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
free dixie,sw
Somehow, that statement seems less than genuine from someone who advocates the armed overthrow of the United States Government. I'm waiting for you next to cast Sophocles' Oedipus as a prime exponent of filial piety.
Two of my Grandfathers fought Nazi Germany, and the comparison was only in the respect that Hitler was smug enough to believe things could never change.
You don't get off that easy.
1. The good deeds of your grandparents do not excuse your own misdeeds.
2. Why Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia? You could have used less provocative comparisons, and you would have too had you not intended to compare the two Evil Empires to the United States of America. Your denials wring hollow.
3. The founding fathers believed in the right of secession, and most wrote about that right.
Really? Please provide evidence to that effect.
the most logical way to SAVE the country may be to divide.
This is, I assume, the "it became necessary to destroy the country in order to save it" line of "reasoning". Well, it has become necessary to inform you that your mind is not operating on all cylinders.
I am a veteran of the United States Navy, Honorably Discharged, etc. SO...I would be careful who you imply as a traitor. Very Carefu0l.
Whoppy foo. Timothy McVeigh and John Muhammed were also honorably discharged servicemen. Your service, while comendable, does not excuse your current actions. I am a wounded and decorated combat vet and see absolutely no reason to treat you with anything other than contempt.
That may be the problem. I have my doubts whether any of these folks ever went past the 10th grade.
the south on the other hand by 1864-5 was STARVING. we had nothing to give the POWs at Camp Sumpter (indeed the records indicate that some of the GUARDS starved to death too)AND we offered to return the union POWs to the union forces without conditions. Grant refused to accept their prisoners.
also the southland did NOT committ intentional war crimes such as torture against union prisoners in CSA custody. several union prisoners wanted to testify for the defense at CPT Wirz's tribunal, but were not allowed to do so by the court;obviously, the damnyankees did NOT want to hear the truth.
may i gently suggest that you get a copy of PORTALS TO HELL by Lonnie R. Speer and read it, but not as "after dinner entertainment". the book is definitely not suitable for pre-bedtime reading to children.
free dixie,sw
Yes there is. Socialism is based on self-identity by socioeconomic class, whereas nationalism promotes self-identity by nation or race. The two are mutually exclusive. They can and have been combined, by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., but never without contradiction and intellectual dishonesty. In Hitler's case, if you look at the historical record, you'll see he dropped the socialist plank of his platform after he offed Ernst Roehm in '34.
The whole idea of there being a generic something called "fascism", (with a little "f"), as distinguished from the specifically Italian "Fascism" is basically just a leftist propaganda tool.
What are you talking about? I made no mention of "fascism", which I agree is one of the most over-used and diluted words in the English language. Nazism certainly coopted many elements of Italian Fascism, but the two were not one and the same, and I made no effort to use the latter term.
But, if you insist on a general notion of "fascism"
Huh? Where do I insist on a general notion of fascism?
a fascist state is a totalitarian socialist regime not explicitly based on the Marxist model and nationalist rather than internalist in its character and aims. Sweden is probably the only extant fascist state among the industrialized western nations, but many others are a close approximation.
That claim is silly. Fascism, which in theory has many comendable components, is based of popular identification by industry, nation and corporation. It is derivative of socialism, but very different. We can debate Fascism, if you want, rather than Nazism, but there's got to be some limit to our rambling.
Sweden is probably the only extant fascist state among the industrialized western nations, but many others are a close approximation.
Huh?
ditch your hatefilled/racist talk, do some reading & we'll talk.
for dixie,sw
Unfortunately, I suppose, for you, that's old news. I briefly consulted about the election, and am now back to my former employment.
I don't normally mind gratuitous ad hominem insults. But at least try to make them clever. I heard better put-downs in the third grade.
free the south,sw
No, I enjoy (or tolerate) ad hominem attacks, except of course when they are sophomoric.
From the unionist point of view, unilateral secession was impossible. Therefore, a powerful faction in the state was already in rebellion against the legitimate government and the blockade was justified. The federal contention was that the referendum took place under conditions of "virtual martial law." I don't have the information to assess that claim, but it's something that should be investigated. In any event, the unionist perspective was that the rebellion was already underway in Virginia.
