Posted on 08/30/2003 7:10:08 AM PDT by u-89
The Founding Fathers of Insider Tradingby Thomas J. DiLorenzo
To this day, the U.S. government has not provided a clear legal definition of insider trading. This allows the feds to engage in periodic witch hunts against unpopular business people such as Martha Stewart, the purpose of which is to divert the publics attention away from the governments own failed policies and blame it all on "capitalism." But there is a particular type of insider trading political insider trading that has been clearly understood for generations. Because this kind of insider trading involves politicians themselves, however, there are no laws against it. A good example of political insider trading appeared recently on an episode of "The Sopranos," the HBO television series about a New Jersey Mafia family. The "don," Tony Soprano, is friends with a sleazy and corrupt state legislator, who gives Tony an inside tip that the legislature is about to give the go ahead to commercial development along the riverfront. Tony quickly purchases some land in the area, and his insider information allows him to buy low and sell high, after the development is announced, and make a killing. The state legislator does the same.
The great historian of the American west, Dee Brown, describes the historical origins of political insider trading in her book, Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow: The Epic Story of the Transcontinental Railroads, which was recently brought to my attention by John Denson. The book tells the story of a group of men who might be called the founding fathers of political insider trading, the most prominent of which was Abraham Lincoln. The rest were some of the founding fathers of the Lincolns Republican Party; many of them served as generals in the union army. In the mid to late 1850s Lincoln was a prominent railroad lawyer. His clients included the Illinois Central, which at the time was the largest corporation in the world. In 1857 he represented the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad, which was owned by four men who would later become infamous as "robber barons" for receiving and squandering millions of dollars in federal subsidies for their transcontinental railroad. Granting these men their subsidies would become one of the first orders of business in the Lincoln administration. These men Thomas Clark Durant, Peter Dey, Grenville Dodge, and Benedict Reed were easterners from New England and New York State who had "a store of hard experience at canal and railroad building and financing," writes Dee Brown. And they must also have been quite expert at stealing taxpayers money for useless government-funded boondoggles. Prior to the War between the States, government subsidies for railroad and canal building were a financial disaster. So disastrous were these government pork barrel projects that by 1860, according to economic historian Carter Goodrich, Massachusetts was the only state in the union to have not amended its constitution to prohibit taxpayer subsidies to private corporations (Carter Goodrich, Government Promotion of American Canals and Railroads, 18001890, p. 231).
In a dispute with a steamship company the above-mentioned men "sought out a first-rate lawyer, one who had a reputation for winning most of his cases," writes Dee Brown. "They found him in Springfield, Illinois and his name was Abraham Lincoln." The jurors in the case failed to reach a decision, but Lincolns performance "won him a considerable amount of attention in the Chicago press and among men of power, who two years later would push him into the race for President of the United States." One of those "men of power" was Chicago newspaper editor Joseph Medill, whose newspaper trumpeted the Lincoln candidacy on behalf of the railroad interests of Illinois. This powerful clique of New England/New York/Chicago business interests "aroused the suspicions of the South," says Brown, since they were so vigorously lobbying Congress to allocate huge sums of money for a transcontinental railroad across the Northern states. Southern politicians wanted the route to pass through their states, naturally, but they knew they were outgunned politically by the political clique from "the Yankee belt" (New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, the upper Midwest).
These Northern political insiders, who would form the core of leadership of the Republican Party and later, in some cases, of Lincolns army, positioned themselves to earn great riches from the proposed railroad subsidies. John C. Fremont, who would be a general in Lincolns army, was a wealthy California engineer who conducted an extensive engineering survey "to make certain that the most favorable route would end up not in San Diego but in northern California, where Fremont himself claimed sizable land holdings." Another wealthy Yankee, Pierre Chouteau, "put his money into a St. Louis factory to make iron rails and went to Washington to lobby for the 38th parallel route." Illinois Senator Stephen Douglas "owned enough strategically located land in Chicago to be a millionaire if his favored route westward through Council Bluffs and Omaha was chosen . . ."
