Evidence Builds for DeLorenzo's Lincoln

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.

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

"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.

His actions definately moved in that direction...

That is utter nonsense.

Hitler says in 1939 that Germany cannot stand a long war with Britain and France, but then at some point (you would suggest) later decides Germany can conquer the world.

You're worse than stand watie.

And as usual, we have only your opinion ---where are your sources?

Walt

Look everybody. He's still at it! Here are some more Walt responses to that same statement of mine posted above...
"Laughably false, like almost everything you post."
"I can't believe you are spouting this absolute nonsense. Hitler --never-- had plans for world conquest."

Yeah. That's right Walt. World War II never happened. Hitler never tried to conquer the rest of us. It was all a giant conspiracy acted out in a secret bunker-based movie studio under the Area 51...just like the JFK assassination, the moon landing, and the 9/11 attacks...oh wait...no...that last one was real...it had to be, because George Bush orchestrated it all. It's all just like you said. Right Walt? Right?

Hitler says in 1939 that Germany cannot stand a long war with Britain and France

And in light of what happened in 1940, its evident that sure lasted long! but then at some point (you would suggest) later decides

No later decision Walt. It was implicit in the hegelian direction of National Socialist political theory throughout Hitler's career and indeed dating back to its development in the 1910's.

Germany can conquer the world.

That conquest must be conducted in steps in order to succeed in no way precludes the accumulation of territories far beyond that which is achieved in any given single step. Surely you know that, Walt, or are you truly as ignorant of military history and war theory as your downright idiotic comments suggest?

where are your sources?

For the roots of National Socialist political theory, consult the following for starters

'Marx und Hegel' (1911) by Johann Plenge
'Haendler und Helden' (1915) by Werner Sombart
'Mitteleuropa' (1915) by Friedrich Naummann

That should get you started for now. After it we can move into pre-WWII German political literature...er...since you deny WWII happened let's call it 1920's German literature.

All eleven Confederate states published declarations of secession, every word of which was a defense of SLAVERY -- not a word about tariffs or states rights or anything else

That is simply not true. All 11 confederate states and 2 rump conventions in border states published what they called "Ordinances of Secession." Not one of them mentions a thing about slavery beyond a geographical reference.

In addition to the 11 Ordinances, which every confederate state published, the membership of the conventions of four states (Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina) drafted legislative resolutions listing certain causes. These four documents were very heavily pro-slavery, but not entirely devoted to the issue. The tariff issue was listed briefly in the Texas legislative resolution. Georgia's legislators talked about the tariff issue at length in multiple paragraphs.

Tariffs had not been a political issue for decades by 1860.

Not true. The issue emerged in the wake of the 1857-59 recession, which economists tend to blame on world financial disruptions caused in the wake of the Crimean war, but which protectionists at the time blamed on low tariff prices.

By 1860 the protectionists were advancing new tariffs in Congress with full force. By May the House had passed the Morrill Act on a strictly sectional vote. The GOP platform adopted protectionism as a major plank and their candidate, The Lincoln, advocated a new tariff hike, all of this before a single state seceded.

If any one wants to subscribe or can find "Economic Inquiry" at a university library, a critique would be appreciated.

I picked up a copy of it today from a library. It essentially makes three points.

First - they argue that the south recognized how a rudimentary concept of the Laffer curve worked when it came to taxation. They argue that the concept was at least known prior to the war, and that it made its way into confederate policy, confederate tariffs, and the confederate constitution. Their evidence is mostly a matter of referenced fact.

Second - they argue the theory of the laffer curve and how it would apply in the case of the tariff issue. This part is economic theory.

Third - they argue that the tariff issue was more prominent in secession's causes than many historians hold and point to various events demonstrating this. Among the items they point to are historical tariff rates spiking upward after the Morrill bill, the actuality of the Morrill bill's pre-war introduction and the clear sectional split over it in the House before the election, the GOP and northern endorsement of the tariff, and the tariff issue's prominence during the drafting of the confederate constitution. This last part is based heavily on notes and letters about the drafting by one of the delegates.

The article does not conclusively declare the tariff to be the sole issue nor did it ever intend to. It does demonstrate that it was an issue, some of the economic implications of it as an issue, and reason for its greater consideration as a cause in secession than has been afforded in recent years.

A little known but not seriously disputed fact is that the future President Lincoln was born in 1804, not 1809, and in North Carolina, not in Kentucky, Indiana, or Illinois.

His biological father was named Abraham Enloe, and the Enloe family paid their employee Tom Lincoln to marry their [mestizo=Euro-Amerindian mixed race] servant girl Nancy Hanks and remove her and her then four-year-old child from Rutherford County, NC, to Kentucky.

Tom Lincoln did give himself out to be Abe's father, but soon remarried after the suspiciously early death of Nancy soon after the arrival in Kentucky. Never successful at anything, this Tom Lincoln, a hard and skillful worker when sober, had drinking and gambling problems and never took much interest in Abe.

Lincoln admitted this in his 1856 campaign against Douglas. Among other things that it explains, is his prodigious doing of a man's hard frontier work at the alleged age of 13, and the like. Lawyer at supposed 19, and the like.

The true Lincoln birthplace, regardless of the bogus Federal tourist site in Kentucky, is still known locally as Lincoln Hill today and is located about l mile north of the village of Bostic in Rutherford County, NC, which is some 3 miles NE of Forest City, NC, and some 7 miles east of the county seat at Rutherfordton.

