Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln

October 16, 2002 | Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

[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

[stainlessbanner]

Cleburn was ordered to destroy any copies

Luckily, the only surviving pdf file of Cleburne's proposal made it on the Web. : )

[A2J]

"It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties."

The accuracy of these words is amazing.

The legacy of Lincoln: Sparing the Union? No. Upholding the Constitution? No. Enlarging and empowering a centralized government that steals rights and liberties. YES!

[SCDogPapa]

Tarrifs, Not Slavery

by Jack McMillan, Ph.D.

The American educational system continues perpetuating a myth regarding the War for Southern Independence (often mistakenly called "The Civil War", a misnomer). Teachers using government- mandated, Northern-produced texts inform students the conflict centered solely on slavery, with Abraham Lincoln "The Great Emancipator" sending Union troops to "make men free". Nothing could be more untrue. We realize the wisdom in the adages that history-books are written by the victors and that truth is war's first casualty. Like other complex human activities, wars often have a number of underlying causes. In this article, I shall provide the reader with an overview of the primary causi belli of the War for Southern Independence, the issue of tariffs.

Far from being a mundane topic, taxation has been at the heart of the American political spirit. The original 13 American colonies formally dissolved ties with the British Empire due to the issue of taxation without representation. Penned by that great Virginian Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence stands out as this nation's first Article of Secession. In it, the colonies' grievances are listed. Amongst the litany of injustices committed by King George III, Jefferson mentions " For imposing Taxes upon us without our Consent." This split over taxation is a recurring theme in American history.

The precursor to Southern secession in fact occurred 30 years before the hostilities of 1861-1865. In 1828 and again in 1832, Congress passed tariffs legislation benefiting northern mercantile interests but injuring the South's agricultural economy. Heavy protectionist tariffs gave northern manufacturers an advantage by decreasing foreign competition, but forced the South to pay the bulk of federal taxes, as the South was a net exporter of raw goods and a net importer of manufactured products. These "Tariffs of Abominations" led Senator John C. Calhoun to declare the law unjust and a convention was held in South Carolina to nullify the federal tariff law. President Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops to enforce the tariff, but eventually the Compromise of 1833 was reached and taxes were lowered over a four-year period. As Professor Charles Adams states in his book For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization, " … the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North."

The election of 1860 was perhaps the most contentious in American history. The Democratic Party split with the northern faction voting for Stephen Douglass, the southern faction for John Breckinridge. Additionally the Constitutional Unionist Party (the renamed Whig Party) ran John Bell as a candidate and carried three states (Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia). Lincoln won with a mere 39% of the popular and not a single electoral vote from the South. As Salomon DeRothschild, a visitor to America at the time writes, " This state of affairs could have continued … if the two divisions, South and North, of the Democratic party had not split at the last electoral convention. Since each of them carried a different dandidate, they surrendered power to a third thief, Lincoln, the Republican choice."

The secession of Southern States began with South Carolina, where tax issues had been at the forefront 30 years earlier. Contrary to what is now taught, slavery was not the primary issue. While it is unfortunate slavery existed, the blame cannot placed solely on the South; slavery existed in the North as well (it is interesting to note Delaware, a Northern slave state, refused to ratify the 13th Amendment abolishing the institution). Further, New England slavers from their homeports in Massachusetts and New York brought slaves to America in the first place!

With the election of Lincoln, the South realized northern manufacturers and bankers would have their puppet in the White House. Again Professor Adams states, "...Lincoln was supported in his bid for the presidency by the rich industrialists of the North. He was their man and he had long been their lawyer … No sooner had Congress assembled in 1861 than the high tariff was passed into law and signed by Lincoln. The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in U.S. history." Adams also notes, " Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln's high-tax policy. In 1861 the slave issue was not critical ... The leaders of the South believed secession would attract trade to Charleston, Savannah, and new Orleans, replacing Boston, New York, and Philadelphia as the chief trading ports of America, primarily because of low taxes." Note the Confederacy lowered taxes! To the charge often leveled that the newly formed Confederacy started the hostilities, Adams correctly points out " … with the import taxes, he (Lincoln) was threatening. Fort Sumter was at the entrance to the Charleston Harbor, filled with federal troops to support U.S. Customs officers. It wasn't too difficult for angry South Carolinians to fire the first shot." Again, Rothschild writing to his cousin in London in 1861 notes, " I'll come back later to the "slavery" question, which was the first pretext for secession, but which was just a pretext and is now secondary. The true reason which impelled the Southern states to secede is the question of tariffs."

Lincoln's election guaranteed a return of past disastrous policies and forced the Southern States to secede. Writers of the day confirm this. In Great Britain, many intellectuals and political leaders saw Lincoln's War for exactly what it was - a dispute over taxation. Charles Dickens writes, "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States." Dickens goes on to say " … Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." Let us quote a passage from The Northern British Review, Edinburgh, 1862, " ... All Northern products are now protected: and the Morrill Tariff is a very masterpiece of folly and injustice. No wonder then that the citizens of the seceding States should feel for half a century they have sacrificed to enhance the powers and profits of the North; and should conclude, after much futile remonstrance, that only in secession could they hope to find redress."

