Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Miscellaneous
 »
History
 »
Abraham Lincoln the Dictator

Abraham Lincoln the Dictator

This post has 7 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210
Reply
BrianAnderson Posted: Thu, Jul 8 2010 6:19 PM

I always hear Abraham Lincoln was like a dictator and trampled on the Constitution. Besides how he didn't allow the southern states to secede without waging war against them, what else did he do that 'trampled on the Constitution'? I heard he suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War. Other things like that...?

Not Ranked
Posts 8
Points 145
Reply
trigli replied on Thu, Jul 8 2010 9:03 PM

Approved the seperation of West Virginia's separation from Virginia despite the constitution's provision that "no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress." Article 4 Section 3

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,879
Points 29,735
Reply
Bostwick replied on Thu, Jul 8 2010 9:16 PM

Expelled to the southern States a member of the federal legistature.

The OP reminds me a popular saying:

Lincoln caused the most dramatic political change this country has seen since the revolution (restructuring its government on a basis other than the voluntary ratification of the Consitution) and killing more Americans than all  its other wars combined.  But besides that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Peace

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Reply
Bogart replied on Thu, Jul 8 2010 9:25 PM

He ordered the arrest of the legislators in Maryland to prevent their vote for succession.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,687
Points 22,990
Reply
Bogart replied on Thu, Jul 8 2010 9:28 PM

This stuff is all bad but lets go back to the start of the Second American War for Independence.  That is Lincoln risked succession and armed rebellion not to free a race of people, but to enforce protective tariffs on the Southern United States.  He was willing to have states suceeed and go to war with them where the results were devastating and tragic over a tariff designed to protect Northern State Industry against British and French competition.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,434
Points 29,210
Reply
BrianAnderson replied on Thu, Jul 8 2010 9:56 PM

He ordered the arrest of the legislators in Maryland to prevent their vote for succession.

That's interesting. I'd never heard that before. Amazing what we don't learn in school.

and killing more Americans than all  its other wars combined. 

Is that statistic true? I'd heard that, but I wasn't sure if more people were really killed in the Civil War alone than all other wars we've had.

That is Lincoln risked succession and armed rebellion not to free a race of people 

Can you explain this point a little better? I'm kind of confused about the protective tariffs and stuff you're talking about.

 

Did the states have the right to secede for the reason of not wanting to abolish slavery, though? I'd clearly understand if it were for anything besides slavery, but slavery doesn't really give allow for the three inalienable rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 130
Points 2,010
Reply
WisR replied on Thu, Jul 8 2010 10:37 PM

This is the last couple of pages from Chapter 4 of How Capitalism Saved America: The Untold History of Our Country, from the Pilgrims to the Present by Thomas J. DiLorenzo:

Thomas J. DiLorenzo 

 

Perhaps the clearest example of how the founders’ system of dual sovereignty was used to defeat mercantilism and preserve a more or less free-market economy was South Carolina’s “nullification” of the so-called Tariff of Abominations in 1832. In 1825 the South Carolina legislature condemned the entire Hamiltonian/mercantilist agenda in what historian Chauncey Boucher calls “a set of anti-bank, anti-internal improvement [i.e., anti-corporate subsidy], and anti-tariff resolutions.”28 Three years later, under the leadership of Representative Henry Clay of Kentucky, the U.S. Congress raised the average tariff rate to almost 50 percent, with the tax on some items, such as woolen cloth, approaching 200 percent. Trade-dependent South Carolina, which, like most other southern states at the time, was an agricultural society that manufactured very little for itself, saw this as potentially devastating economically. Not only would imported clothing, shoes, tools, and other items become much more expensive, but also, since South Carolinians exported most of what they produced and had to compete in foreign markets, they would not be able to pass on much, if any, of these higher costs to their customers. In other words, they interpreted the tariff as an act of economic exploitation that would benefit only northern manufacturers, who would be protected from competition, mostly at their (South Carolinians’) expense. Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama joined South Carolina in condemning the tariff.
 
 
In November of 1832 South Carolina adopted an “ordinance of nullification” declaring the Tariff of Abominations to be “null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers, or citizens” and refused to collect the increased tariff.29 The federal government was forced to back down, and a lower compromise tariff rate was adopted. Once again, the citizens of the states were successful in resisting mercantilist exploitation and defending economic freedom and capitalism, in the spirit of the American Revolution. By 1857, the average tariff rate had been reduced to a mere 15 percent.
 
