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
The National-Socialist German Workers Party, the NSDAP.
So what?
Nationalism and socialism are opposites.
This is SO funny!!!
Walt
Worldwide, not just in Germany as you said earlier.
LOL!!!
Walt
And on the tape she says that the Iraqi-Kuwait dispute is a problem between their two countries and that they should work it out. Saddam took this to mean 'invade them and eliminate the dispute, hence it is worked out.' Any fool can tell that Saddam's action went well beyond any reasonable course or understanding. But not for the Blame America Firsters, of which you appear to be a card carrying member.
There were no Polish Soviets either.
This is SO funny.
Walt
Any fool can tell you got caught in an ignorant lie when you said Saddam's people came to her.
Walt
1) Because Southern elites thought the Republican opposition to the expansion of slavery and the Northern opposition to fugitive slave laws unconstitutionally threatened slavery.
2) Because they thought they would fare better in a Ba'athist slaveholders' republic than in a Republican-ruled union.
Southerners would lose out on other issues as well when Republicans dominated (though not as much as one might think, given the Senate rules of the day, which benefited them as members of the minority).
But the Deep South states had already resolved to leave, rather than to fight politically within the union. And if you want to ask why things reached the point they did, you can't ignore the conflict over slavery. If Southern extremists hadn't gone crazy about slavery, the Democrats, who were favorable to Southern and slaveholding interests, would have remained in power, and there would have been no war in 1861.
That's where Hitler's ethnic theories come into play. If only the German-arian race constitutes "the people" and all others are inferior forms of life, as Hitler held, then his scheme of worldwide socialism may be achieved through worldwide unity of a pure German race. It's one of the most disgusting and filthy concepts ever peddled, and Hitler peddled it right out of the socialist camp.
What is so is that you obviously do not understand it.
Nationalism and socialism are opposites.
Shout that all you want, it does not make it true and only demonstrates your idiocy further.
This is SO funny!!!
You typically are funny to watch, Walt, but today you've been especially so. Curious.
which is it? well let's see. add 15,000 MURDERED POWs to the thousands of POWs(NOBODY is SURE exactly how many thousand! US estimates are somewhere between 5-10,000 died of "other than intentional murder", i.e. of starvation, intentional denial of medical care, denial of housing, of wounds & of disease.) who died of other causes, and 26,000 MAY be about the right number for ALL deaths.
am i POSITIVE of that number? NO, but i think it is in the right ballpark.
BTW, i have NOT exaggerated the death count, though the damnyankee apologists WANT my figures to be wrong.
alas for them, i'm NOT lying. the damnyankees WERE EXACTLY was cruel as we desendents say they were.
free dixie,sw
Are you suggesting that they did not come to her? Cause if my memory is correct, diplomatic conversations prior to the war were relatively many.
are you a BIGOT?
i fear you ARE.
free dixie,sw
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.
Well, you don't necessarly need to make the head room temp. in the openning minutes to get the effect you want. You simply need to make him unable to communicate with his forces --- i.e. AWOL. With a single-point command structure you have accomplished your mission. I don't know if this is true, but I have heard stories that we can infact do that. Once accomplished, we then capitalize on the highly developed sense of self-survival that Arab military leaders are famous for and effectively demonstrated in 1991.
So now you're denying that the Soviet Union had a puppet regime in Poland for the greater part of this century?
Your version of history is terribly screwed up, Walt. Not just on the civil war, but on practically everything. Then again, I suppose it is what we should all expect from a Blame America First lefty such as yourself. 'War is peace' and all that other stuff...
No you dolt, the Glorious Patriotic Southroners were merely trying to exercise their God-given right to enslave Kuwaitis. Unfortunately, thanks to Honest Abe's interference, Saddam beat them to it.
Not really. Arab Nationalism has featured significant Arab Christian participation, particularly in Syria and the Palestinian Territories. When you look at individual cases, whether in Egypt, Syria or Iraq, you'll find that every time, its the most religious Islamic elements that oppose Arab nationalism. The two are antithetical.
Saddam, Nasser and Haffez were Muslims as Ted Kennedy is a Catholic.
Who is it that stands on the roof tops screaming about how great the slave republic was, buckey? And for 100 years after slavery, a black man couldn't vote, walk down the street or get a damn drink of water unless he first had permission of one of your "countrymen", buckey!
free dixie, myass.
Your statement is misleading considering the small fraction of the population these groups constitute in the arab world. A great deal of Arab culture and islam - not islamic fundamentalism but islam - are shared parts of the same package. To cite a small minority population as evidence of distinction between islam and arab nationalism among the majority is thoroughly misleading and accurate.
When you look at individual cases, whether in Egypt, Syria or Iraq, you'll find that every time, its the most religious Islamic elements that oppose Arab nationalism. The two are antithetical.
You are again making misleading statements. That some radical fundamentalist groups hate nationalist groups in no way means that the nationalist groups are non-islamic or not related to islam. Your statement is akin to comparing Methodists to a Pentacostal-Evangelical offspring and concluding that since the Methodists don't role around in the aisles between the pews and throw snakes on each other, they must not be Christians. It's an absurd analogy as one extreme fundamental branch of islam does not in any way preclude others of a different orientation from their own islamic elements.
Its peculiar you of all people would attempt to draw a link between Saddam Hussein's political operation and the confederacy. After all, are you not the same individual who practically went off a very verbiose deep end when I simply pointed out Karl Marx's embrace of The Lincoln's agenda? You blasted me with complaints that I dare draw any relation between the Marxist movement and The Lincoln, even though historically there was a shared political position between them. Yet here you are using language that connects the confederacy to a completely unrelated islamo-arab political movement from 130 years later and on the other side of the globe. What gives?
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.