I shall conclude this article with a passage written by John Reagan, Postmaster General of the Confederacy. " You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, and your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights."

Jack McMillan lives with his wife and daughter in Hawaii, where he received his PhD. in Geology and Geophysics from the University of Hawaii -Manoa. The Knoxville, Tennessee native is a member of the League of the South and the Southern Party.

http://www.knowsouthernhistory.net/Articles/History/tariffs.htm

[rmvh]

Re your # 265 I'm sorry but I think you have it backwards. Subsequent to the war the southern leaders were anxious to downplay defense of slavery as their reson for rebellion. .........Source please.

"Carpetbaggers", epithet used in the South after the Civil War to describe Northerners who went to the South during Reconstruction to make money (source either google sources...just type it in...or the encylopedia).

[WhiskeyPapa]

There is so much falsehood in this post, it's hard to tell where to begin in dismantling it.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

BS statement #1

The original 13 American colonies formally dissolved ties with the British Empire due to the issue of taxation without representation.

This is obviously false, as the "ties" with the Brits were dissolved by --informal-- means -- by revolution.

The D of I, as anyone outside the League of the South will admit, is an appeal to -natural- law, not man's law.

And so was secession in 1861.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

BS statement #2

Heavy protectionist tariffs gave northern manufacturers an advantage by decreasing foreign competition, but forced the South to pay the bulk of federal taxes, as the South was a net exporter of raw goods and a net importer of manufactured products.

To the degree that southerners imported manufactured goods, they paid by far a minority of tariffs on them. The population in the southern states, was smaller for one thing. The record (which this Bozo ignores) shows that all southern ports COMBINED collected less revenue than Philadelphia.

The record, also eschewed by the author also shows that tariffs -- such as they were-- were lower in 1860 than at least since 1816, and since 1846 a "free trade" environment prevailed in this country.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

BS Statemenmt #3

the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North."

There were NO federal taxes in 1860. None, nada, zilch.

"Tariffs on Southern imports caused the friction. Could these have damaged the South to the extent that secession and civil war were justified? South Carolina, Texas and Jeff Davis' own State of Mississippi failed to mention tariffs once in the official and closely-reasoned declarations of the causes of secession they published in association with their Acts of Secession. Georgia's declaration of the causes of secession did mention the tariff irritant in passing --- but briefly and only in the context of an ancient wrong that had ultimately been righted by political compromise acceptable to the South.

Similarly, the speeches of Secessionist leaders made in late 1860 and early 1861 show almost total concentration on slavery issues, with little or no substantive discussion of current tariff issues. In any case, before the ACW, the rate of Federal taxation was tiny by today's standards. The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to a mere $56,054,000, and that included tariff revenue, proceeds from the sale of public lands, whiskey taxes and miscellaneous receipts.

The population of the whole US in 1860 was 33,443,321. Thus, total Federal taxation per year was less than $2 per person. Even if the 9,103,332 people in the soon-to-secede Southern states paid all of the Federal taxation in 1860 (which they did not), their per capita cost would still have been less than $7 for the entire year. From these inconsequential sums, another Secessionist myth has been created and sustained for 140 years --- but people do not go to war over pocket change.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states unequivocally that "No tax or duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Accordingly, not a single shipment of cotton or any other goods out of Southern ports after the US Constitution was adopted was ever put under tariff UNTIL THE CONFEDERACY DID SO BY AUTHORITY OF AN AMENDED CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING THE CONFEDERATE CONGRESS TO LEVY TARIFFS ON EXPORTS. In short, only the Confederacy ever charged tariffs on Southern cotton.

Seven states from the Deep South started the war. The four of the seven that published declarations of the causes of their secession spent the majority of their ink on frictions over slavery. None even mentioned the phrase "states' rights". South Carolina, Texas and Jeff Davis' own State of Mississippi failed entirely to mention tariffs. Georgia's declaration mentioned the tariff irritant in passing --- but briefly and only in the context of an ancient wrong that had ultimately been righted by political compromise acceptable to the South. Similarly, the speeches of Secessionist leaders made in late 1860 and early 1861 show almost total concentration on slavery issues, with little or no substantive discussion of current tariff issues. Accordingly, it is clear that non-slavery issues have been vastly overemphasized by post-war writers attempting to minimize the pro-slavery motivations of Secessionists at the outbreak of war."

-- From the AOL ACW area.

Walt

[WhiskeyPapa]

BS Statement #4

"...Lincoln was supported in his bid for the presidency by the rich industrialists of the North. He was their man and he had long been their lawyer … No sooner had Congress assembled in 1861 than the high tariff was passed into law and signed by Lincoln. The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in U.S. history."

This of couse is completely wrong.

The Morrill tariffs were passed during Buchanan's administration. Buchanan signed this bill on March 2, 1861 -- two days before Lincoln's inauguration.

See "The Emergence of Lincoln, Vol 1." by Allen Nevins, p. 546.

Walt

[AxelPaulsenJr]

Doesn't DeLorenzo drive a caddy?

