Posted on 01/13/2004 9:01:35 AM PST by Aurelius
Dust jackets for most books about the American Civil War depict generals, politicians, battle scenes, cavalry charges, cannons[sic] firing, photographs or fields of dead soldiers, or perhaps a battle between ironclads. In contrast our book {[url=http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2XGHOEK4JT&isbn=0842029613&itm=7]Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War Mark Thornton, Steven E. Woodworth (Editor), Robert B. Ekelund[/url]features a painting by Edgar Degas entitled the "Cotton Exchange" which depicts several calm businessmen and clerks, some of them Degas’s relatives, going about the business of buying and selling cotton at the New Orleans Cotton Exchange. The focus of this book is thus on the economic rationality of seemingly senseless events of the Civil War – a critical period in American history.
What caused the war? Why did the Union defeat the Confederacy? What were the consequences of the War? The premise of the book is that historians have a comparative advantage in describing such events, but economists have the tools to help explain these events.
We use traditional economic analysis, some of it of the Austrian and Public Choice variety, to address these principal questions and our conclusions generally run counter to the interpretations of historians. In contrast to historians who emphasize the land war and military strategy, we show that the most important battle took place at sea. One side, the blockade runners, did not wear uniforms or fire weapons at their opponents. The other side, the blockading fleet, was composed of sailors who had weapons and guns but they rarely fired their cannons in hopes of damaging their opponents. Their pay was based on the valued of captured ships. Historians often have argued that the Confederacy lost because it was overly reluctant to use government power and economic controls, but we show the exact opposite. Big Confederate government brought the Confederacy to its knees.
Some now teach that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War – an explanation that historians have developed in the twentieth century. However, this analysis does not explain why the war started in 1861 (rather than 1851 or 1841) and it fails to explain why slavery was abolished elsewhere without such horrendous carnage.
We emphasize economics and politics as major factors leading to war. The Republicans who came to power in 1860 supported a mercantilist economic agenda of protectionism, inflation, public works, and big government. High tariffs would have been a boon to manufacturing and mining in the north, but would have been paid largely by those in the export-oriented agriculture economy.
Southern economic interests understood the effects of these policies and decided to leave the union. The war was clearly related to slavery, but mainly in the sense that Republican tariffs would have squeezed the profitability out of the slave-based cotton plantation economy to the benefit of Northern industry (especially Yankee textiles and iron manufacturing). Southerners would also have lost out in terms of public works projects, government land giveaways, and inflation.
The real truth about wars is that they are not started over principle, but over power. Wars however, are not won by power on the battlefield, but by the workings and incentives of men who go to work in fields and factories, to those who transport, store and sell consumer goods, and most especially to the entrepreneurs and middlemen who make markets work and adapt to change. This emphasis and this economic account of tariffs, blockade and inflation, like the focus of Degas’s "Cotton Exchange" reveals the most important and least understood aspect of war.
WHERE does it say that?
Amendment X says EXACTLY the opposite of your assertion/
The several states have their own method, all of which involve a legislature.
Local ordinances are not laws, they do not apply to all the citizens of a state.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.The people are not bound.The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
No, history. The Texas Legislature voted to approve the actions of the secession convention.
No. Only the admission of NEW states was regulated.
No. Changes to existing states are regulated as well.
No. Please re-read the Supremacy clause.
I did, specifically clause 2.
In post 1055 you stated, “The acts of secession were legislation passed by the Texas legislature, and which violated the Constitution”. The Texas Legislature might have approved the secession act, but that does not mean it was an act of the legislature.
Approval of actions concerning the status of states was a power delegated to the United States Congress by Article IV of the Constitution.
Can you post the clause prohibiting a state from divesting itself of lands to a foreign country? Can you post the clause prohibiting a state from seceding? Can you post the clause prohibiting a state from enlarging it's borders?
I did, specifically clause 2.
Again, the people of each state are not bound by the Supremacy clause. Even then, what power has been delegated to the federal government to coerce a state official? If the public official, including the governor of the state,
'refuses to discharge this duty, there is no power delegated to the General Government, either through the Judicial Department or any other department, to use any coercive means to compel him.'
Chief Justice Taney, Kentucky v. Dennison, 65 US 66 (1860)
The first one is easy. Article I, Section 10, Clause 3: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,...enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power..." The third one is easy as well, and is covered by the same clause since adjusting borders requires agreements between the states. The second one is just as easy. While there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession, unilateral actions like leaving the Union would be prohibited since Congressional approval is necessary for changing the status of a state.
