Fighting Facts With Slander

But the Democrats HATED protectionism. So why did Buchanan have no problem with the Morrill Tariff of 1861?

From #513 - "The Morrill Tariff was implemented as a direct response to the fiscal crisis created by the Buchanan administration." Wasn't there an economic failure in 1857 that affected industry, banks and industrialized jobs? The South wasn't against tariff;s per se - the government had to get money from somewhere. They just didn't want to be robbed, or subsidize northern interests. Some protectionism was good - primarily to give Northern industry a chance to become competitive, but not keep them on welfare forever.

DiLorenzo clearly implies, and selects, and twists, evidence, to suggest precisely the opposite. And carefully omits to tell us that Buchanan, not Lincoln, signed the bill. Because this would give away his fantasy.

From #506 - "Lincoln may have had very little to do with the tariff in an official capacity, but as the leader of the Republican Party one has to assume that Lincoln the master politician was involved in the political maneuvering over the tariff."

If it had been me, I would have documented all the tariffs that Lincoln did support.

"The Morrill Tariff was implemented as a direct response to the fiscal crisis created by the Buchanan administration." Wasn't there an economic failure in 1857 that affected industry, banks and industrialized jobs? The South wasn't against tariff;s per se - the government had to get money from somewhere. They just didn't want to be robbed, or subsidize northern interests. Some protectionism was good - primarily to give Northern industry a chance to become competitive, but not keep them on welfare forever.

I agree with the first three sentences, so far as I know the history. The final one, that "some protectionism was good" I don't recognize as a Southern position, but I don't disagree with the South in rejecting it. What's the point? I think you are agreeing that the 1861 bill appears to have been acceptable to North and South, and a response to the revenue shortage from the 1857 panic and tariff act.

So, in conclusion, we agree that DiLorenzo's presentation of this tariff act of 1861, as a Republican/Lincoln/northern/protectionist revolution, is mendacious, or stupid, or . . .? And

Have you had a chance to read DiLorenzo yet?

Any comment on the particular questions we've been discussing?

Passages from the book that you find particularly convincing and well-argued?

I missed your post on the history of the constitutionality of the bank until tonight. Sorry.

I'm sure you understood this, but just to make sure -- my only claim is that it is deceptive, as you note, for DiLorenzo to suggest that Neely says Lincoln was "seething" with anger at being blocked by the constitution when the Neely clearly says that Lincoln was frustrated at what he thought the ignorant error of those who didn't SEE that the bank WAS constitutional.

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.