Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln

October 16, 2002 | Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

[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

[CWRWinger]

At $500 per head they are worth over two hundred millions of dollars.

Please look at your last five 'income' tax 'returns' and see how much your head is worth to the Federal government. Then try to get free from it (the tax liability, Soc. Sec., etc.). Then ask yourself, "Am I really a free man?"

I bet you come back with a totally relative answer.

[rdb3]

Do you have a moral basis for slavery being wrong? If so I would like to see it, seriously.

Most quote their history teachers, their parents, the Washington Post, laws of the land, but these are political and legal reasons.

Game recognizes game, paht-nah. If you don't think I recognize an intellectually dishonest scenario when it's staring me in the face, you're seriously wrong.

Like I said, it is hypocritical to say you are a "free" land while writing laws on the ownership of other human beings. That's complete hypocrisy.

You want to make it appear that it was somehow okay. And I don't care if it were white or black slaveowners, if you were to attempt justifying the practice of slavery which held my ancestors while your ancestors preached "freedom" in my presence, you'd hate the day you were born.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[andy_card]

chattal slavery was written into the US constitution as well

That's shear nonsense. The US Constitution acknowledged the existence of slavery in an off-hand manner and made no attempt to outlaw it. That's a far-cry from the explicit endorsements of the practice visible in the rebels' constitutional manifesto. Show me where the United States Constitution contains the following clauses:

No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States, and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves, lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

You have to wake up and face reality: The South did indeed fight for its freedom -- the freedom to deny freedom to those who would be free. You speculate that slavery "was in its way out," apparently monumental ignoring Southern efforts to extend the practice to new territories, rather than reduce its scope. That speculation may be true or it may be unfounded, but it is certainly irrelevent. The unavoidable fact is that Southerners rebelled against the Government when they feared that their absolute freedom to enslave their fellow human beings might be endangered, and that effort was properly suppressed.

the radical republicans were about IMPERIALIST hemisphere-wide expansion.

That claim is simply silly, and demonstrative of your manifest ignorance. If you look at the historical record, you'll find that expansionism was most prominent among Southern Democrats, who agitated, even after the Civil War, for the annexation of all-Mexico and Cuba. The Whigs and, later, the Republicans were the only voice speaking out against out-right imperialism. It wasn't always a popular position, but it was effective. Republicans didn't adopt "imperialism" in any sense of the word until the 1890s -- just look at the profound Republican opposition to the purchase of Alaska and the annexation of Hawaii for proof.

[andy_card]

Do you have a moral basis for slavery being wrong? If so I would like to see it, seriously.

I think you've found the wrong forum, buddy. Free Republic is dedicated to the proposition that freedom is the natural and proper state of men. Should you disagree, you are welcome to register SlaveRepublic.com for the furtherance of your political and moral views.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... Do you have a moral basis for slavery being wrong? If so I would like to see it, seriously."

I believe that Jews and Christians point to the Book of Exodus.

God made men. Men made slaves.

[rdb3]

if you've read my posts over the years, you'll KNOW that the damnyankees had NO INTENTION of freeing THEIR SLAVES!

If YOU were EDUCATED in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, you are an EMBARASSMENT to PUBLIC education. IF YOU WERE educated IN a PRIVATE SCHOOL, you should SEEK a REFUND!

I'm talking about the CSA constitution.

chattal slavery was written into the US constitution as well AND it was dying a natural & un-lamented death.absent the WBTS, i believe that the industrial revolution in agriculture would have ended slavery within 10-15 years, perhaps sooner.

Show me one mention of slavery in the U.S. Constitution other than the 3/5 Compromise (which didn't mention slavery outright). Give me the exact wording of "chattel slavery" in the U.S. Constitution. Put up or shut the hell up.

Slavery was dying, eh? That still is totally unacceptable. That's like saying, "Oh, we're were gonna free the nigras in a few more years."

The rest of your nonsense is so far off topic that it is not worth a response. Somebody must have dropped you on your head when you were a baby, dude. You remind me of that dumb and mute dude on the movie Life who they called "Can't Get Right."

