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
Walt
Walt
Correction: They WEREN"T Soviets.
Walt
Just trying to fit in with the theme of the day and stay relevant.
As I recall, I don't think you demonstrated any real "embrace" by Marx of Lincoln's "agenda," unless by "agenda" you mean the end of chattel slavery, something that many others would also support.
The more you talkt the more is sounds like Andersonville.
Sure I did. Just take a look at any of Marx's many essays in support of the Northern cause during the war.
Of course there were others who went along because of fears or regional and familial loyalties. And the radicals failed in the Upper South before Sumter. It was chiefly the fact that war was already beginning that drew VA, TN, NC and AR into the rebellion and Confederacy. But ignoring the radical element among the secessionists creates a distorted picture. What many find objectionable about confederate apologists is the exaggerated contrast between the evil, power-hungry Union and the poor, dutiful, victimized Confederates. An admission that there were power-hungry and aggressive secessionists and Confederates would go some way to providing a fuller understanding of that time.
So that would put you in...what...high school about right now? Figures.
"This is SO funny!!!
And you are so confused and ignorant. What is "opposite" about Nationalism and Socialism? Can you spell "Nazionalsocialismus"? Probably not., but even you can probably spell the familiar shortened version "Nazi".
And Hitler summarized this notion, together with his desire to unify the German speaking people, in the phrase "Ein Volk" - echoing Abraham Lincoln's shibboleth "one people", used 100 years before to further similar fascist goals.
Him and OJ.
Insult me some more and you just might win me over to your side, numbnut. You compared the United States of America to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, comparisons I found to be in the poorest possible taste. If you think differently, you may just be on the wrong political forum.
Yep....they thought Ben Franklin was nutty too....
And Ben Franklin would have had nothing to do with your quixotic little crusade.
You just can't STAND the fact that it JUST MAY HAPPEN....
What, the destruction of my country? Of course I'd do everything in my power to prevent such a thing from happening. Unlike you, I'm a patriot.
Nationalism and Socialism are two philosophies at opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. Hitler was able to attract both ex-communist workers and their industrialist bosses, by playing both sides off against each other. Hitler's Nationalism emphasized supreme loyalty to the nation and the race, what we'd call patriotism, and the errosion to that effect of personal liberties. At the same time, he appealed to the Left by promising full employment and a redistribution of wealth. The Leftist side of the equation was more or less dropped after the 1934 Night of the Long Knives, by which time he had destroyed the Left and now needed to attract the full support of the middle classes. Certainly by the start of the Second World War, Hitler's Nazism was all Nationalism and no Socialism.
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.