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
Uh, yes Walt, they are. You obviously did not read the link.
First, the group of documents itself is universally known to history as the ordinances of secession.
Second, every single one of them calls itself an ordinance or "ordains" something. Read it and weep.
SOUTH CAROLINA - AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of South Carolina and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
MISSISSIPPI - 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."
FLORIDA - ORDINANCE OF SECESSION We, the people of the State of Florida, in convention assembled, do solemnly ordain, publish, and declare, That the State of Florida hereby withdraws herself from the confederacy of States existing under the name of the United States of America
ALABAMA - AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Alabama and the other States united under the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America"
GEORGIA - We the people of the State of Georgia in Convention assembled do declare and ordain and it is hereby declared and ordained
LOUISIANA - AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of Louisiana and other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
TEXAS - AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the Union between the State of Texas and the other States united under the Compact styled "the Constitution of the United States of America."
VIRGINIA - AN ORDINANCE to repeal the ratification of the Constitution of the United State of America by the State of Virginia, and to resume all the rights and powers granted under said Constitution.
ALABAMA - AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union now existing between the State of Arkansas and the other States united with her under the compact entitled "The Constitution of the United States of America."
NORTH CAROLINA - AN ORDINANCE to dissolve the union between the State of North Carolina and the other States united with her, under the compact of government entitled "The Constitution of the United States."
TENNESSEE - DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND ORDINANCE dissolving the federal relations between the State of Tennessee and the United States of America.
Even the rump convention in Kentucky "ordained" is act of secession -
"Be it ordained, That we do hereby forever sever our connection with the Government of the United States, and in the name of the people we do hereby declare Kentucky to be a free and independent State, clothed with all power to fix her own destiny and to secure her own rights and liberties."
Not saying they did. But remember, "conquer," and "dominate" are two different things. Their dream was that Aryans, and particularly Germany, would eventually dominate the world. It's just silly to keep arguing otherwise.
I'll ask you again, Walt. Is Africa part of the European continent? Yes or no.
Then you shouldn't having any trouble showing that.
I have posted a record of a 1937 meeting where Hitler briefs his head henchmen that he may want to move to east as late as 1943-45.
That will give you some place to start.
Hitler --thought-- the Brits and surrender monkeys would acquiesce in his slamming Poland, just as they did when he took Austria and whacked the Czechs. He thought them totally spineless.
He had no plan for world conquest, just a plan to attack the Soviet Union to get the Lebensraum he needed and deserved.
Hitler was first, last and always an opportunist -- a trait he shares with Saddam Hussein.
Walt
I'll ask you again, Walt. Is Africa part of the European continent? Yes or no.
Africa is not part of Europe. Hitler only sent troops to Africa in order to buck up the Italians. He had no grand plan for world conquest. As General Fuller said -- his plans were strictly continental.
German submarines also sailed into the Pacific and Indian oceans. This is no more evidence that Hitler planned on world conquest than the fact of the Afrika Corps is.
Walt
It shows an act of conquest outside of the "continental" realm of Europe, which you purported to be Hitler's only concern and only realm.
Hitler had no interest at all in Africa
Yeah Walt. Hitler had nothing a stake there. He didn't want to be there. He only sent his most prestigous general there to lead the Africa Corps to a hoped and sought after victory. El Alamein was only one of the three main turning points of the war for the allies. Try again, Walt. You're grasping at straws and it is showing.
Not saying they did. But remember, "conquer," and "dominate" are two different things. Their dream was that Aryans, and particularly Germany, would eventually dominate the world. It's just silly to keep arguing otherwise.
A "continental system" under the Germans was something the United States simply couldn't tolerate. The economy here was very fragile; unemployment even at the time of Pearl Harbor was 10%.
You'd still have to show that the Germans -posited- such domination. I don't know that they did.
If we've been playing word games over the meaning of "conquer" as opposed to "dominate", then we've wasted a lot of band width.
Hitler had no plan to conquer the world. I would still challenge you to show he ever even spoke of world domination.
I believe he did speak of a fight to the death with the Communists -- he hated socialism, you know. But I don't think his rhetoric included world domination.
If it did, it should be easy for you to find.
Walt
"Because in the sphere of ideas Germany was the most convinced exponent of all socialist dreams, and in the sphere of reality she was the most powerful architect of the most highly organized economic system. In us is the twentieth century. However the war may end, we are the exemplary people. Our ideas will determine the aims of the life of humanity. World History experiences at present the colossal spectacle that with us a new great ideal of life penetrates to final victory, while at the same time in England one of the World-Historical principles finally collapses."
Yet Africa was well outside the continent of Europe. Hitler went to Africa, hence your statement is inconsistent.
Rommel was nobody when he went to Africa. He -became- prestigious and the Nazi media built him up big time.
Africa was always a sideshow for Hitler. He was just bucking up the pasta eating surrender monkeys.
A big part of the success that Rommel garnered was due to the almost criminal ineptitude of the Brits and their very inadequate equipment.
The Brits were completely incapable of armored maneuver warfare. It's been suggested that the Brits -never- acheived compentency in maneuvering large formations during WWII. Their losing 470 Sherman tanks in 4 days in Normandy is ample proof of that.
To counter your assertion about Africa, Hitler let the Africa Corps wither without supply. By late 1942, the Brits had a 4:1 ratio in tanks, 10:1 in artillery, 2:1 in men -- and the Germans had no gasoline.
Egypt was vital to the Brits, it was a sideshow to Hitler.
Walt
Rommel was nobody when he went to Africa. He -became- prestigious and the Nazi media built him up big time.
Africa was always a sideshow for Hitler. He was just bucking up the pasta eating surrender monkeys.
A big part of the success that Rommel garnered was due to the almost criminal ineptitude of the Brits and their very inadequate equipment.
The Brits were completely incapable of armored maneuver warfare. It's been suggested that the Brits -never- acheived compentency in maneuvering large formations during WWII. Their losing 470 Sherman tanks in 4 days in Normandy is ample proof of that.
To counter your assertion about Africa, Hitler let the Africa Corps wither without supply. By late 1942, the Brits had a 4:1 ratio in tanks, 10:1 in artillery, 2:1 in men -- and the Germans had no gasoline.
Egypt was vital to the Brits, it was a sideshow to Hitler.
Walt
"The result of Bismarck's decision of the year 1879 was that Germany took on the role of the revolutionary; that is to say, of a state whose position in relation to the rest of the world is that of'a representative of a higher and more advanced economic system. Having realized this, we should perceive that in the present World Revolution, Germany represents the revolutionary, and her greatest antagonist, England, the counter-revolutionary side."
Yet Africa was well outside the continent of Europe. Hitler went to Africa, hence your statement is inconsistent.
As I have said twice now, Hitler sent German troops to Africa to bail out the Italians.
His --plans-- never included Africa. You are clinging to this factoid for dear life -- for no reason.
Walt
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.