 
Yet the tariff issue arose again when the Republican Party gained influence in the late 1850s. In the 1859–1860 session of the House of Representatives, the Republicans fought for the Morrill Tariff, which would more than double the average tariff rate. The debate over the Morrill Tariff was a replay of the Tariff of Abominations episode some thirty years earlier. The main proponents of the tariff were northern manufacturers and unions, whereas the vast majority of the opposition came from the trade-dependent southern states. Eighty-seven percent of northern congressmen voted for the Morrill Tariff, but only 12.5 percent of southern congressmen did.30 The U.S. Senate passed the Morrill Tariff just days before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, a staunch protectionist for his entire political career who supported it.
 
 
Although the American Revolution was fought in large part as a revolt against the stifling mercantilist policies of the British government, and although the founders had specifically aimed to guarantee economic liberties to the citizens, it was at this point that effective political opposition to mercantilism in America ended. By the second year of the Lincoln administration the average tariff rate had more than tripled, to over 47 percent, and it remained that high or higher for most of the next fifty years. During the War Between the States, the National Currency Acts cemented central banking into place, and the federal government granted vast subsidies to railroad corporations, which led other industries to lobby feverishly for similar subsidies in the following decades.31 The revolt against mercantilism that commenced with the Revolutionary generation was ended, and Hamiltonian mercantilism has prevailed, in varying degrees, ever since.
Perhaps the clearest example of how the founders’ system of dual sovereignty was used to defeat mercantilism and preserve a more or less free-market economy was South Carolina’s “nullification” of the so-called Tariff of Abominations in 1832. In 1825 the South Carolina legislature condemned the entire Hamiltonian/mercantilist agenda in what historian Chauncey Boucher calls “a set of anti-bank, anti-internal improvement [i.e., anti-corporate subsidy], and anti-tariff resolutions.”28 Three years later, under the leadership of Representative Henry Clay of Kentucky, the U.S. Congress raised the average tariff rate to almost 50 percent, with the tax on some items, such as woolen cloth, approaching 200 percent. Trade-dependent South Carolina, which, like most other southern states at the time, was an agricultural society that manufactured very little for itself, saw this as potentially devastating economically. Not only would imported clothing, shoes, tools, and other items become much more expensive, but also, since South Carolinians exported most of what they produced and had to compete in foreign markets, they would not be able to pass on much, if any, of these higher costs to their customers. In other words, they interpreted the tariff as an act of economic exploitation that would benefit only northern manufacturers, who would be protected from competition, mostly at their (South Carolinians’) expense. Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama joined South Carolina in condemning the tariff.
 
 
In November of 1832 South Carolina adopted an “ordinance of nullification” declaring the Tariff of Abominations to be “null, void, and no law, nor binding upon this State, its officers, or citizens” and refused to collect the increased tariff.29 The federal government was forced to back down, and a lower compromise tariff rate was adopted. Once again, the citizens of the states were successful in resisting mercantilist exploitation and defending economic freedom and capitalism, in the spirit of the American Revolution. By 1857, the average tariff rate had been reduced to a mere 15 percent.
 
 
Yet the tariff issue arose again when the Republican Party gained influence in the late 1850s. In the 1859–1860 session of the House of Representatives, the Republicans fought for the Morrill Tariff, which would more than double the average tariff rate. The debate over the Morrill Tariff was a replay of the Tariff of Abominations episode some thirty years earlier. The main proponents of the tariff were northern manufacturers and unions, whereas the vast majority of the opposition came from the trade-dependent southern states. Eighty-seven percent of northern congressmen voted for the Morrill Tariff, but only 12.5 percent of southern congressmen did.30 The U.S. Senate passed the Morrill Tariff just days before the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln, a staunch protectionist for his entire political career who supported it.
 
 
Although the American Revolution was fought in large part as a revolt against the stifling mercantilist policies of the British government, and although the founders had specifically aimed to guarantee economic liberties to the citizens, it was at this point that effective political opposition to mercantilism in America ended. By the second year of the Lincoln administration the average tariff rate had more than tripled, to over 47 percent, and it remained that high or higher for most of the next fifty years. During the War Between the States, the National Currency Acts cemented central banking into place, and the federal government granted vast subsidies to railroad corporations, which led other industries to lobby feverishly for similar subsidies in the following decades.31 The revolt against mercantilism that commenced with the Revolutionary generation was ended, and Hamiltonian mercantilism has prevailed, in varying degrees, ever since.
 
From this it's pretty clear that northern manufacturers were using political means to exploit Southerners in general (and probably the average Northerner as well).  
 
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,879
Points 29,735
Reply
Bostwick replied on Mon, Jul 12 2010 3:18 PM

Is that statistic true? I'd heard that, but I wasn't sure if more people were really killed in the Civil War alone than all other wars we've had.

More Americans.

The American deaths in the civil war outnumber the American deaths in all other wars to present.

Peace

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (8 items) | RSS