Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln
October 16, 2002 | Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

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


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 1,561-1,572 next last
To: GOPcapitalist
From the point of view of the Virginia convention, their decision to secede would have to be ratified by a public vote. From the unionist point of view, though, unilateral secession was an impossibility. The convention's resolution was illegitmate and no plebecite would make it legitimate, especially if it were conducted under militarized conditions.

After the convention decided to leave the union the state government cast its lot with the Confederacy and acted accordingly. Before the convention had decided there was room for discussion and compromise. Afterwards, everyone knew what was happening and what would likely happen. Rebellion had already begun in Virginia. For the federals, a referendum or plebecite would not make what was illegitimate legitmate. You may argue with this view but it the unionist view at the time.

Whether or not a blockade was a legitmate response to the taking of an inland arsenal it certainly was a proper rejoinder to the seizure of a major naval base with its ships and weaponry. It would have been irresponsible not to respond to this.

I know nothing about the situation in North Carolina, but to say that it was "was very closely divided on the secession issue a few months prior to their withdrawal from the union" says nothing. This was true of all of the Upper South and some of the Border states as well. It tells us nothing about the post-Sumter situation there.

This has been a great learning experience for me. I certainly don't have complete knowledge of what happened. I learn things as I go along. But the discussion also proceeds. New questions and controversies arise as older ones are resolved or clarified or dropped.

All the Internet sources I found on short notice gave the date of Virginia's secession as April 17, and there must be some reason for this. Thank you for pointing out about the referendum. I'm grateful for learning something that I did not know before. But that fact, like all the others has to be weighed, analyzed and put into context. If you want to keep score, fine. I'm just interested in learning more.

681 posted on 11/17/2002 10:17:37 AM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: andy_card
SORRY. i do NOT agree with your logic or lack thereof.

had DE been a southron state, she would have had a star for her on the dixie flag.

DE is NOT now, nor ever has been, a southron state, though as i've said before, we had a number of INDIVIDUAL soldiers from there.

free dixie,sw

682 posted on 11/17/2002 10:31:57 AM PST by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
it certainly does.

free dixie,sw

683 posted on 11/17/2002 10:32:34 AM PST by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 636 | View Replies]

To: yankhater
SORRY, but you are WRONG about the causes of the WBTS.

slavery caused the war in precisely the same way that FISH cause FLOODS!

the notion that chattal slavery was anything but a "side issue" is a REVISIONIST heresy of historiography, which came out of the most extreme,leftist,anti-southern, poison-ivycovered walls of NE academia in the 1960s. prior to the rise of REVISIONISTS, academics of all sorts were NOT so extreme in their judgements on comlicated issues like "the causes of war".

to quote an old prof of mine, the late & much lamented Bob C. Riley, PhD: "only the simpletons need or attempt to formulate SIMPLE ANSWERS for complex probems".

free dixie,sw

684 posted on 11/17/2002 10:44:23 AM PST by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 654 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
PLEASE limit your use of such vularities! NOBODY on the forum dislikes the scalawag walt more than i do, BUT we need to keep FR clean of such words, for the benefit of the ladies & children if for no other reason.

nontheless, walt, as a scalawag, can have NOTHING said of him that is worse than that title.

free dixie,sw

685 posted on 11/17/2002 10:51:13 AM PST by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
EVERYBODY is hoping that soon we'll have a "walt-free FR too".

do you really enjoy being laughed AT?

free dixie,sw

686 posted on 11/17/2002 10:57:11 AM PST by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: yankhater
i do NOT know a single "neo-confederate", BUT i know thousands of PALEO-CSA partisans. the "neo" silliness is just that: SILLY & MEANINGLESS!

free dixie,sw

687 posted on 11/17/2002 11:01:42 AM PST by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
yet another MEANINGLESS post.

free dixie,sw

688 posted on 11/17/2002 11:02:25 AM PST by stand watie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: TexConfederate1861
OK jerk....the gloves are off.

Coming from the person who has addressed me variously as "idiot," "ignoramus," and "boyo," this seems rather harmless. I have NEVER advocated the overthrow of the US Government.

You have repeatedly endorsed the actions of rebels who fought to that effect, and have urged the disintegration of the Union. If that isn't advocating the overthrow of the Government, I don't know what is.

If you are the combat veteran you say, you should be ashamed to insult another veteran.

Your childish posts and anti-government rants have negated whatever deference I might ordinarily have afforded you.

689 posted on 11/17/2002 11:45:06 AM PST by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
had DE been a southron state, she would have had a star for her on the dixie flag.

I think the technical term for this, for all you Latin scholars, would be an argumentum ad vexillum. Sorry, that doesn't cut it. I can't vouch for Southern mapmakers, but there were definitely powerful elements within the State of Delaware urging secession. Many members of the DuPont family, which then exercised effective control over the state, were secessionists. Governor Burton strongly supported the South, and pushed for a convention on secession.

Secessionist militias stole arms from armories and gun factories, and there is copious correspondence between the South and Rebel agents in the state.

690 posted on 11/17/2002 12:00:55 PM PST by andy_card
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 682 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Could be, slavery was very ingrained in the south, but the question still remains, what did the average southerner think he was fighting for? Wasn't slavery begining to be a fading proposition in the South as well, with a growing number of freed slaves?

It's interesting that the North might have not put up a fuss if the South had left the union, but the South was demanding too much territory. The Northern and Southern cultures at the time were very different also, they had little in common. Kind of like how little in common the red, "fly over" areas have with the blue areas in the 2000 election.
691 posted on 11/17/2002 12:05:29 PM PST by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: andy_card
I think the technical term for this, for all you Latin scholars, would be an argumentum ad vexillum.

LOL - you are a card ;)

692 posted on 11/17/2002 12:22:29 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

Comment #693 Removed by Moderator

Comment #694 Removed by Moderator

To: WhiskeyPapa
"I know it doesn't have the profanity FR asks posters to not use."

Are you now trying to make the false suggestion that I have used profanity. I have used common vulgar words. I have used no profanity, don't you even know the difference?

695 posted on 11/17/2002 1:27:43 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Well, it's not much of a stretch from supporting the slave power to supporting Hitler, but I never thought you'd admit it so readily."

I made an objective, factual statemmnt about Hitler. For you to go from that to the suggestion that I supported HItler would be analogous to my taking a statement of yours to the effect that you liked children and suggesting that it followed therefrom that you were a pederast. How would you like it if I did something like that to you. Well, I see what you have done, and you do similar things on a regular basis, as every bit as low and despicable.

696 posted on 11/17/2002 1:37:09 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"Well, it's not much of a stretch from supporting the slave power to supporting Hitler, but I never thought you'd admit it so readily."

I made an objective, factual statemmnt about Hitler. For you to go from that to the suggestion that I supported Hitler would be analogous to my taking a statement of yours to the effect that you liked children and suggesting that it followed therefrom that you were a pederast. How would you like it if I did something like that to you. Well, I see what you have done, and you do similar things on a regular basis, as every bit as low and despicable.

697 posted on 11/17/2002 1:38:23 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
I will honour your request, and I apologize to anyone (excluding Walt) whom I may have offended.
698 posted on 11/17/2002 1:49:22 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
That's true, I've come to think of you as the Seinfeld of FreeRepublic. Just post after post about nothin'.
699 posted on 11/17/2002 1:52:54 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 688 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
For you to go from that to the suggestion that I supported HItler...

Have you denied it outright yet? Maybe I missed it.

All I did was open a door and you tripped right through it.

Walt

700 posted on 11/17/2002 1:55:04 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 696 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 661-680681-700701-720 ... 1,561-1,572 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson