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
Ninety-eight degrees? Oh my Gawd! That is like, so, totally cool. I am like, you know, your biggest a fan.
Lincoln did what Jefferson and Washington did not do.
He determined upon a way to at least -begin- the ending of slavery. The way to do this, Lincoln thought, was to limit slavery to where it currently existed. He knew it would die if that happened. That is why he told his advisors to hang on "as with a chain of steel" to no expansion of slavery into the federal territories. And he never wavered from this. But even that was enough to set off the slave power, and the war came.
Lincoln once said that slavery was a "continual torment" to him, that he "abhorred" the oppression of blacks.
Gifted with a powerful intellect, Lincoln was also very pragmatic. He was willing to do what was possible. Limiting slavery --was-- possible. It --could-- be done. But the slave power wouldn't do it.
Lincoln's education....uh, I don't think Lincoln had any MBA's.
He DID once say it was important "to help our friends in Knoxville."
Walt
That's exactly what happened, after Ft. Sumter came under attack by rebels.
Well, well, did Lincoln actually HAVE any friends in Knoxville? Who were they? I want their names, last-known-addresses, and social security numbers. I strongly suspect that this was just another LIE from the great damnyankee Tyrant.
We agree. Lincoln felt that slavery would die out if isolated. Looking at the economics of slavery, I think he was correct but IMHO, the 'death rattle' of slavery could possibly have been even more horrific in terms of loss of life than the Civil War. Think of Santo Domingo.
Part of his aura is as a geat emancipator which is not what he really was.
Disagree. If it had been in his power to end slavery early in the war, he would have. But that was not a political possibility. As late as the summer of 1864, many Republicans were urging him to retract the EP. To his everlasting credit, he refused even when it looked like he would lose the election. Sherman and Atlanta changed the political dynamic, and it became perfectly clear that the war would end only through victory there was no need to attempt to appease the slave power. It also became more clear to the general population that Lincoln's words from years before were indeed true --- "A nation can not endure half slave and half free. People understood that the regionalism was caused by slavery and they were then willing to see it ended. When the people allowed, Lincoln immediately began pushing the 13th Amendment which was passed by both houses in a matter of months.
His greatness would lie in recognizing the overriding necessity of saving the union ( if it meant dragging the south back )
We agree. He focused on first things first and never allowed himself to get too far beyond public opinion. (Read Frederick Douglass' dedication speech at the Freedmen's monument in Washington.)
The other aspect is it was easy for some in the North to moralize over slavery when their economic well being was not affected...
Generally true, but I think you overemphasize the amount of "moralizing" in the North over slavery. The radical abolitionists generally were not moralizing, they were operating from religious conviction and were as ready to destroy the Union to destroy slavery as the secessionists were to destroy the Union to preserve slavery. The great bulk of the north came to understand that slavery was the cause of the war and it needed to end to allow the Union to be resumed.
as there were plenty of immigrants and child labor to staff the factories etc
Rationalization. For 4 million blacks in the south, hard labor began at age 6 or earlier. Immigrants came to America for the opportunity to work. They could have as easily gone to the south as the north but because of slavery they were neither needed nor welcome there. Slavery kept the south backward and kept most white southerners poor.
You didn't answer the question. You're response sounds like someone who pays for his 'protection'. And see, it was a very relative answer, I told you so. Your answer is also a sad commentary on the state of our liberties....
None of us in this country enjoy the freedom and liberty the founders envisioned. The slaves of old in America could buy their freedom. You and I can't buy our freedom from the government which oppresses us. So, in a way, the slaves had an option we don't.
Well, well, did Lincoln actually HAVE any friends in Knoxville? Who were they? I want their names, last-known-addresses, and social security numbers. I strongly suspect that this was just another LIE from the great damnyankee Tyrant.
Well, it might have been that he was bragging about having friends in K-town so people would think he comp some tickets to Volunteer football games. This year, however, they are not the commodity they have been in the past. :-(
Walt
You're living in a fantasy-land. Because life in this country doesn't accord with your Utopian notions, you imply we're worse off than slaves. Before you make yourself look even more ridiculous, why don't you spend a few years as a slave in Mauritania and see how much better life can get. Then you can buy your freedom and report back to us miserable oppressed souls.
Are you referring to the Israelites exodus from the slavery of Egypt? The Israelites could not have left Egypt without God's help and blessing. God allowed them to be held captive in slavery because of their disobedience to God.
God made men. Men made slaves.
Exactly right. And when we reveiw the history of man we see most of the time men have lived under tyranny and despots. God has allowed this to show men that they are incapable of governering in their own human wisdom.
Yeah, I knew you'd duck in behind this "relative" thing.
I don't own a ranch the size of Ted Turner's. I don't even have the concession on buffalo excrement from his ranch that probably brings somebody a hefty nickel. But as Andy's post suggested, I can sleep through the night and pretty much know me and mine are not going to be sold two or three states away.
When you put the argument on that level --"Argh! Can't you see we're ALL slaves!", you pretty much disallow any meaningful discussion of the history.
In short, you ain't doing any of us any good.
I feel this is what drives a lot of the neo-rebs. Maybe a run-in with the IRS, or a zoning thing, or an easement or title conflict -- something soured them on the government. But just to make stuff up, that is over the top, or to deny the rational actions of say, resuppplying Fort Sumter -- that is just cracked.
Walt
Agreed. And that's why you need to support my effort to appoint Roger Clinton Supreme Generalissimo, Field Marshall and President-For-Life, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea. Contributions will be tax-deductible as soon as soon as He assumes the power to rule by decree.
I did pay for my protection.
I joined the Marine Corps. And I have a bunch of honorable discharges around here somewhere. I even helped pay for some of your protection. I wonder if you would do the same.
Walt
Well, that explains a lot of where you are coming from and why you post the way you do.
Very Jeffersonian.
And none of us have seen the White House burned either -- a direct result of Jefferson's policies.
Walt
Yeah-- that was a long time ago. Can't you see that makes a BIG difference?
I mean, it might be nice to live like Jeremiah Johnson, but now you have these little Al Qeada buggers who want to cut your throat -- and they know where you live.
Walt
Well, that explains a lot of where you are coming from and why you post the way you do.
Awwww........I thought that was pretty clever. Okay, how about this?
I don't even have the tune-up concession for the Land Rovers on Ted Turner's ranch, which probably brings somebody a pretty penny.
But I am still pretty confident of sleeping through the night and not being roused out and sold two or three states away.
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.