You can't get right, man. It's funny, yet it's sad. You JUST can't GET RIGHT, man cuz o' dem DAMNYANKEEFOOLS, man.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Ditto]

You might say that the South Seceding had ONE cause ( but of course that is what is being argued here)Slavery

The WAR was fought because Lincoln wanted to Preserve the Union. He could have left the South go its way

Not really. He had to resist it after they fired on the flag. The people would have insisted and the Congress would have forced it. But then again, the Confederates needed to start a fight and force Lincoln to react or they would have had no chance of getting the Upper South to join them.

Keep in mind that slavery itself was not in jeopardy in 1860. Expansion of slavery was the crux of the issue and expansion was an economic and social imperative for the slave powers. The economics of slavery were in reality a Ponzi-like model where it remained highly profitable only so long as there was a growing demand for slaves. In the 1820s, slavery was only marginally profitable in the upper south and even old Virginia came close to ending it. With the growth of King Cotton along the Gulf coast, even owners of worn-out plantations in Virginia and Maryland were soon making fortunes, not from crops, but by selling slaves down the river --- over 25,000 a year. With high birth rates among slaves, their supply was endless. It was future demand that was the problem they had to deal with and the Cotton Belt was nearing saturation.

Even if somehow Sumter never happened, and the 7 Deep South states had their way, it would not have been long before a war broke out. Agitation in the upper south and border states would have resulted in local insurrections that Federal troops would need to quell. Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky and Tennessee were the true economic powerhouses and centers of white population of the slave states and without them, the Confederacy could not have long survived. Confederates would also soon have been making territorial claims in the West or into Mexico, looking for more markets for slaves. With the slave population doubling every generation, expansion was vital to keeping the Ponzi scheme alive.

No serious person at the time, north or south, for a moment thought that secession could be accomplished without war. It was simply too thorny and passionate of a problem. The political reality was that Lincoln could have demanded a 50% tariff and a blank check on internal improvements and the south would have agreed to it if he had only backed down on expansion of slavery. But expansion was the only issue on which Lincoln could not and would not compromise.

War was inevitable and had been since the invention of the Cotton Gin.

[r9etb]

Well considering tariffs had been on the forefront of national discord for over 40 years and the fact that slavery wasn't even broached by the Whig/Republicans seriously until the mid 1850s (got to pick something the people 'care' about to get elected right?), what do you think?

Well, this one takes us kneedeep into the manure pile.

What you call "fact" isn't even remotely such. For us to accept your "fact" requires us to ignore the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, and "bloody Kansas", all of which had to do with slavery.

No less a notable than John C. Calhoun -- no Whig, he -- described the long history of the slave issue in his famous dissent from the Clay Compromise:

Unless something decisive is done, I again ask, What is to stop this agitation before the great and final object at which it aims--the abolition of slavery in the States--is consummated? Is it, then, not certain that if something is not done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede in order to dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof--as I shall next proceed to show.

And of course we mustn't forget those minor details such as the slavery controversy during the Constitutional Convention....

Tarriffs were an issue, but they were not the issue. The secessionists themselves said it clearly. For them, the issue was slavery.

But I've long ago despaired of expecting you guys to be swayed by the record.

[Ditto]

That claim is simply silly, and demonstrative of your manifest ignorance.

With most of the neo-rebs, it's ignorance. With that guy, it's insanity.

[andy_card]

other than being a stone racist & bigot, lincoln was a "great man"!

Please explain to us slow-witted folks how Lincoln's alleged personal faults somehow excuse the base motivations of the Insurrection? Whether or not Lincoln ever wanted to end slavery is beside the point, because the rebels clearly thought he would. Southern states rebelled, and regardless of the alleged personal traits of particular politicians, the Federal Government headed by Lincoln was merely fulfilling its Constitutional obligation to "suppress Insurrections" when it fought back.

[rdb3]

You have to wake up and face reality: The South did indeed fight for its freedom -- the freedom to deny freedom to those who would be free.

That's what I'm saying! I pose that if you are fighting for your freedom, yet your freedom is the "freedom" to enslave others, then you're not fighting for "freedom" at all. In essence, you are fighting for slavery!