And "Abraham Lincoln, the future President evidently agreed with his debating partner that the route through Council Bluffs-Omaha and the South Pass was the most practical. Lincoln acquired land interests at Council Bluffs" (emphasis added). A short time later, after the Chicago/New England/New York "men of power" propelled him into the White House, Lincoln began signing legislation giving these men millions of acres of public lands and other subsidies for their railroads. Virtually all of the "leading lights" of the Republican Party got in on the political insider trading game by demanding bribes for their votes in favor of the subsidies. Pennsylvania congressman Thaddeus Stevens "received a block of . . . stock in exchange for his vote," but he also demanded "insertion of a clause [in the subsidy legislation] requiring that all iron used in the construction and equipment of said road to be American manufacture." In addition to being a congressman, Stevens was a Pennsylvania iron manufacturer. At the time, British iron was far cheaper than Pennsylvania iron, so that Stevenss "restrictive clause" placed a bigger burden on the taxpayers of the North who, at the time, were already being taxed to death to finance the war.
Congressman Oakes Ames, "who with his brother Oliver manufactured shovels in Massachusetts, became a loyal ally [of the subsidy-seeking railroad companies] and helped to pressure the 1864 Pacific Railway Act through the war-corrupted Congress." (It took a lot of shovels to dig railroad beds from Iowa to California). During the post-war Grant administration the Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives, Schuyler Colfax (later Grants vice president) visited the western railroad routes to attend a ceremony in his honor but, writes Dee Brown, "he preferred cash above honors, and back in Washington he eagerly accepted a bundle of Credit Mobilier stock from his follow congressman Oakes Ames, and thus became a loyal friend of the Union Pacific." Another of Lincolns generals, General John Dix, was the Washington lobbyist for the railroads who "spent most of his time strutting about Washington in a generals uniform." (Dix was the same general who Lincoln ordered in 1862 to shut down all the opposition newspapers in New York City and arrest and imprison the editors and owners).
General William Tecumseh Sherman was also sold land at below-market prices and, after the war, he would be in charge of a twenty-five year campaign of ethnic genocide against the Plains Indians, which was yet another form of veiled subsidy to the railroad corporations. After the war Grenville Dodge, who was also a Union Army general despite his lack of military training, proposed making slaves of the captured Indians and forcing them "to do the grading, with the Army furnishing a guard to make the Indians work, and keep them from running away." These men the founding fathers of insider trading were responsible for the massive corruption of the grant administrations which was only the beginning of what historians call "the era of good stealings." August 30, 2003 Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1 bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.
Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com Thomas DiLorenzo Archives at LRC Thomas DiLorenzo Archives at Mises.org
|
Segregation was wrong and it could be easily be argued that it was a just cause for the national government to cause those laws to be done away with. But because of this interference, the national government has gone about the business of interfering within the states thinking it somehow has a right to do so on everything from the Ten Commandments to seat belts. My question to you would be is that right also?
DiLorenzo bump
John V. Denson writes to Thomas DiLorenzo:
"Enjoyed listening to the tape of your Lincoln program in Richmond, Virginia, and also purchased the work book which I look forward to reading along with watching the video.
"In preparation for a train vacation, I purchased a book entitled Hear That Lonesome Whistle Blow. I did not expect to find any particular information about Lincoln but there is a nugget that I think will serve as another arrow in your quiver to help deflate the false mythology surrounding Lincoln.
"At the time the first railroad bridge was proposed to cross the Mississippi River the steamboat business objected that it was were interfering with a navigable river. The bridge was built and a steamboat crashed into it and this resulted in the famous Rock Island Bridge case. The railroad hired Abraham Lincoln to represent them in a Chicago trial in 1857. Lincoln's close connection to the railroad allowed him to get inside information on where the railroad might go and so Lincoln purchased land at Council Bluffs. When Lincoln became president he was able to make sure that the railroad would go near his land, causing him to reap immense profits.
