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.
I certainly do not like the fact that an avoidable war occurred that killed some 600,000 Americans.
Seward was very influential player. Before 1860, he had a lot more national noteriety than Lincoln did. As Secretary of State, early on, he tried to "play" Lincoln.
Seward's big foreign policy idea was to force a war with Great Britain and thereby unite the American people. I don't know if history records what Lincoln thought of this idea specifically. Surely he thought it was totally cracked.
Walt
Lincoln addressed this, although discussing another subject.
"I did understand however that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving by every indispensible means, that government--that nation--of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensible to to the preservation of the of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it..."
The issue of whether the president may or may not suspend the writ has not been definitively answered to this day.
Walt
"Firing on that fort will inaugurate a civil war greater than any the world has yet seen...At this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend in the North...You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountains to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary; it put us in the wrong; it is fatal." - Robert Toombs to Jefferson Davis, April 1861
It looks like Lincoln wasn't the only one to go against the advice of their Secretary of State. Presidents are in office to make decisions, and not do exactly what their cabinet wants them to do. Lincoln listened to his cabinet, let them debate the issue, but in the end he did what he thought was the right thing to do.
And what would have happened had the Davis regime refused to take the bait and not oppened fire? If they had allowed food to be landed at Sumter? What would the outcome of all that have been? In your opinion, of course.
Hostile actions on the part of the confederacy and the Commonwealth of Virginia predated both of those dates. The first hostile action occured on December 27, 1860 when the South Carolina militia seized federal property in Charleston. It continued through the following months: seizing arsenals, forts, mints, post offices, government property of all types. It included firing on the Star of the West. It only culminated in the firing on Sumter.
In Virginia militia forces were on the way to seize the arsenal at Harper's Ferry even before the vote on secession, and weeks before the exchange of gunfire on March 9th.
It takes two to tango, as they say. Should not some of your anger be directed at the Davis regime for not avoiding the war that you claim Lincoln was instigating? Or was Davis just too stupid to see through Lincon's trap?
Oh yes, the benevolent victors. What do you have to say about the 12 years of post-war hatred and oppression by the radical republicans - like Stevens? The people probably didn't want that either. Treason trials very well may have prevented any re-union. And there is no codified law that says that secession is unconstitutional or illegal. You need codified law to have a trial like that. There was none. If you say there was, then cite it.
That's a laugh. It was the federal armies that ran time after time. McDowell, Pope (the miscreant), Burnside, Hooker - all went scurrying back with their tail between their legs. Both sides had plenty of deserters, but it is remarkable to view Lee's barefooted scarecrows - outnumberd 3 to 1 administering defeat after defeat on the union armies. Washington was trembling at the specter of Jackson marching on it (which he wanted to do!). Very early in the war, Jackson (the most brilliant general in the civil war by most opinions) wanted to take the war to the enemy - Davis would not allow it. It's only speculation, but if Jackson had been allowed to do this early in the war, I believe he would have wreaked havoc on northern states with his maneuver warfare, and the outcome of the war may have been different.
Forced union is contrary to the principles of Christian self-government and voluntary union. The idea of union began with the Puritans in 1643. Union is based on the principle of brotherly love, and when it is forced from above, it becomes tyranny. That's my opinion. But then, a central govt. naturally seeks more power for itself, as we have seen the behemoth grow to epic proportions of late, to a point where federalism is virtually dead.
Tell that to Lincoln to followed no written law when he suspended Habeus Corpus. Does the law apply only when it is convenient? Apparently so. Tell that to the judges today who constantly trample the Free Exercise rights of its citizens. We are a nation of laws not men who can arbitarily do whatever they want or selectively enforce whatever laws they want.
I really don't care what you think to tell you the truth. I know where you are coming from, and I don't care about your opinions about the south. The north committed many evils. That is a plain fact. So spare me your diatribes against the evil south.
Unlike you, I realize that the north was not pure as the driven snow. They were evil in many respects. Need a list? Lincoln, in his 2nd inaugural, even suggested that the judgement of God fell on the ENTIRE NATION, not just the south.
Ridiculous statement. The founders had no arms and no ships when they broke from the most powerful nation on earth. They had no chance to win! Yet, they did win because THEY PUT THEIR TRUST IN GOD, and clearly, they believed that GOD won the Revolution for them, as Washington and Franklin and the Congress declared.
The civil war was not a noble war. It was the result of the failure of the founders to deal with slavery in 1787. They made a big mistake, and the nation paid for its transgressions in blood. Lincoln said the judgment of God fell on the ENTIRE NATION and obviously it did. The north suffered greatly during the war, albeit not as much as the south.
No, it wasn't just the north, but it speaks to the hypocrisy of their so-called principled stand against the oppression of slaves, doesn't it? Yes, no way around it. And it was former northern generals who finished off the last of the Indians. I give you Sheridan and Crook.
I agree, but would add that the anti-slavery movement was a Christian movement that began in the colonial days. The Northwest Ordnance - a Christian political document - banned slavery in the new territories at that time, and slavery was banned from all the New England states. You are right - most non-christians didn't give a flip about slaves... or indians.
Then you know me better than I do. Spare me your ignorant personal judgments. Alot of people on these threads talk about the war as if the north was pure as the driven snow - baloney! That is my point. The north committed many evils. Care to deny it? Was the south pure evil? No. So, get off of your black and white bandwagon.
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.