war on terrorism.
But I think the record amply supports saying that he would have been content to stay at home and torture his own people had we not stoked up his wrath by humilitating him on Desert Storm.
The teetering of the Iranian clerics is a BIG story over there now. That makes it a good time to strike, no doubt about it -- if striking is the right thing to do.
Walt
All I can tell you is to read up on Iraqi politics. Your question is akin to asking for a source for a commentary on the political theories of that Constitution you hate so much.
There sure ain't no Ba'ath party in Arabia. You're cracked.
Walt
No, but Walt is blaming George Bush Sr. and the GOP for Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks.
You really oughta scroll back and look at what your ally is saying. I dare say that if it were any one of us or any freeper other than him making those comments, we would be banned in a second for espousing pro-Clinton Democrat Party leftism. For some reason the Mondale-Dukakis-Clinton-Gore voter known as Walt gets a pass though.
No Walt. I blame Hussein. Unlike you, who has to find a reason to blame America first, I have no problem pointing out that there are bad guys around the world who do bad things and that he is one of them. He misread her statements, and IMHO intentionally.
Who did she work for?
She was the US ambassador, Walt, and when Saddam's people came to her to ask her about an oil dispute between Iraq and Kuwait, she articulated the position that the issue was a regional one between those two countries that they needed to resolve. Saddam took resolution to mean "we conquer them and the issue is settled."
Nah.
"Islamo-Arab Nationalist" is like National-Socialism. It's two opposites, as Andy Card pointed out. It seems as if you made the term up out of the clear blue.
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.