Again, the people of each state are not bound by the Supremacy clause.
They are, but more specifically their legislatures are. And legislation passed by Texas in support of secession, and in support of the rebellion, was unconstitutional.
A citizen of the state could sell land to a citizen of a foreign state of nation. The state could pass legislation removing the area from it's jurisdiction. No agreement of compact with another state necessary. Borders reduced or enlaged, Congress out of the loop.
While there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits secession, unilateral actions like leaving the Union would be prohibited since Congressional approval is necessary for changing the status of a state.
Congressional approval is necessary for adding NEW states, forming a NEW state 'within the Jurisdiction of any other State', or forming a NEW state 'by the Junction of two or more States' [a merger], or forming a NEW state from 'parts of States.' There is nothing, like you stated, in the Constitution that prohibits secession.
They are, but more specifically their legislatures are. And legislation passed by Texas in support of secession, and in support of the rebellion, was unconstitutional.
No. The people of each state are not bound by the supremacy clause. They are not ALL 'Members of the several State Legislatures', nor all 'executive and judicial Officers' of the state. The state of Texas did NOT pass legislation seceding from the union, the people of the state of Texas in convention seceded from the union.
LOL! But can you point to a clause that binds the people of the state to support the Constitution?
This raises two questions:
1. Why then did the Founders not mention secession when laying out parameters for admission, dividing into two or more new states, etc.? Why would they be so explicit regarding the incoming and division, but silent (yet implicit in your honest opinion) about the outgoing?
2. Secession is not addressed explicitly in the United States Constitution, but you present secession as not being prohibited by the document (which it most certainly is not), and then you string the implicit nature of its legality further by noting a Constitutional distinction between unilateral and multilateral secession. If you (and supporters of the act) can imply secession as a right of a state by saying its not prohibited (and supporters would also invoke the Tenth Amendment to further bolster their argument), how (without citing Article IV Section 3) can you then imply a Constitutional distinction between the two forms of secession (and I say without citing Article IV Section 3 because it is explicit on admission, etc., yet silent on secession)?
To deny the states a right to secede when they feel their rights have been denied or abused is to negate Article IV Section 4's guarantee that:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
because the states would then be at the mercy of the federal Supreme Court with no other recourse for satisfaction in a dispute. If no reconciliation is possible in a dispute, then the state must be allowed to leave on its own volition or else its people are reduced to being subjects instead of remaining citizens.
Not legally, no. Doing what you suggest would violate the Constitution.
Congressional approval is necessary for adding NEW states, forming a NEW state 'within the Jurisdiction of any other State', or forming a NEW state 'by the Junction of two or more States' [a merger], or forming a NEW state from 'parts of States.' There is nothing, like you stated, in the Constitution that prohibits secession.
Congressional approval is required for any change in status. That would include secession.
No. The people of each state are not bound by the supremacy clause. They are not ALL 'Members of the several State Legislatures', nor all 'executive and judicial Officers' of the state. The state of Texas did NOT pass legislation seceding from the union, the people of the state of Texas in convention seceded from the union.
Yes. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any actions taken by the Texas legislature supporting illegal secession, and an legislation passed supporting the rebellion, were illegal.
No. Please post the revelent clause prohibiting a citizen from purchasing/selling real estate.
Congressional approval is required for any change in status. That would include secession.
No. Please cite the revelent clause requiring Congress to approve the sale/purchase of land, the clause requiring a state to seek approval to cede/sell/purchase lands. Please cite the revelent section of the Constitution prohibiting secession.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any actions taken by the Texas legislature supporting illegal secession, and an legislation passed supporting the rebellion, were illegal.
Nonsense. What came first, the states or the federal government? Which came first, the state governments or the people? The people are sovereign, possessors of certain inalienable rights, 'whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.'
The Constitution has no prohibition against the people of the state changing their form of government.
The federal Constitution has no prohibition against the people resuming their delegated powers, it has an EXPLICT reservation to the powers 'powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it'.
Bump for honesty!
If no reconciliation is possible in a dispute, then the state must be allowed to leave on its own volition or else its people are reduced to being subjects instead of remaining citizens.
Unreconstructed bump.
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.