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
Well, at least you slightly right.
10/1860.....South Carolina officials agreed to pursue secession from the Union if Abraham Lincoln was elected.
Since the very beginning of the union, many northern politicians insisted upon a concept of federalism consisting of a national community of individuals with sovereignty being a national phenomenon. Southerners adhered to a model of a community of states, with the citizens in their respective states functioning as the repositories of sovereignty and thus controlling their own social and economic interests.
Many in the South believed that if the Republicans were successful in gaining control of the House of Representatives and the White House, that the election would place Northern interests in control of the national government. They would then use the government to enact and enforce their platform, which was composed of measures designed to foster Northern industrial and commercial interests.
This would convert the prosperous Southern states into poor agricultural colonies of the Northern capitalists. The Southern commitment to state sovereignty grew even stronger because they knew that if the North gained control, that their rights guaranteed in the Constitution would be subverted. They would no longer be governed with their consent, but instead bullied by the Northern majority.
Long before the secession of the slave States, it had become almost impossible, without the assistance of armed forces, to reclaim a fugitive slave openly in the free States. Fourteen of the sixteen free States had provided statutes which rendered any attempt to execute the fugitive slave act so difficult as to be practically impossible, and placed each of those States in an attitude of virtual resistance to the laws of the United States.
Mr. Toombs, in the Senate of the United States, during the session in which he withdrew from that body, referred to these laws and charged the free States with their violation of constitutional obligation, in evidence of which he produced these statutes.
At the era of secession the Constitution had not only ceased to be a protection for the rights of the slaveholder, but was hardly recognized to be binding at all. If, then, this instrument was to be relied upon by the slave States to protect them, it was only in the event that they could arm themselves with enough political power to enforce its provisions.
Therefore, truly believing that the economic, political, and sovereign interests of the States of the South were in danger, a conference of South Carolina state leaders in October of 1860 decided to secede from the Union if Lincoln were elected President. To these men, the reserved sovereign ‘right of secession’ was the only peaceable choice between the two alternatives of submission to a central government that had become the judge of its own authority, or being forced to remain in the Union under coercion by this same central government.
The Southern States were turning their backs on what they perceived as the deterioration of American constitutional federalism as originally set in place by the Founding Fathers.
Thus, the political divisions between North and South regarding constitutional issues were so great that the Constitution ceased to be the instrument of a ‘more perfect union’ and rather became the vehicle for manipulation and self-serving sectional dissension. In his farewell speech, George Washington had warned the country against this sectional dissension.
11/6/1860.....Presidential Election. Abraham Lincoln was elected President with 38% of the popular vote.
Lincoln’s election signaled the long-fought-for victory of the defunct Whig Party, the political descendants of the Federalists. Lincoln considered himself the political heir of Henry Clay, the leader of the Whigs, and had stated so in his speeches.
He would be the prime supporter of the Republican platform, which was....
5/18/1860.....The Republican Party nominated Abraham Lincoln as their candidate. The Republican platform specifically pledged not to extend slavery west, but stressed a noninterference policy regarding slavery where it already existed. It called for enactment of free-homestead legislation, mail service, a government supported transcontinental railroad, and support of a protectionist tariff. The platform defined the union as perpetual and permanent, and defined any section that would leave it as treasonous activity.
The issue of a protectionist tariff was both beneficial to some and abusive to others. Northern manufacturers welcomed it to protect their pricing and markets. The proposal in Congress was to raise the average tariff from 18.4% to 40% or higher on imports, and to expand the list of products under tariff. This would cause more than 20% price inflation on imported goods headed for Southern consumers.
...and obviously to you as well.
Abraham Lincon, September 13, 1862
What you fear, and hate, is the possibility that Southern Conservatives might actually do it again. Your nightmare is coming true. Check out, www.dixienet.org. Your false god has racist, clay feet. He was a tyrant, and we are raising our children to hate him.
Larry Salley
One of the things I learned while at UVA was that the Southern Rebellion was suppressed in 1865. Since the war is now over, "we" have no enemies. Of course, I'm not sure who you mean by "we," since my ancestors failed to take part in the Rebellion. Apparently, they were too busy getting raped by Cossaks.
FYI, a damnyankee is a south-hater, who believes everything/everybody in the north is superior in every way to ALL southerners and our institutions.
That's just silly, and I honestly hope nobody believes that. I certainly don't, and I don't know anybody who does. I think you've smoked a little too much from the paranoia pipe.
damnyankees are MADE, rather than born.
Not this year. The Angels kept them from getting past the first round.
Please, please hold your breath.
I am the first American born generation in my family. None of my ancestors from the Scottish islands owned slaves, not one. I am wanting to know where people find the moral basis to be against slavery (please remember, your people are not the only ones to have been enslaved. Israel is the prime example of a people who allowed themselves to go into bondage over and over again).
BTW, the world does not revolve around your people and their problems. IMO, it's far better to teach people how to avoid personal slavery than to keep the bitterness of centuries alive.
Also, what do you mean by saying, "..you'd hate the day you were born."? Is this a threat?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Walt
In other words, a confederacy built on hatred. A replacement for a confederacy built on slavery. How appropriate.
While no doubt teaching them to revere the memory of the racist tyrant Jefferson Davis? What sort of mixed message is that?
Bump! It's nice to see so many attempts to supress/refute the book even before publication - it's evidence that DiLorenzo hit a nerve. ;o)
Did you mean to leave off the sarcasm tag?
Actually, numerous Northern newspapers advocated that the South should not be held in a union by force, only to quickly change their mind once the south fired on Sumter.