It's also worth noting that while a blockade may be an act of war, a declared or intended blockade is not an actual blockade, and hence no act of war. Lincoln's executive order expressed the federal intention to blockade the rebellious states, but the actual blockade was not effective until the summer came and the ships were in place. From what I have read a blockade must be made actual to have legal standing. A declared blockade may serve as a pretext for war or rebellion, but it's not an act of war or an accepted cause for war. That at any rate is what I have been able to figure out.
Lincoln's call for volunteers (an echo of the earlier call by Davis) probably played a far greater role in provoking secession votes, especially in Tennessee and Arkansas.
Of course Lincoln and the federal government could have proceded differently. This seems to be one of the hot topics in current Civil War writing. Some have argued that, by acting differently, Lincoln could have kept the Upper South in the Union. It's an interesting question, but it's worth remembering that there were other actors and forces at work. Lincoln was as much reacting as acting, particularly after Sumter.
The Confederates, too, were doing all they could to win over in the Upper South and the Border States. The prospect of provoking secession in Virginia and the other Border and Upper South states was likely in Davis's mind when he ordered the firing on Sumter that sparked the war (to the extent that he wasn't trying to act for the Confederacy before South Carolina acted on its own).
Indeed that is more of your standard BS. None of the confederate guards starved to death. None of the civilians in the area starved to death. The confederates stuck the camp at the end of a railroad spur totally inadequate to the needs of the camp population. It was deliberate murder.
and GRANT did refuse to accept the union POWs back from the CSA, when President Davis offered the north to come and get them. that was nothing less than CRIMINAL, imVho.
but i digress. the subject at hand is "intentional abuse of POWs in the hands of the union at PLPOW (DEATH) Camp" & other damnyankee hellholes like Camp Douglas, Helmira,Sharp's Landing, etc. what happened at those places was also EXACTLY as i stated the facts.
i KNOW you would rather try to hide the TRUTH about abused/tortured/starved/murdered CSA POWs as it exposes the damnyankees as the GHOULS & WAR CRIMINALS that they were, but alas the TRUTH will out. worse luck for the LIARS, damnyankee apologists and "useful idiots", who are stupid enough to believe their hatefilled, self-serving,self-righteous lies.
for TRUTH, REMEMBERENCE of our hero-martyrs & dixie liberty,sw
obviously such RACIST,abusive terms are NOT acceptable among gentlemen OR on FR. (but of course, "ditto" is no gentleman, nor a very "bright star" on FR, either.)
given the number of "banned" and otherwise DECENT men/women, who are NOT still on FR, one wonders why his sort is still here?
for dixie,sw
Then that doesn't say much for the good people of Georgia, does it? I can see them letting the Yankees starve to death without giving it a second thought, but letting their own troops starve to death too?
and GRANT did refuse to accept the union POWs back from the CSA, when President Davis offered the north to come and get them
I'm sure that if Grant knew that Davis intended to deliberately starve the POWs at Andersonville to death then maybe he would have made a different decision.
KNOW you would rather try to hide the TRUTH about abused/tortured/starved/murdered CSA POWs
I have no idea what the truth of the matter is. Either 3,000 or 15,000 or 26,000 confederate POWs were either starved to death or shot in the back of the head or drowned, it depends on which day you happen to be posting.
there is no place for RACIST talk on FR;take your filth & venom to DU-they seem to enjoy such filth over there. decent folks here do NOT care for such stuff.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
you want to think the leadership of the "oh, so wonderful & marvelous damnyankees" were DECENT, when they demonstrably were NOT, but rather were un-repentant WAR CRIMINALS.
you seem to want to quibble about an EXACT NUMBER of the victims of the damnyankee WAR CRIMINALS. does it REALLY make any difference if only 14,900 or 15,000 were murdered in cold blood? or if it were 15,100 who were MURDERED? i have REPEATEDLY said on several threads that i do NOT, nor does any living person, KNOW the EXACT number of abused/tortured/murdered POWs. and frankly, it makes NO DIFFERENCE. the TRUTH about the systemic/continuing WAR CRIMES is exactly the same.
but then, of course, they didn't abuse/murder/starve/torture any members of YOUR family.
frankly, i don't blame you in the least for wanting to deny the TRUTH;who after all wants to know/admit that the US government was just as evil in their mis-treatment of civilians & helpless POWs as they were? but TRUTH is TRUTH.
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.