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
And where would these public records be? Some documentation would be in order.
Do they mention the support of James Buchanan and other Democrats for an upward revision of tariffs to pay for the deficit? Regardless of what we think about the economic wisdom of this, a modest increase in tariff rates was apparently a relatively uncontroversial proposal in the early Buchanan administration.
You have apparently misread my comment. I was refering to the fact that some upward revision of the tariff was bound to happen and would not have been controversial. Because of the strains over slavery and his own weakening grasp on power, Buchanan lost control over the process. The result was higher increases in tariffs. But had the political environment remained calmer and more stable, it's likely that more moderate increases in the tariff would have come and been accepted by most politicians, North and South.
Had Southerners really wanted to block tariff increases that they regarded as excessive, they could have used the Senate rules of the time to filibuster the tariff bill. It required a two-thirds vote to cut off debate, and it's extremely unlikely that the Republicans could ever have gotten this -- certainly not without substantially scaling back their demands. But the Deep South was already set on secession, and the tariff was put on the backburner.
If you have access to a university library, you might take a look at "Incidental Protection: An Examination of the Morrill Tariff" in "Essays in Economic and Business History."
Also, this PDF article "Imagining 'a Great Manufacturing Empire': Virginia Secessionists and the Possibilities of a Confederate Tariff" presents a very different view of tariffs in the Confederacy.
The Star of the West was flying Old Glory.
The state of Maine published these articles right after the incident with the Star:
"Resolved, That we the people of the State of Maine devotedly cherish the constitution and laws of the United States, and have ever been willing to assist in maintaining the National Union, and to respect faithfully the rights of all its members.
Resolved, That in the present attempt to coerce the government of the United States, and the will of the majority of the people thereof, to the will of the minority, by treason most foul, and rebellion the most unjustifiable, it is the right and the duty of the state to proffer to the national government for its own maintenance and for the suppression of this treason and rebellion. all the means and resources which it can command.
Resolved, That while as a member of the family of the states, we are ever ready to review our course in reference to any seeming infringement of the rights of sister states, still we can never so far forget the pride of our sovereignty, or the dignity of our manhood, as to hold parley with treason or with traitors.
Resolved, That whenever we shall see the sentiment of patriotism and devotion to American liberty manifested in the slave-holding states, we will vie with such states in the restoration of harmony, and will tender to such, every fraternal concession consistent with the security of our own citizens.
Resolved, That it is our right and our solemn purpose, with "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor," to defend to the last our Federal Government, and the strength and the glory of our national capitol, by whatever hands assailed,as the only hope of our own and of the world's freedom and progress."
They sound pretty serious.
Walt
That is the biggest load of bullsh*t to come down the pike in a long time. You and stand waite ought to exchange notes, you on this fairy tale and him on his alleged quotes about 'mud colored people'. What you are claiming, not me, is a conspiracy. A deliberate cover-up by every single single person who has written a biography on Lincoln. Not a single one of those people uncovered this information that you claim is 'evidenced rather abundantly by public records'. Every single one missed it. Either that or every single one chose to ignore the facts. All participated in a cover up to protect the holy myth. None decided that they wanted to write the bombshell that tore the cover off and exposed the real Lincoln. Do you realize how far fetched that is? Don't you think that it is more likely that reputable scholars may have come across this story in the past and dismissed it as the load of manure it is?
Translation: the evidence doesn't exist. I made it up but I ain't about to admit it.
I was right. Even on the link you provide, all the documents are not styled as ordinances.
But the Mississippians made their intent plain. Slavery was the issue. Only a sophist would say otherwise.
Walt
Hitler seemed indisposed to fight against certain nations, for whatever reason, but once the thing started snowballing (I think their success in France shocked even them) their goal was definitely to conquer their enemies, or perish.
It is true that Hitler had some kind of respect for the British. Maybe it was the memory of the breath of nerve gas he got in WWI. The Germans could very well have dealt a fatal blow to the British army as they got out of Dodge after the invesion of France, but Hitler would not allow it. The leadership of Germany believed that Britain would inevitably have to settle for a negotiated peace. But we all know they didn't, thankfully.
The Nazis occupied 2/3 of France, but gave their puppet french government 1/3 of their country to "rule."
Maybe the problem here is the definition of "dominate." Walt seems to be saying that the Nazis did not want to dominate the world, but maybe what he means is OCCUPY the world. Two very different things, once again - like nationalism and socialism.
That the Germans wanted to rule the world is without dispute. Whether they wanted to do this through conquering the world was probably disputed even in their own minds, and therefore could be disputed here forever.
Though I cannot speak for the planet of your origin, Walt, in these parts Dec. 25, 1860 comes after May 10, 1860.
When did Africa become part of the European continent?
I suppose then that Hitler fought a big battle in that famous European place called El Alamein?
You: Congressman Keitt of South Carolina left at Christmas 1860.
Did you know that Christmas comes AFTER May, or am I missing something?
You won't post a reputable source that contradicts the three I posted.
Hitler's intentions were strictly continental.
I see your little Igor is lurking now on this subject.
Walt
Neither of you ever produced a source for your bogus Grant quote. Remember you promised to have your "friend" at the archives look it up for you?
You spout nothing but bilge all day, but you NEVER have a source for any of it.
If it initiated the hostilities then that must mean that the firing on Sumter were in retaliation for the Lane's actions. That had the Lane not fired on the Nashville then Beauregard would never have fired on Sumter. Are you suggesting that?
Okay. I don't agree that it was bound to happen, but I suppose it is possible that a slight tariff hike could have been done with minimal controversy. This was not the case of what happened though.
Had Southerners really wanted to block tariff increases that they regarded as excessive, they could have used the Senate rules of the time to filibuster the tariff bill.
Strategically that is entirely possible to push off the tariff, but for indefinate sustainability across four years it is simply not practical or realistic. The cards were heavily stacked against any limited effort that could be mounted in the Senate.
Not EVERY biographer. There are many books that tell varying versions of the life. Many of them were written in the late 1800s. DiLorenzo's book is a biography, of sorts.
I suppose then that Hitler fought a big battle in that famous European place called El Alamein?
That wouldn't show an attempt at global conquest. The Brits were pretty much terrified that the Germans would make for the middle east oil. They didn't.
Hitler had no interest at all in Africa; he only deployed a small force there to bail out the Italians. Hitler at this time, as I recall, had 165 divisions in Russia, and three in Africa.
Walt
They "definitely" had no such plan, as Col Dupuy's book shows. Hitler also told the German Navy they had until 1945 to complete their expansion. That didn't work out either.
It might be that in some really euphoric moment that the Germans thought all might fall before them, but they never had even an outline to conquer the world.
Hitler's goals never changed from 1925 -- gain the lebensraum in the east that the master race deserved.
Thanks for the correction on the dates re voting on the Morrill tariff.
Walt
The Afrika Korps was only a small force to bail out the Italians, now. Some US vets had to land in Africa to battle this tiny, ill-equipped force that was sent over there on a distraction. The distraction being that the troublesome ally, Mussolini, had some crazy interest in Africa which the Nazis thought was silly, right?
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.