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
While George Carlin's "seven words you can't say on TV" are not profane, I think most people who post on FR know not to use them in posts.
Walt
What were they fighting for? Well, about a third of them were fighting because they were conscripted. Others were fighting because their state launched a rebellion and they went along with their political leadership. I'm sure that some were fighting because they flat out hated Yankees. Regardless of what the individual was fighting for, the rebellion was started because the southern leadership believed the election of Lincoln represented a threat to their institution of slavery.
"I've you denied it outright yet? Maybe I missed it."
I will not dignify your contemptible despicable slander with a denial. Yours is a charge that no honest respectible intelligent person would make.
"All I did was open a door and you tripped right through it."
Let me give you a little piece of advice. If you wish to cease being perceived as a comic figure on this forum, stop making those ridiculous self-congratulatory self-judgements. If your characterization were correct, it would be seen as such without the need of you commenting so. When your characterizarion is absurdly delusional, as is more usually the case, and is the case here in particular, your comment just makes you look all the more absurd.
I have agreed to stop using them, I probably won't be needing them as I don't intend to have anymore to do with you. I was hoping that I might manage to impress upon you how unjustifiable and offensive your slander was. Far more offensive than my use of several vulgar terms for body parts or bodily functions. But, as usual, hoping to make you see anything but your hate-filled vision of the world external to you is hopeless.
What's this, a Clinton lover giving us a lesson on morals? Since you approve of Clinton getting a blowjob while discussing sending troops to Bosnia, I hardly think you are the one to point out etiquette to somebody else.
Whenever a new civil war thread is going on it sure seems you do.
Football was on.
Did that one football game last all weekend, Walt?
Hitler was not for socialism, Hitler was for Hitler.
No. Hitler was for National Socialism via Hitler.
As Andy Card pointed out
Is he your new source of authority, Walt? I ask because its somewhat amusing.
Hitler played everybody against everybody.
No. Hitler played against those who threatened his own power by way of and with the support of those who were loyal to his own power.
But socialism and nationalism are opposites.
No Walt. They are not and to suggest so is to spread a myth. I have repeatedly demonstrated this to you and to others who have made the same absurd allegation. Myself and others have also pointed out that if you insist on holding to that absurd allegation you bear the burden of demonstrating why what you purport is true, both against my demonstration otherwise and in its own right. To date you have only repeated the line as if it were a broken record, offering nothing more beyond it to back what you say. Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negature.
It's got more fact to it than McPherson's shoddy writings, and for this purpose I'm perfectly content with that.
That, or hiding from the subject and your earlier statements when pressured to defend them.
Simply not posting doesn't mean anything.
A short review of this thread reveals you've been posting here all weekend. You've avoided anything on the nazi issue though for most of that time dating back to the moment your earlier statements on that subject came under intense scrutiny. Hence it can be said that you fled the issue. If you wish to return to it and defend your position or concede its errors, you are free to do so and I invite you to do so. Otherwise my further consideration of your actions will continue to judge them as fleeing.
All that I've seen of it suggests a strong yankee bias combined with shoddy consideration of the facts. I am familiar with some of McPherson's other works in greater detail than that particular book and each has a strong tilt toward the North. It is also undeniable that McPherson is a political leftist with strong anti-southern political beliefs of his own. Therefore based on the bias in what I have seen of Battle Cry of Freedom as well as the known northern bias of McPherson's other books and his politics in general, I believe it is safe to call Battle Cry of Freedom a biased and unbalanced book.
He bends over backwards to be fair.
No, not really.
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.