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
In its purest form, Socialism seeks to unite workers worldwide. It is absolutely at odds with Nationalism.
Walt
No, not really. In fact I believe DiLorenzo mentions The Lincoln's endorsement of labor theory at one point in the book.
Per his book, Lincoln was only interested in corporate welfare for the big railroad companies and suchlike.
Again, not really. The Lincoln was heavily interested in corporate welfare, but not ONLY interested in corporate welfare. Then again, contrary to popular myth, corporate welfare and handout welfare go hand in hand when it comes to matters of government.
Absolutely.
That must be a typo. You mean "absolutely not."
If the government of the framers had been followed, as Lee indicated was the goal in 1866, it would not have been legal or moral to overthrow it, as it was meant by the framers to be "perpetual."
You don't like me, fine.
But don't spit on the plain record just because it doesn't suit your prejudices.
Walt
Not in the last ten minutes. You fled the conversation.
Walt
National Socialism sought that in its own sick way. It is the force behind nazi racial theories and expansionism.
It is absolutely at odds with Nationalism.
As has been demonstrated repeatedly that is simply not true. Try again.
As I already referenced in another response to LS, you can start with Hofstadter who points out Fitzhugh's fringe nature in his chapter on The Lincoln.
You should tap some of that into the thread. You're about to get the stand watie veracity award.
Walt
One of his officers wrote something of it. I believe one of the diary accounts of the event mentions it as well.
National Socialism sought that in its own sick way.
That's why the Nazis made a policy of exterminating the slavs, I guess. Why did Hitler's minions kill between 12-15 million Russian workers? That's a mighty funny way to unite people. Who do you think you are fooling?
Hitler was an opportunist; he had no concept of world conquest. Politically, outside Germany, his acumen extending to understanding the cheese eating surrender monkeys. He thought he had a handle on the Brits too, but he didn't.
Walt
One of his officers wrote something of it. I believe one of the diary accounts of the event mentions it as well.
Well, you've won the stand watie veracity award then.
Congratulations.
Walt
I need only reference your recent statements about George Bush and nazi germany to expose the fraudulency of that statement. They in turn make it yet another lie to add to your long list.
You lied about the Harriet Lane -- today.
Substantiate your allegation. Otherwise don't shoot your mouth off.
And while I admire Lincoln tremendously, I don't idolize him.
Your actions indicate otherwise. You are physically incapable of admitting any error on The Lincoln's part - not even the most trivial errors of humanity that even some of the other yankee lovers on here will concede. Your actions indicate that you have extended a sort of infallability and perfection to The Lincoln that he never actually possessed in real life. You have also spoken of The Lincoln as an ideal and a guide for our culture and nation. All of this indicates your idolatry.
I would still pick you last in a game of "Red Rover."
Walt
I've done precisely that dozens of times on FR. Take a look at his anti-southern political action for starters
James McPherson: Modern Liberal and Anti-Confederate Activism:
Aside from his openly socialist affiliations, involvement with Democrat and leftist modern political causes as well as anti-confederate activism in modern times appear on McPherson's record. They amply demonstrate McPherson's anti-southern bias in his own personal politics on things such as the modern confederate flag controversy and his pro-Democrat political affiliations. Broken down by category, here is a sample of McPherson's politics:
McPherson's modern anti-south and anti-confederate biases -
"One's stance on the [confederate] flag, I think, does reflect some degree of commitment for civil rights - or lack of commitment" - James McPherson, quoted by the Associated Press, February 28, 2000
"I do know that the issue of the Confederate flag in South Carolina and also in Georgia where the Confederate battle flag was incorporated into the state flag back in 1956, that those, that...of those flags has a contemporary political agenda, and to the extent that any politician endorses that, I think Trent Lott did as well a couple of years ago, far more vigorously, I can't support them in doing that." - James McPherson, quoted on the socialist Pacifica Radio Network's "Democracy Now" show, November 3, 1999
Modern confederates are "people who reshape Civil War history to suit the way they wish it had come out." - James McPherson, review of "Confederates in the Attic" by Tony Horwitz
"For a lot of people, especially blacks, but not only blacks, the symbols of the Confederacy, or memorializing those who fought for the Confederacy, are- the Confederacy is seen standing for slavery and for treason. That is for rebellion against the United States, war against the United States, war to try to break up and, in the minds of those who fought on the side of the North, to destroy the United States. And I think it seems in the minds of many to be a travesty to memorialize them." - James McPherson, December 18, 1995 interview, NPR
The Plain Dealer covered a speech by McPherson in a May 5, 2000 article, reporting McPherson to hold the belief that "it's likely slavery in some form would have persisted into the 20th century" were it not for the war. McPherson continued, asserting that had it not been for the war, this "might have given rise to a South African-type apartheid which could have continued to today."
"[Southerners] need to face up to the historical reality, if only to come to terms with the problems of their own society" - James McPherson, referring to persons who disagree with Northern versions of the conflict's history, U.S. News and World Report, 9/30/02
McPherson on Slavery Reparations -
James McPherson hosted a University seminar to discuss the issue of slavery reparations on April 14, 2001 at Washington University in St. Louis. The event's calendar announcement, may be found here. According to the calendar, the session was titled "40 Acres & a Mule," hosted by McPherson. The event's description reads "This class will address the question of whether decendents of slaves (or other African Americans) are owed reparations for slavery. Prof. McPherson will provide some historical background on the debate after the Civil War about granting every freed slave '40 acres and a mule.'" Details of what sides McPherson took during the seminar are not reported, but it should be noted that seminars of this nature on the reparations issue have been held on college campuses across the nation in recent years, almost exclusively to give a platform and audience to the pro-reparations cause.
I'd also remind you that seven years after the so-called "Fudge" remarks, slavery was all but ended and Lincoln called for voting rights for blacks. It was the last public speech he ever made. In the audience when he made that call was a man named John Wilks Booth who vowed then and there to kill Lincoln over the issue of "Negro" equality.
Like I said, in that day it could be very dangerous to say what you really think.
GOPCapitalist thinks he's FOOLING people that the Nazis were National Socialists? What a boob! Everyone knows the Nazis were not NATIONAL SOCIALISTS!
BTW, the current socialist Chinese regime has been feverishly stoking nationalism, themselves.
Actually, in its own sick way, yes. Nazi socialism sought a unity of the so-called "pure" German race of workers. The rest of us were all subworkers to him and accordingly out of the nazi equation of socialism.
Why did Hitler's minions kill between 12-15 million Russian workers? That's a mighty funny way to unite people.
See above. It's a way a Soviet socialist named Joe Stalin tried as well for that matter.
I've done precisely that dozens of times on FR. Take a look at his anti-southern political action for starters...
You don't like BattleCry of Freedom so you put up this dreck.
Show that he is prejudiced --in--the--book--.
I am the only one, as I recall, who ever quotes BCF. If there is something wrong with the quotes I use, you should be able to show that -- show Dr. McPherson's bias -- in the book, or by appeal to the record re the book. But you don't do that, because you can't.
Walt
Not that you'd have any interest in it considering your tendency to IGNORE what you don't want to hear. I'll have to go get the book at the library, but its in the Lincoln chapter of Richard Hofstadter's "The American Political Tradition" (1948).
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.