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
free dixie,sw
Walt, are you illiterate, just plain stupid, or both? I said ORDINANCES OF SECESSION, not declarations of causes. Try pulling your head out of your backside for once and reading what you are responding to before shooting your mouth off.
Lincoln did speculate about his origins. But he suspected that his mother might have been an offshoot of one of the First Families of Virginia. Curiously, he apparently did not know that his ancestors had been locally prominent, successful farmers in Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Virginia before moving westward and returning to nature as frontiersmen.
And interestingly, one of the big promoters of the Enlow theory today is an Enlow descendant. Disprove the theory and it gets attached to another Enlow, Inlow or Enlows.
you STILL owe an apology and fifty bucks to PistolPaknMama. remember your so-called bet that you lost. you are not fit to kiss her feet.WELCHERS like you are beneath contempt.
free dixie,sw
Suit yourself.
It's true that Elvis and Marilyn lived over a hundred years after Lincoln's birth.
What's not known is that they used Howard Hughes' time tunnel to go back to 1805 -- SPECIFICALLY to conceive Lincoln, and his twin sister Mercury.
Mercury is currently be held in stasis until the WNBA is a bit more profitable. At 6'4", she promises to be a big star.
Walt
Uh, Walt. The guy marched his armies clear across Belgium and plowed his way to Paris. Shortly thereafter he turned his airforce loose on Britain. He was the initiator of the war. He acted against France. He acted against Britain. He was on the offensive when he acted. He may not have desired war as the best way to do what he did, but it was the way he chose. To suggest that he didn't really want to do what he did and it just happened that way or something is absurd.
What about the Enlows', Inlows', Enlows's outlaw in-laws?
You are well advised to save that one for practic before a mirror, Walt. You've said some pretty crazy things around here in the last couple of days and that stuff you've said about Hitler is among the craziest. Not to worry though. I'll happily share notice of your insanity to others who have not yet encountered it.
Congratulations Walt! As with so many other things, you've just demonstrated yourself to be a ranting irrational crackpot when it comes to economic matters as well! Your position is downright silly - "economics be damned, I'm infallable because I said so and anything that gets in my way or The Lincoln's way is wrong wrong wrong!"
Call it the Wlat Doctrine.
Walt, are you illiterate, just plain stupid, or both? I said ORDINANCES OF SECESSION, not declarations of causes. Try pulling your head out of your backside for once and reading what you are responding to before shooting your mouth off.
Still trying to figure out how you could have been so wrong about Hitler?
There were 11 so-called seceded states. All of them did not draft "ordinances of secession." Of the ones that did, (only 4 of the first 7) they did not all call their secession documents "ordinances of secession."
It was a state's rights sort of thing.
Notable among those is Mississippi, who called theirs a "declaration of causes."
So you are caught in another false statement.
Walt
Oh, you mean the "Walt Way." If that is your desire I suppose I could do so. But aside from your normal tendency to ignore what you don't want to see or hear kicking in, you would likely be unable to read them if I did post them. They are in German, and I do not have the time of day to translate much of anything for your ilk.
I think there are some english copies out there, but they're hard to come by and I'll have to do some searching. I also know of some english books that contain passages quoted from it. Would those do?
What I've known for years about Hitler was backed by referring to General J.F.C. Fuller, Captain B.H. Liddell Hart, and Col. Trevor Dupuy.
Hitler's goals were strictly continental.
What I said was confirmed in the record; what you said was nonsense.
Walt
Well, he did pardon 260+ plus indians.
Walt
It was the first physical shot of the war in the proximity of the war and directly related to the event that initiated the war, so yes. It initiated the hostilities of physical warfare.
On that basis one could just as easily claim that the hostilities were actually intitiated several months prior when the south fired on the Star of the West.
One could probably find any number of isolated firings, skirmishes, and other pre-war events by either side. But none has the proximity to the war that the Harriet Lane did. For all practical purposes it was the first shot of the war.
Congressman Keitt of South Carolina left at Christmas 1860.
Walt
Uh, Walt. The guy marched his armies clear across Belgium and plowed his way to Paris. Shortly thereafter he turned his airforce loose on Britain. He was the initiator of the war. He acted against France. He acted against Britain. He was on the offensive when he acted. He may not have desired war as the best way to do what he did, but it was the way he chose. To suggest that he didn't really want to do what he did and it just happened that way or something is absurd.
The record shows that Hitler's goals were strictly continental. They were "Napoleonic", as General Fuller said.
You said Hitler was bent on world domination, which is just false.
Walt
N-S, you're the Navy guy.
Did the Harriet Lane have a ship-to-shore radio?
Maybe the Nashville did.
Walt
To the contrary, Walt. I'm still trying to figure out how you could act the part of an idiot in the way you do with regards to Hitler and everything else while simultaneously keeping a straight face.
There were 11 so-called seceded states. All of them did not draft "ordinances of secession."
Of the ones that did, (only 4 of the first 7) they did not all call their secession documents "ordinances of secession."
To the contrary. Here's all 11 plus the 2 rump convention documents: http://americancivilwar.com/documents/ordinance_secession.html
Notable among those is Mississippi, who called theirs a "declaration of causes."
Wrong document, Walt. The Mississippi ordinance's opening line reads "AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Mississippi and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
So you are caught in another false statement.
Not in the least. You have been exposed as a fool though...yet again.
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.