Yeah, I had some dealings with them a few years ago. Here's an exchange from Google.com they are not able to delete:
[begin Google note]
Mr. Davis sends:
Walt,
whiskpop3@aol.com was recorded about a week ago. Just wanted you to know you are being watched. If this trend continues, the following list of email addresses you regsitered in the past will be used as evidence and be given to the proper authorities at AOL for a possible cancelation on your account.
walterm140@aol.com
lngremmbr@aol.com
rojolobo1@aol.com
cutiedomi@aol.com
volsgoone@aol.com
rubyeg@aol.com
tennfierce@aol.com
histry101@aol.com
histry1001@aol.com
histry1oo1@aol.com
unionmn17@aol.com
whiskpop@aol.com
whiskpop1@aol.com
popwhisk2@aol.com
whiskpop3@aol.com
My advice is to quit abusing the Dixie Perspective rebboard.
John Davis
Rebmaster, Dixie Perspective
Those are mostly not my ID's. I will say that every time I logged onto the Rebboard, I always got a cheery little e-mail that said "welcome to the Rebboard!" Every time. I thought my opinions were welcomed. You used to reference free speech in your listing of what the Rebboard stood for. I guess that is out the window. In fact, free speech is exactly what you DON'T want.
You yorself provide the proof of that. I'd think you'd welcome outside opinion. After all, your position that southerners acted legally and with propriety during the ACW is unassailable, right? In fact, you, as I recall, put up a note on the Rebboard about me, saying that you'd let me stay, and even soliciting the opinions of the group. Then I put up a certain piece of text, and my ID was immediately blocked.
Are you afraid of the truth? Of free speech? Of a free exchange of ideas? Doesn't the historical record back you up?
Let cut and paste the text that got my ID blocked:
"People who want to start wars should think seriously about where the war might be fought. It is generally unpleasant to have the war fought on your own territory. Secessionists were particularly unthinking in this respect, the ACW being fought almost entirely in the South, with few minor and short-term exceptions such as Lee's failed Maryland incursion in 1862, Morgan's failed Ohio raid in 1863, Lee's failed Pennsylvania incursion in 1863, and Early's arsonist raid on Chambersburg, PA in 1864.
Thus the Union had far greater opportunity to misbehave in Secessionist territory than the reverse. But Rebel forces, in the few opportunities available to them, violated the same rules and useages of war that were breached by the Union.
Thus, we Southerners are a bit hypocritical when we condemn the Union for depredations in the South --- because the Secessionists were the first of the belligerent parties to propose and glorify a Total War policy to be applied against enemy cities, populations and private property.
Both Jeff Davis and Louis Wigfall, before resigning from the US Senate to go south, threatened the burning of Northern cities and the plunder of their populations as punishment (US Senate, CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE,10 Jan. 1861).
Stonewall Jackson urged the adoption of this policy (Henderson, STONEWALL JACKSON AND THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR, London, 1898), adding that Confederate troops should fight under the "Black Flag" - no quarter, kill all prisoners - and proposing to Virginia Governor Letcher a week after Virginia's secession that he, Jackson, should set the example (Columbia, SC, DAILY SOUTH CAROLINIAN, 6 Feb. 1864). Letcher proposed in early 1862 that the Confederacy should attack Northern civilians and their public and private property, not simply to affect the enemy's armies but to punish its population for supporting the war (Letcher to Pickens, 28 April 1862. L&D Box 5, Clements Library. U. of Mich.).
From the very beginning of the war, the Secessionists' Total War policy was triumphantly endorsed by newspapers across the South, some of which were later to howl the loudest about Sherman's jaunt through Georgia. For example, thinking incorrectly that Lee was about to run rampant through Pennsylvania in 1862, the Richmond newspapers crowed "We hope that the (Confederate) troops will turn the whole country into a desert", (RICHMOND DISPATCH, 17 Sept. 1862). This sentiment was also widely reflected in Secessionist oratory and correspondence of the early-war period.
Lee's troops plundered and burned extensively in the 1863 invasion of Pennsylvania, committing acts of violence against civilians and personal property, including housebreaking, theft of money and food, and destruction of personal property. Lee's second order forbidding these practices was issued after the fact - and was again widely ignored by his troops (Royster, DESTRUCTIVE WAR, pg. 37; Knopf, 1991).
Early's burning of Chambersburg, PA, on 30 July 1864 predated Sherman's burning of Atlanta, GA. The main difference between the two events was that Atlanta was a fortified and strongly defended town holding a vast number of military installations, munitions factories and army supply depots, whereas Chambersburg was an unfortified, virtually undefended town holding nothing of any military use or value. Confederate troops left Chambersburg after more than 300 of its houses had been burned and many of its citizens robbed (Pauley, UNRECONSTRUCTED REBEL: THE LIFE OF GENERAL JOHN MCCAUSELAND CSA, Pictorial Histories Publ., 1992). Atlanta burned four days later.
In short, Grant and Sherman adopted the Secessionist policy of Total War, applied it more effectively than the Confederacy ever could, and thereby shortened an increasingly hateful and hated war. Yes, Sherman made Georgia and South Carolina howl, but for the second time. The first time Georgia and South Carolina (and Virginia) howled was for the same kind of violence to be applied against Northern cities, populations and private property. Sic Semper Sic'ems."
I didn't write this text. It was posted on an AOL board by another. But, quicker than you can say "mint julip", my access was blocked. The reason is obvious. On this issue of northern atrocities, as on most of the issues espoused by the LS, your position is bankrupt. Goodness know you can't allow free speech in your hateful hothouse. How else can you mantain the proper atmossphere for misinforation?
Mr. Davis, you need to ask me very politely to rejoin the Rebboard. Elsewise, you'l be showing the whole world, that free speech is not important to you.
[end]
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.