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
It is odd, especially in light of Davis's actions in nationalizing business and inserting government controls over whole sectors of the confederate economy. The only possible explanation is that Marx couldn't bring himself to support a government that existed only to further the institution of slavery.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
Doesn't sound very socialist to me. But then I'm not a raving Lincoln loather like GOPcapitalist.
Lincoln went further:
"This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union, it is a struggle for maintaining in the world, that form, and substance of government, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men -- to lift artificial weights from all shoulders -- to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all -- to afford all, an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life. Yielding to partial, and temporary departures, from necessity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existance we contend."
A. Lincoln 7/4/61
Walt
Because he did not have the constitutional authority to do so. The president did not have that power. The EP was a military order and could be constitutionally applied only in areas in insurrection where Federal courts could not operate. It recognized slaves as enemy property used to support the war effort and therefore subject to confiscation from their owners. Only congress and the states via constitutional amendment or the states themselves through their legislatures could end slavery as Maryland and Missouri did before the end of the war.
By the "North" I assume that you mean those slaves in the states of MD, DE, KY & MO. There was no slavery anywhere else in the Union. While those four states remained loyal to the Union, they were not by anyone’s definition "Northern" states. The Confederates considered each of those states to be “southern” and each supplied men to the Confederate slave cause during the war. The Confederate congress even sat representatives from KY and MO and each of those states had a rump governor and legislature that met in Richmond throughout the war.
According to the US Census of 1860, there were only 64 slaves in all of the "Free" States and Territories in that year: 29 in Utah Territory, 15 in Nebraska Territory, 2 in Kansas Territory, and 18 in New Jersey.
Walt
Henry Ford was a big supporter of Hitler. I'm -sure- he leaned way to the left.
Walt
All these southron supporters forget that, unlike Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln was constrained by a Constitution which limited his authority in most areas. Davis, on the other hand, ignored his constitution believing that he was the best authority on what was legal and what was not. Davis said, "...the true and only test is to enquire whether the law is intended to and calculated to carry out the object...If the answer be in the affirmative, the law is constitutional"
Football was on.
Did that one football game last all weekend, Walt?
Since I posted the note to which you responded on Sunday morning, anyone can see you are not being honest, but what else is new.
And the phrase "football was on," to a southerner, needs no further elaboration.
UT and Mississippi State were on at 12:30, then Georgia and Auburn were on at 3:30, and I forget who was on after them, but "Football" is an all day thing. Any southerner would know that.
Walt
That's on Sundays.
I was never a big NASCAR fan. I enjoyed the GTP racing -- Le Mans, Daytona, the endurance racing. Roger Penske had a team in the '70's with Ferrari 512M's. They were navy blue with silver trim. Beautiful.
All my favorite drivers got killed -- Swede Savage, Mark Donahue, Al Holbert.
Used to root for Richard Petty some.
Walt
Oh, I knew what you meant. :)
For many in the south, having to choose between college football and NASCAR would be excruciating.
Walt
I copied that info from a newsgroup.
Of cousre we could always go back to the fact that Lincoln wanted the slaves deported, and even told a group of them it would be best.
Well, here's the deal on that. First of all, the group Lincoln famously met with in the summer of 1862 were not slaves, they were free, and were mostly northern born, I believe.
When you say Lincoln "wanted the slaves deported", that is not the whole story. I have no trouble with the idea that Lincoln in the late 1850's would have been glad to snap his fingers and have all blacks resettled.
But when they resisted this idea, he pretty much dropped it. And he began to work for the idea of negro equality and equal rights from the beginning of 1863.
The people who want to say, "look, look, look -- Lincoln was a racist!" want to quote him from the 1850's and ignore what he did during the war. Lincoln said that if the emancipation proclamation were withdrawn, the Union would have to give up the war in three weeks.
We all know that Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union. His feelings of fairness prompted him to extend the blessings of citizenship to all who brought about that great consummation -- preservation of the Union -- and that includes large numbers of blacks.
Lincoln did a lot to help mold public opinion in the country, but he was always testing the air in regards to what people would accept. When he announced his public support for black suffrage, at least for black soldiers, he was shot.
Walt
It seems the neo-rebs can never decide for sure if Lincoln was only a tool for the evil, all powerful capitalist bankers and industrialists or a tool of the all powerful Karl Marx and the commies who wanted to hang all the bankers and capitalists.
I sure wish they would make up their mind. ;~))
i had no idea that the duPonts were on the RIGHT side.
free dixie,sw
free dixie NOW,sw
Go to 1860 Census
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.