[TexConfederate1861]

Excuse me, Didiot:

If you read the actual ORDINANCE...the one passed by the legislature, you will get an education:

Pasted here for the "mentally challenged linconites"


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."

WHEREAS, the Federal Government has failed to accomplish the purposes of the compact of union between these States, in giving protection either to the persons of our people upon an exposed frontier, or to the property of our citizens; and, whereas, the action of the Northern States of the Union is violative of the compact between the States and the guarantees of the Constitution; and, whereas the recent developments in Federal affairs, make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and prosperity of the people of Texas and her sister slaveholding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, our shield against outrage and aggression: THEREFORE,

SECTION 1. We, the people of the State of Texas, by Delegates in Convention assembled, do declare and ordain, that the Ordinance adopted by our Convention of Delegates, on the Fourth day of July, A.D. 1845, and afterwards ratified by us, under which the Republic of Texas was admitted into the Union with other States and became a party to the compact styled "The Constitution of the United States of America" be, and is hereby repealed and annulled; That all the powers, which by the said compact, were delegated by Texas to the Federal Government, are revoked and resumed; That Texas is of right absolved from all restraints and obligations incurred by said compact, and is a separate Sovereign State, and that her citizens and people are absolved from all allegiance to the United States, or the Government thereof.

SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be submitted to the people of Texas for their ratification or rejection by the qualified voters thereof, on the 23rd day of February, 1861, and unless rejected by a majority of the votes cast, shall take effect and be in force on and after the 2d day of March, A.D. 1861. Provided, that in the Representative District of El Paso, said election may be held on the 19th day of February, A.D. 1861.

Adopted in Convention, at Austin City, the first day of February, A.D. 1861.

Ratified February 23, 1861, by a referendum vote of 46,153 for and 14,747 against.

[SCDogPapa]

Walt,,,Thanks for your input. I posted that for information and disection. Somehow,,,I knew you would be first. :-)

[WhiskeyPapa]

BS Statement # 5

"You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, and your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights."

The tariffs, as Alexander Stephens said -- were exactly what southern men had made them. And the annual budget of the federal government was less than $2 per person in 1860. And that miniscule amount fell twice as heavily on northerners as on southerners.

Walt

[rmvh]

Re your #264

There were -no- federal taxes. None, nada, zilch. Not much of an issue, huh?

In the first place, I referred to "taxes" as being an issue in the war....In this regard, please re-read what I stated: Taxes, tarrifs, States rights, abolitionism, and Northern vs southern economic issues all contributed.....

And...for your "illumination"...Patrick Henry had predicted it long ago...The States of South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, and North Carolina were paying a large part of the nations taxes...you can read this in "Why Not Freedom"...and if you do a little research on your own.

Also take a peek at the 1860 census data or for that matter read Alexander Stephens' speech from the South Carolina Seccession Convention in which he specifically states "over 75 percent of the revenues collected to support the federal government are raised in the north"....this referring to the no taxation assertion you have made.

Nonetheless, have a very nice day

[WhiskeyPapa]

Doesn't DeLorenzo drive a caddy?

No, I'm sure I saw him cutting me off on Georgia 400 in a BMW.

Walt

[rmvh]

Re your # 263... I had stated :"Taxes, tarrifs, States rights, abolitionism, and Northern vs southern economic issues all contributed.....(to the war).

Yor reply: The record simply doesn't support that.

You are saying, for example, that the struggle over "states rights" had little to do with the civil war?.....

Well, OK,... have a nice day.

[WhiskeyPapa]

Walt,,,Thanks for your input. I posted that for information and disection.

Thanks. I had a vivid vision of vivisection.

;)

Walt

[stand watie]

what a bunch of tripe!

i favor FREEDOM for the southland, to go her own way and be free of at least the following:

1.socialist "give away" programs out of the NE.

2.publiclly funded murder of innocents.

3. promotion of every possible sexual perversion in the public schools, paid for with taxpayers money.

4. our taxes being used to fund the UN.

5.ever more NEEDLESS bureaucrats paid for by taxpayers, regulating every part of our lives.

6. our tax payments being used by the extremist, south-hating left to fund NPR & "public broadcasting" stations

7. federally mandated STUPID requirements of all sorts, which force local & state governments to do expensive actions, which we neither want nor approve of & the fed forces US to pay for.

8. being required by the federal courts to "promote diversity of opinion", which means no religious activities in ANY public place, particuliarly in schools.

on the other hand, if the southland were free the damnyankees/elitists/bureaucrats would also be FREE to be the sort of hatefilled,self-righteous, arrogant,anti-religious SOCIALIST country that the majority of the damnyankees i know seem to desire.

free dixie and THEN curse us to your heart's content.

for dixie,sw

[WhiskeyPapa]

You are saying, for example, that the struggle over "states rights" had little to do with the civil war?.....

The only state's right at issue was slavery.

Although the northern states were a little torqued off over the Fugitive Slave Act, which made a mockery of states' rights.

Walt

[stand watie]

if i DO go to hell, i'll see you there squatting by the hottest part of the fire, as i believe there is an especiallly HOT place for scalawags.

free dixie,sw