The Economics of the Civil War

LewRockwell.com ^ | January 13, 2004 | Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund

[Non-Sequitur]

"Big Confederate government brought the Confederacy to its knees" bump.

[Jokelahoma]

"Big Confederate government brought the Confederacy to its knees" bump

All well and good, but I think the real question here is "Did Stonewall Jackson own slaves?" (fleeing as fast as my feet will carry me....)

[Non-Sequitur]

All well and good, but I think the real question here is "Did Stonewall Jackson own slaves?" (fleeing as fast as my feet will carry me....)

No, the question is whether Thomas Jackson's slaves were financially impacted by the Morril Tariff.

[Aurelius]

Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War Mark Thornton, Steven E. Woodworth (Editor), Robert B. Ekelund

[sheltonmac]

*ping*

[Aurelius]

The Morril Tariff?

[untenured]

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.

It wasn't abolished everywhere at that time, of course, and sometimes when it was (e.g., Haiti) there was violence involved. Robert Fogel, in Without Consent or Contract, contends that had the Confederacy survived slavery would've persisted for decades not just there but in Brazil and the other places it still existed in 1865 as well.

[ClearCase_guy]

I sanyone watching the new PBS series on "Reconstruction"? It's pretty typical stuff:

They went to great lengths to say that Andrew Johnson hated the rich plantation owners, but did not explain why his version of Reconstruction heavily benefited the rich southern whites. They didn't really explain the differences in the parties that led Lincoln (Republican) to free the slaves, and Johnson (Democrat) to try to disenfranchise the freed slaves. Also glossed over various unconstitutional aspects. I believe one condition of re-admittance to the Union was ratification of the 14th Amendment. Well, that's ONE way to get three-fourths of the states to ratify an amendment!

Reconstruction is a difficult topic and no one comes out smelling great, but PBS pretty much presented it as "Blacks=victims, Whites=evil". Big surprise.

[proxy_user]

Revisionist BS. Do you really think men will fight and die over tarriff policy? Men will fight to preserve their families, their culture, and their way of life.

If you look at the events leading up to the Civil War--the rioting in Boston, the fighting in Kansas, the demented activities of John Brown--in every case, slavery is the issue. Both the South and the North knew this, even though they tried to wrap themselves in more uplifting propoganda.

[dixierat22]

Gee, the Boston Tea Party and American Revolution of 1776 come to mind. The Whiskey Rebellion under Washingtons administration, also. While slavery was a major issue, it was not the only issue.

[Aurelius]

Thank you for you opinion. Who knows? You might even be right.

[stainlessbanner]

bump

[JohnGalt]

Some people fight and die over "regime change", so I am not sure I buy your premise.

[stainlessbanner]

bump

[Arthur McGowan]

Why did you insert "sic" after "cannons"?

[stainlessbanner]

The real truth about wars is that they are not started over principle, but over power.

Good point.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Morril Tariff?

Yeah, it was proposed by Seymore Morril, Whig from Montana. It was voted down in 1860 in favor of the Morrill Tariff.

[Aurelius]

Because the plural of "cannon" is "cannon"; hearing it or reading it with the "s" on the end particularly grates on my ear. Just indulging a personal peeve.

[stand watie]

cannon is BOTH singular & plural, though it is frequently an un-used plural form.

free dixie,sw