"The whole railroad story is one of corruption, death, and destruction. There is much here about how the Union army was used through General Sherman and General Sheridan to exterminate the Indians and to trick them out of their land. The whole railroad picture was governed by a partnership between big business (the railroads) and government in the name of internal improvements. The two main obstructions to the great fortunes that were to be made in the railroads were the political power of the South to fight this phase of mercantilism, and the Indians and their possession of the land where they wanted the railroads to go. The Union army wiped out both obstacles and huge profits were made by those politically connected to Lincoln and his administration, which of course included Lincoln himself."
As far as public financed ball stadiums goes they do that here in New Jersey too. Can't say I care for the idea.
So one could argue over the definition of totalitarianism but one can not honestly say that Lew Rockwell supports descrimination or Jim Crow laws. There is no room for that interpretation of his statement. Therefore it is not a racist remark.
I do not know the context from which this quote was lifted from but it does not seem like the most diplomatic way of stating his position. For the record I have a broader definition of totalitarianism than LR seems to have as I see Thomas'claim against the State and Rockwell's both as valid examples.
Call him whatever you desire but would you do one thing for me first? Namely, please tell me what relevance your anti-Rockwell rant has to the contents of this article or its author.
Curious. Instead of adding to the string of anti-Rockwell ad hominems you at least took the time to notice that it was written by Tom DiLorenzo...before launching into a string of anti-Dilorenzo ad hominems. It puts you ahead of your colleagues by a few feet though you are still behind any substantive discussion by several miles.
Why put the railroad in the South when it was the North that was more industrialized?
Do you mean on the people in general or just libertarians specifically? If the latter I would take serious issue with that but if the former I would agree that the people have not carefully guarded their heritage bequeathed to them by their forefathers. That's why the term "the greatest generation" meaning those who lived through the depression and W.W.II is nothing more than leftist propaganda. It gets the people to congratulate themselves on supporting FDR's socialist/globalist revolution.
> Lew Rockwell has become Noam Chomsky "lite". So have the Losertarians.
What do you mean by that? On one hand you say those who question the government are leftists subversives then you follow up saying there's nothing wrong in questioning the government. The founders warned us not to trust the government and to be ever vigilant against it. Libertarians do just that. Leftists only question government actions when they perceive corporate influence but do not question government itself because they support big government, just not business. Libertarianism and socialism are polar opposites. The comparison is nonsensical.
That is the big question and the issue here along with politicians and other government employees getting profitable insider knowledge in return for funding private enterprise with public moneys and sculpting policy to favor the connected (and generous). Not who makes a better case for deserving the spoils of government largess.
I'd rather see private companies do the job but if the government felt there was a security advantage and an economic advantage for the country to quickly get the railroads across the country maybe they had a point.
That is the big question and the issue here along with politicians and other government employees getting profitable insider knowledge in return for funding private enterprise with public moneys and sculpting policy to favor the connected (and generous). Not who makes a better case for deserving the spoils of government largess.
Hard to say. It's natural that those that were already in the business would know the best way to do it and would've positioned themselves to do this great undertaking. It's also natural that there would've been people who fought to get this great undertaking on their land. After all, states still vie for these kinds of projects, it brings in revenue. Some states make a better case than others and win. Thoses that know the business are more likely to position themselves to win.
Since arriving on this thread you have not posted ONE WORD about the contents of Tom DiLorenzo's article or its subject matter. Instead you have launched into a wholly irrelevant ad hominem tirade against Lew Rockwell for what seems to be no particular reason whatsoever. In light of that fact I must question your purpose of posting.
You are absolutely right, and from the looks of things the personification of all three just arrived to flood this thread with his inanities.
Meanwhile I patiently await any one of them to do so much as make a factual comment about the article's arguments or its contents. The chances of that happening are unfortunately slim to none.
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.