Interestingly enough, this also would imply that Lincoln was at least some one-eighth-to-one-quarter Cherokee Indian by blood, as well as the son of a Southern planter and agricultural pioneer who [by the 1804 era] owned some 100 (black) slaves as well as employing some 200 white and part-Indian free laborers on his three farms.

To the degree that southerners imported manufactured goods, they paid by far a minority of tariffs on them.

That is simply not so, Walt. Economic trade theory dictates the inseparable relationship of imports and exports. The south accounted for some 2/3rds to 3/4ths of the nation's exports during the pre-war period. It is therefore idiocy to suggest that a protectionist import tariff would not affect them in a significant way and likely place most of the burden on their back.

The record (which this Bozo ignores) shows that all southern ports COMBINED collected less revenue than Philadelphia.

That's nice but wholly irrelevant. By definition it is not the object of a PROTECTIONIST tariff to collect REVENUE. The bulk cost of a PROTECTIONIST tariff is, by that tariff's very nature, felt elsewhere than to the small ammounts of revenue it happens to bring in.

The record, also eschewed by the author also shows that tariffs -- such as they were-- were lower in 1860 than at least since 1816,

Yet all that changed by 1861 thanks to several victories scored by the the protectionists in 1860 well before secession started.

and since 1846 a "free trade" environment prevailed in this country.

Not entirely. Free trade tax policy prevailed until the Morrill Act came into effect in 1861. Free trade sentiment also prevailed between the late 1840's and 1857. A recession in 1857 gave a rebirth to protectionists who, although erronious, blamed the economy's downturn on free trade and were able to draw enough political support on it to reinstate protectionism. The House passed the Morrill bill on strictly sectional lines in May 1860, setting it all into motion. By the time The Lincoln, a staunch protectionist, was elected the movement was in full force.

where are your sources?
For the roots of National Socialist political theory, consult the following for starters.

That won't do. You post the text that supports your premise in this thread-- the way I do.

The fact is that you won't find any text, either from Hitler's mouth or from any historian, that says Hitler tried to take over the world, because he never dreamed of such a thing.

"Hitler's goal was Napoleonic: to establish a German Continental System under the aegis of Germany. Also, his means were not far removed from the great emperor: to liberate Germany from the shackles of intermational loan-capitalism, to unite all Germanic peoples into the Third Reich, and to establish in Eastern Europe what he called the German lebensraum (living space) which he considered as sessential to the economic security of Germany as Napoleon had considereded the Confederation of the Rhine essential to the strategic security of France."

--"A Military History of the Western World" Vol III, p. 368, by General J.F.C. Fuller

I have now provided three different sources for my statements regarding Hitler and his plans for world domination. Such plans never existed.

All you have done is run your mouth.

But don't worry, the lurkers will give you a free pass.

Walt

To the degree that southerners imported manufactured goods, they paid by far a minority of tariffs on them.

That is simply not so, Walt. Economic trade theory dictates the inseparable relationship of imports and exports.

Big deal. The record shows that 75% of the tariff revenue was collected in northern ports. That is where 75% of the consumers were. Theory doesn't matter.

Any one who -will- see, -can- see that the way you seek to distort the perception of these events is as lame as lame can be.

Walt

Hitler says in 1939 that Germany cannot stand a long war with Britain and France

And in light of what happened in 1940, its evident that sure lasted long!

Yeah, that is ultimately why he blew his brains out.

You're still suggesting that having stumbled into a war with Britain and France that he didn't want, he had a cup of tea at the Berghof and determined on world domination. This after he had told his generals that Germany couldn't even stand a long European war.

It's nonsense.

Anyone who will be honest will find anything you say to be pretty suspect in light of the position you hold on Hitler and world domination.

In fact, everything you say is not only suspect, it is ridiculous.

Walt

all i remember for SURE is i ran into a NUMBER of racist, hateful quotes about the minorities & "muddy coloured people" by lincoln when i was in grad school at Tulane. it was in a dissertation on lincoln's private letters to friends.

But again no supporting information. No quotes, no dates, no details whatsoever. You expect us to take it on faith alone that you are correct. You, whose blind hatred of all things Northern is displayed om a daily basis. Sorry if I'm just a wee bit skeptical.

Of course you can make the specious claim that Trotskyism isn't socialism, but very few people are buying your stuff as it is.

You never heard of the Wobblies?

From a phamplet of 1924 called "One Big Union":

"The workers of the world, conscious of their historic mission, will learn to avoid the mistakes they would make should they depend on other forces than their own industrial power for the solution of the world's problem. Agencies and institutions deriving their lease of life from the industrial masters of today cannot be looked to for support. They may feign being in favor of radical changes in the effects. They will, however, strenuously, even violently oppose any attempt at destroying the base, or the cause. They will strive to perpetuate the wages system at all costs.

The working class alone is interested in the removal of industrial inequality, and that can only be accomplished by a revolution of the industrial system. The workers, in their collectivity, must take over and operate all the essential industrial institutions, the means of production and distribution, for the well-being of all the human elements comprising the international wealth producers."

http://jdcrutch.home.mindspring.com/i/obu-iww.htm

Socialism, it its purest form, is international in nature, and by definition precludes nationalism.

Walt

Which leaves you the proclaim loudly that every socialist nation on the planet today...is in fact fascist by writ of the simple fact that socialism *isn't* international.

It's really quite amusing.

The IWW was a real organization and a force in labor in this country for a couple of decades about 80 years ago. Several of its leaders were lynched. The Wobblies definitely talked about a brotherhood of all workers worldwide.

What is amusing is your denial of the plain record.

Is socialism isn't international today, it is because some of its proponents couldn't make work it worldwide. But they did try.

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.