[Fwd: Re: Bridge to a little more than nowhere]

[Earl Maltz]

I believe that this is an oversimplification.  My impression is that, 
during the Jacksonian period, the basic line of demarcation on issues 
unrelated to slavery was between Whigs and Democrats, rather than between 
North and South.

At 02:11 PM 11/11/2005 -0500, Ilya Somin wrote:


>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: Bridge to a little more than nowhere
>Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:10:08 -0500
>From: Ilya Somin <mailto:isomin at gmu.edu><isomin at gmu.edu>
>To: Barksdale, Yvette <mailto:7barksda at jmls.edu><7barksda at jmls.edu>
>References: 
><mailto:B365BC43766C2A4B96938CD7F3D2CAC10125C54F at CORONA.JMLS.EDU><B365BC43766C2A4B96938CD7F3D2CAC10125C54F at CORONA.JMLS.EDU> 
>
>
>
>
>It's a good question. I would look up some of the literature on John C.
>Calhoun, who in the 1810s and 1820s favored federal funding for
>infrastructure projects in the South and was indeed an ally of Henry
>Clay's on these issues (at that time).. He became more skeptical later
>in his career when he began to worry about the use of federal power to
>undermine slavery. THe key  general point here,  is that the antebellum
>southerners usually were pro-federalism only in instances where slavery
>might be undermined.  In other cases, most notably the Fugitive Slave
>Act and in cases like Ableman v.  Booth, they favored broad federal
>power to protect slaveowners' interests.
>
>
>
>Barksdale, Yvette wrote:
>
> >Ilya Somin writes:
> >
> >"southern state governments in the Jim Crow and antebellum eras were 
> certainly not averse to receiving federal funds, especially if they could 
> control their distribution."
> >
> >Hi Ilya:
> >
> >I agree this is clearly so with the post-civil war Jim Crow era. But was 
> this also so during the antebellum era? I thought Southern States were 
> vehemently opposed to such infrastructure spending pre-civil war. I would 
> be interested in knowing more about the kinds of projects they supported, 
> if you have some examples.
> >
> >yb
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: <mailto:isomin at gmu.edu>isomin at gmu.edu [mailto:isomin at gmu.edu]
> >Sent: Fri 11/11/2005 1:23 AM
> >To: Barksdale, Yvette
> >Cc: Jerry O'Neil; 
> <mailto:conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu>conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >Subject: Re: RE: Bridge to a little more than nowhere
> >
> >
> >
> >Actually, the 10th Amendment places few if any limits on the spending 
> power. That was supposed to be the job of the General Welfare Clause.
> >
> >Be that as it may, southern state governments in the Jim Crow and 
> antebellum eras were certainly not averse to receiving federal funds, 
> especially if they could control their distribution. Indeed, federal 
> subsidization of state governments actually is one of the forces that 
> helped reduce their vulnerability to the "outside market pressures" 
> Yvette Barksdale refers too. The more a state can support itself through 
> federal financing, the less it has to cater to market forces in order to 
> attract businesses and taxpayers. Jim Crow-era Southern political leaders 
> understood this well and that is one of the reasons why they worked so 
> hard to put their congressmen and senators in positions of power on the 
> relevant congressional committees.
> >
> >As for redistribution to the poor, the federal government can accomplish 
> it simply by giving money to the relevant poor people directly, which is 
> the means favored by most economists, libertarian and otherwise. If the 
> money is funneled through the state government, this increases the risk 
> that some of the funds will be "captured" by politically influential 
> wealthy people in the state or by the state government bureaucracy. For a 
> good short discussion of these issues, see Wallace E. Oates' classic 
> book, Fiscal Federalism (1975).
> >
> >
> >Finally, very few if any libertarians favor "tax breaks for special 
> economic interests." Most if not all libertarians favor having the same 
> (low) tax rate for all income, regardless of how that income is generated.
> >
> >Ilya Somin
> >Assistant Professor of Law
> >George Mason University School of Law
> >3301 Fairfax Dr.
> >Arlington, VA 22201
> >ph: 703-993-8069
> >fax: 703-993-8202
> >e-mail: <mailto:isomin at gmu.edu>isomin at gmu.edu
> >Website: <http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/>http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>--
>Ilya Somin
>Assistant Professor of Law
>George Mason University School of Law
>3301 N. Fairfax Dr.
>Arlington, VA 22201
>ph: 703-993-8069
>fax: 703-993-8202
>e-mail: <mailto:isomin at gmu.edu>isomin at gmu.edu
>Website: <http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/>http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
>
>
>
>
>--
>Ilya Somin
>Assistant Professor of Law
>George Mason University School of Law
>3301 N. Fairfax Dr.
>Arlington, VA 22201
>ph: 703-993-8069
>fax: 703-993-8202
>e-mail: <mailto:isomin at gmu.edu>isomin at gmu.edu
>Website: 
><http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/>http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.