Isn't that right? I can't see how pure and honest logic would dictate otherwise.

And to have those among us today who would justify slavery while talking about freedom simultaneously draws a doubletake. And that logic is the literal meaning of the acronym "S.N.A.F.U."

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[andy_card]

Of course. Its perfectly reasonable for people to look at undisputed facts and come up with unreasonable explanations for them. But some of these people make up facts that are as divorced from reality as anybody can possibly get.

The idea that Southern Democrats were opposed to teritorial expansion is only slightly less imbecilic than suggesting that Adolf Hitler opposed German expansion. These people are not serious about history. They are serious only about their own twisted ideology and the furtherance of it.

[stand watie]

dear sir,

the TRUTH is that you are a product of 140 years of damnyankee LIES & self-serving propaganda. the damnyankees cared NOTHING about ANY "person of colour". your people were enslaved;mine were banished to "the great american desert" and/or MURDERED.

92 of the women, elderly men & small children (the men and boys old enough to bear arms were in the service)in MY family were MURDERED in cold blood during a 3-day orgy of drunkeness, rape, robbery & arson by those "oh, so lovely and merciful" damnyankee filth in blue. nothing was done to the criminals because the victims were "just injuns".

my i remind you that lincoln, that great bloodspiller & war criminal, freed slaves in the south (where he had no control) BUT kept in slavery the persons owned by the damnyankees. slavery ended in the north long after Richmond fell.

BTW, what academic discipline is YOUR earned doctorate in, since you bring up education? your writing style is that of a teenager.

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

are you REALLY dumb enough to believe the tripe you post?

free dixie,sw

[uncbob]

Not really. He had to resist it after they fired on the flag.

Nah he didn't have to supply Ft Sumner
Lincoln stated many times the UNION MUST BE PRESERVED
He only freed the slaves ( in the southern states ONLY )as a means of trying to force the south to quit and return to the union

I am not saying from a pragmatic viewpoint that saving the union wasn't correct but it was Lincolns reason for waring on the south

[stand watie]

only about 5 percent of southrons actually owned slaves.

the average southron soldier had GROSS PERSONAL ASSETS of less than 25 dollars. (MY family couldn't have owned a slave if they had wanted to, as they were dirt-poor Indians in IT & NC.) for the typical soldier of the south, the WBTS was about freedom for dixie. he couldn't have cared less about the few aristocrats "right" to own slaves;he certainly didn't fight for anybody else to own any.

the WBTS, despite 140 years of self-serving, damnyankee LIES was just about ONE MAIN CAUSE = FREEDOM for dixie.

true then, true NOW.

free the south;land,sw

[uncbob]

Even if somehow Sumter never happened, and the 7 Deep South states had their way, it would not have been long before a war broke out. Agitation in the upper south and border states would have resulted in local insurrections that Federal troops would need to quell.

If rear one of my previous posts you will see that's what I stated also

But Lincolns concern was for saving the Union

[rdb3]

BTW, what academic discipline is YOUR earned doctorate in, since you bring up education? your writing style is that of a teenager.

Umm, guys... He didn't just write that with a straight face, did he? I mean, there's a disconnect somewhere around here.

Did I read this right?

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[andy_card]

the TRUTH is that you are a product of 140 years of damnyankee LIES & self-serving propaganda. the damnyankees cared NOTHING about ANY "person of colour". your people were enslaved;mine were banished to "the great american desert" and/or MURDERED.

Your hysteria is as irrational as it is prolific. Your hatred for the United States is deep and driven solely by emotion. Your mind operates on the same plane as the Chomskian fringe on the Left. I cannot argue with you, no one can argue with you, because your mind is not receptive to reason. You are not, in my opinion, worth taking seriously.

BTW, what academic discipline is YOUR earned doctorate in, since you bring up education?

I received my doctorate in Political Economy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

[stand watie]

NO STATE would have joined the union if they had believed that the union was "indivisible". that is FACT!

the states created the federal government, therefore they can modify its form or destroy the union at the whim of the states. secession was/IS lawful.

free dixie,sw