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
I guess we'll know for sure after the fact. But it sure would have been nice if someone took Adolph out when he violated the terms of Versailles. We know damn well that would have been worth the cost.
I really see this as a similar test. As to Saddams age, it is again immaterial. At age 66, he could easily have another 20 years in power. The guy is not a sod like so many despots. He takes care of his body. And even if he grabbed his chest today, he has sons on the bench that are even more cruel, cunning and insane than he. It's like the Mafia. Losing a Godfather does not mean the organization goes away.
Now you're playing the part of a fool. 11th century arabia (small a) is not and never has been the same thing as the 21st century political state of Saudi Arabia. Try again.
Whatever the issue, Bush I had to pardon the former Secretary of Defense and the national security advisor and three others, to get them out of prison.
Walt
Now you're playing the part of a fool. 11th century arabia (small a) is not and never has been the same thing as the 21st century political state of Saudi Arabia. Try again.
It's true that Baghdad is in "arabia"; but the holiest places in Islam are in Saudia Arabia, and there sure ain't no Ba'ath party there.
Walt
If had even the slightest clue about German politics between 1920 and 1945 you would know that these alleged "opposites" can and do function together with very dangerous consequences. The same goes with islam and arabism.
It seems as if you made the term up out of the clear blue.
I believe most call it either "islamic nationalism" or "islamic-arab nationalism" or something of that nature. "Islamo-arab" is my descriptive term of the same concept, though even the simplest of linguistic trivialities are obviously lost upon you.
I guess we'll know for sure after the fact. But it sure would have been nice if someone took Adolph out when he violated the terms of Versailles. We know damn well that would have been worth the cost.
And cheap too, if we can believe the German general who claimed later they were on razor's edge to depose Hitler.
It may be that Saddam will come crashing down with some ease also. Arab militaries are remarkably inept.
But you can't make plans based on that.
I think the bigs want to strike straight at the head. The balloon --could-- go up any day now.
Walt
If you had even the slightest clue about German politics between 1920 and 1945, you would recognize the idiocy of that statement of alleged incompatability, not to mention the danger created when the two merge. The same goes for nationalism in the mohammedan world.
It seems as if you made the term up out of the clear blue.
You'll probably find others refer to it as "Islamic Nationalism" or "Islamic-Arab Nationalism." My own descriptive term of choice is "Islamo-arab nationalism" but that is a matter of personal preference. It's a reference to the same thing, but sadly even the trivialities of descriptive linguistics are lost upon your simple and closed mind.
If had even the slightest clue about German politics between 1920 and 1945 you would know that these alleged "opposites" can and do function together with very dangerous consequences.
This is SO funny.
You apparently know as little of German history as you do Arab.
Are you suggesting that Adolf Hitler, the "assasin of the workers",supported the world wide struggle of the workers? That, after all, is the goal of socialism.
What a hoot.
Walt
If you had even the slightest clue about German politics between 1920 and 1945, you would recognize the idiocy of that statement of alleged incompatability...
I guess that is why Hitler abolished all unions in 1935, huh?
This is really rich.
Walt
First off, that is not the issue. You shot your mouth off and made a laughably ignorant statement about the word arabia by confusing it with the political state of Saudi Arabia.
Second, rest assured that the Ba'ath party in the figure of Hussein would like to be there in Saudi Arabia. Remember, his goal is nationalistic - to bring about an islamo-arab state of arab peoples. One of his biggest gripes is with the "artificial" nature of arabian political borders, which were drawn largely by the British.
Third, I wouldn't exactly call a meteorite in a giant box that is worshipped blindly by members of a fraudulent and heretical religion "holy." That word's inherent meaning renders it undescriptive of false prophets and idolaters.
If creating a state of the German Volk is one's goal, yes. If you recall, the Polish soviets didn't think much of labor unions either.
Slavery was guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution at the time. Why would the South go to war over it? Ya can look it up. PUNISH THIS!
You obviously don't know what you are talking about, because the meeting where she articulated the very inept U.S. policy -- that meeting between she and Saddam himself -- is on tape.
It was goofy enough to send a woman ambassador to a middle eastern country, but she didn't have to give away the store too.
And George Bush Sr. is responsible.
Walt
If creating a state of the German Volk is one's goal, yes.
Well, genius -- that precludes socialism by definition.
Nationalism and socialism are opposites.
ROFLMAO!!
Walt
Say what you may, but rest assured it is you who appears the historically ignorant fool in this area.
Are you suggesting that Adolf Hitler, the "assasin of the workers",supported the world wide struggle of the workers?
In the philosophical movement behind his regime, yes. But you would have to understand what the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterspartei meant to understand that. If you think the Nazi's were some sort of ultra-reaction to socialist philosophy, it is obvious that you do not understand.
That, after all, is the goal of socialism.
Actually, the goal of socialism is to place the means of production in the hands of the people. The Nazi's sought to achieve this through the concept of the German Volk by means of German nationalism. Nazi political theory holds that the German people are the state by means of a duty and composition of that state called the Volksgemeinschaft. To achieve this meant uniting the Germanic people and creating a nationalist Germanic state of domination. If the German Volk, made up of Germanic people, are the German state, and the German state controls what is - i.e. the means of production - then the people control the means of production. Socialism is then by definition realized, or so the Nazi theory goes.
What a hoot.
That you are, Walt. That you are.
Well, they claim to have a couple of technologies not heretofore seen publically. That's pretty cool right there.
The civilians in the DOD wanted this inside-out thing -- strike at the head. The Generals, knowing that logistics rule all, and unwilling to make plans based on assumptions, want the outside-in thing, which would be a mini-Desert Storm. We'll probably see some melding of the two in actuality.
We can't strike at the head unless we can locate him, and of course Saddam has proven pretty adept at letting no one draw a bead on him.
Walt
Your ignorance is again showing. Socialism by definition is a state of control of the means of production by the people. If the German Volk are Germany by way of the Volksgemeinschaft, and if Germany controls what is - i.e. the means of production, then the Volk control the means of production and socialism is realized. That's the political theory behind the Nazi party, Walt. Educate yourself for once.
Nationalism and socialism are opposites.
Not in the least. Hitler, and more so Goebbels, found them very compatable, both with disastrous results.
free dixie,sw
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.