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
obviously, you are off your meds. go away-far away.
free dixie,sw
It was a little more complicated than that. The state was deeply divided between pro-union elements, mostly in the North (New Castle Country), and rebel elements in the Southern counties. In the end, the presence of several thousand United States troops helped quell any treasonous feelings. But it was no thanks to pro-rebel Governor Burton or to the Democratic state legislature. But before the Federal Army moved in, numerous rebel militias had formed, and many men and supplies were funneled to rebel-held territory.
Oh the irony!
Bush is not responsible for the deaths of 9/11.
The separation of powers (meaning legally beyond the reach of Lincoln) protects our rights and Americans from a despotic dictator.
Even knowing that x42 is a rapist, sold miltitary secrets etc and STILL would vote for x42 over Bush is indication of a deranged mind (liberal dim or socialist).
Reagan and Washington will long be remembered as our greatest Presidents. Reagan ended a decades long "cold" war without slaghtering 623,000 Americans in the process.
there were NO rebel units from DE, but numerous volunteers in the CSA military.
SORRY, but once again you're WRONG.
free dixie,sw
Not true. From the Virginia ordinance:
"This ordinance shall take effect and be an act of this day, when ratified by a majority of the voter of the people of this State cast at a poll to be taken thereon on the fourth Thursday in May next, in pursuance of a schedule hereafter to be enacted."
Hmm. Lets think here. I specifically said that New Castle County supported the Government. New Castle County is also the Northernmost. If I said that the southern counties were pro-rebel, what could I possibly have meant? Quite possibly, that Sussex and Kent were chock full of Southern sympathizers. Welcome to Advanced Reasoning 101.
Socialist movements have waged war with themselves for the last century, Walt. That doesn't make any of them non-socialists. Don't YOU know anything?
Then why did the old CSA reject him both times he was on the ballot? No such thing can be said of yankeeland, which supported him unanimously save Indiana.
As I said before, Arkansas may have produced Bill Clinton but yankeeland and yankeeland alone elected him. Twice.
Oregon. Between 1857 and 2002 Oregon's state constitution contained a clause banning blacks from even owning property within its borders.
Whatever I was or wasn't last night, I am cold sober now, but you still are, always have been, and always will be a despicable, lying piece of shit. I repeat: in suggesting that I "supported Hitler", you have crossed the line (as if your continous slanderous lie that I was sympathetic to slavery wasan't bad enough). Any thought that I might have had that somewhere deep inside of you might lurk some vestige of honour I realize was in error. Well, just stew in your own malicious juices, dungbag, I will waste no more time on you. My efforts are not needed to make you appear the fool that you are to perceptive readers of this forum
No. Socialism is radically egalitarian at least in its theory. While many socialist theorists view class identity as the path to achieving their end goal, socialism's end qualifier is "the people" - not the proletariats, not the bourgeois, not the capitalists, but the people in which all the former categories are wiped away as relics of a previous time. You and I both know the idiocy and impossibility of this goal, but from a strictly theoretical point it is socialism's professed desire - control of the means of production by the people. Hitler simply sought to achieve this by formenting nationalistic racial unity among Germans rather than the class warfare sought by other communist-socialist types. If you want to understand it more, read up on the WWI era marxists in Germany. WWI's outbreak sparked several major German leftist political thinkers into action to develop their deeply entrenched marxist thought in a new direction by synthesizing it with radical nationalism. The result emerged over the next two decades in the Nazi party. The Nazi movement didn't randomly pop up out of thin air. Ideas have consequences and the nazi system may be directly traced to its origins, which are indisputably of the far left.
The two are mutually exclusive.
Not in the least. If you wish to further discuss nazi politics and the horrid problems they create you should educate yourself on the topic. Hitler's combination of nationalism and socialism was the product of a left wing intellectual movement in the 1910's among German marxists who sought to make nationalism the tool by which their socialist world would be realized. They created a horrid and apalling system of left wing bilge that came to be known as nazi political thought and did so absent the nationalist-socialist contradiction you irrationally profess as a matter of fact for what seems to be no particular reason other than you've heard it stated on authority elsewhere.
They can and have been combined, by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.,
Then they are not mutually exclusive.
but never without contradiction and intellectual dishonesty.
What's the contradiction then? Specifically state it. Then tell me why it doesn't stop the development of the 1910's political philosophy of the pre-nazi writers who gave birth to that very movement.
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.
That he killed off a threat to his power who also happened to be an avowed socialist in no way means he abandoned socialism. On the same token, Hitler took an avowed leftie kook of far higher importance to the nazi movement than Roehm, Joe Goebbels, and made him a chief secondary and later the named successor as Fuehrer. Hitler offed Roehm because Roehm was a power threat and because competing communist factions were power threats. That does not in any way mean he could not and did not keep the commies that were loyal allies.
Their truly colors always come out in the end. Think about what's happened on this thread alone!
Walt's publicly professed his devotion to Bill Clinton, blamed the GOP for the 9/11 attacks, and called the Constitution a "pact with the devil." Now Ditto's been cited by the board administrator for using racial slurs and had some of his posts yanked.
The Cult of Lincoln cabal around here truly has some choice characters in its leadership, does it not?
Try 1926. And yet there were some African Americans living in Oregon during this period. The exclusionary clause reflected measures in other states, North and South, which limited the rights of Blacks. It's worth noting, though, that the strongest supporters of the exclusionary clause also wanted slavery in Oregon and would have made Oregon a slave state if they had their way. After the 14th Amendment the clause was a dead letter.
No, 2002 is correct. Look up proposition 14 on the Oregon ballot from the election a few weeks ago. The thing hadn't been enforced in a long time, but part of it excluding blacks from property ownership was still in the state constitution. They just repealed it November 5.
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.