You're correct. It isn't enforceable law because it isn't a law.
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.
Technically, this is true. But the moral principles contained therein are UNIVERSAL and apply to all men in all ages. So the force it contains is MORAL force of the highest order, and to deny its importance is deny the principles on which this country was founded.
the lust for freedom in the southland was NOT confined to whites in the southland.
in point of fact, i'm NOT white & neither were my ancestors.
to point out the foolishness of your position, the CSA's military forces included at least 100,000 black troops, about 50,000 AIs, 40-50,000 latinos, 15,000 asians & at least ONE Australian Aborigine!
these fighters were VOLUNTEERS!
do you REALLY believe they were fighting for the "rights of white people" ONLY?????
free dixie NOW,sw
First, no one who actually wrote the Constitution thought that secession was a legitimate option for a state. Madison's quote supplied by Ditto is rather telling.
Second, the South was awfully damn selective about secession. Some of Jeff Davis' statements from his time as Secretary of War made it clear that NORTHERN states that threatened to secede over the fugitive slave laws would be held in the Union at bayonet point if necessary. Fast-forward to 1860, and suddenly secession is a sacred right.
Third, states are admitted to the Union only by consent of the other states. What you're proposing is a massive disconnect in responsibility--that on the one hand, states can be admitted only with the consent of a majority of other states, but that they can walk out at any time on solely their say-so.
1860 was not the first time secession was contemplated. In the Hartford Convention of 1814, several New England states considered secession. The reaction by the rest of the Union was, to put it mildly, astonishingly negative. Nobody acted as if the aggrieved states had any right to secede.
Do you think these men were devoid of a philosophical worldview - do you think the Constitution is devoid of a set of ideals?
Actually, for its time, the Constitution was about as UN-philosophic document as you could get. Yes, there was a guiding philosophy behind it, as expressed in the Declaration--but the document itself is really rather good technical writing, explaining how a previously-unseen form of governance would work. That's the amazing part of the Constitution--not that it expresses a philosophy (it doesn't, except by inference), but that it was written well enough that it actually worked.
That still doesn't make the Declaration of Independence any sort of enforceable law, period.
if 92 members of YOUR family had been robbed,tortured,raped & MURDERED, you wouldn't bee too fond of the memory of the people who did the crime either.
SADLY, my family was far from unique in the occupied southland!
free dixie,sw
everything you post is either pitifully laughable or so ignorant as to be sad. you are yet another victim of the "publick screwls" AND you actually believe the tripe & bilge that those "institutions of learning" put out.
free dixie,sw
And if the war never happened, it would have likely been Lee and Longstreet, avenging Hood's Last Stand. ;~))
The Constitution is not a philosophical document, but it is imbued with philosophy and moral principles. All one has to do is read the Federalist Papers to see that (gosh, weren't those written by Christians - Hamilton, Madison and Jay?). For example: The idea of separation of powers and checks and balances (from Montesquieu) was a recognition of the sinulness man and the corruptibility of all rulers. The idea of federalism and the electoral college was a recognition of the base sinful nature of the people (the majority in a democracy will always vote themselves the benefits). The idea of a Constitution sprang from the founders' understanding that we must be a nation of laws to secure our God-given rights (Lex Rex) not arbitrary rulers as in Europe (Rex Lex) - which came from Samuel Rutherford, Puffendorf, and Blackstone. These philosophies are ALL judeo-Christian in their origin. Furthermore, the founders repeatedly quoted scripture to support their views. So, spare me your ridiculous statemnents that philosophy was not important! That is simply a lie! ideas have consequences. I think history shows that ideas are the root of 100 million dead in the 20th century (ideas of nazism and communism).
So, the Constitution is a civil document undergirded by judeo-christian moral principles. That is irrefutable for anyone who has read the writings of the founding fathers. Alot of people like to minimize the importance of the judeo-Christian philosophy because THEY DON'T LIKE IT. Well, too bad! Our founders put this nation UNDER GOD, not under the Federal Govt. Rights come from God and the Bill of Rights recognizes and secures those rights, it doesn't invent them. If rights come from God as our founders declared, then the nation is ultimately under God's sovereignty - simple logical conclusion.
Speculation. Nevertheless, it is established that the north was not a paragon of virtue. I'm sick of the PC revisionist attitude that "North Good, South Bad." Please, tell it like it really was.
That would only need to be explaned to someone who doesn't understand the Constitutional limitations on the President and the limitations of executive orders.
I repeat: ...the moral principles contained therein are UNIVERSAL and apply to all men in all ages. So the force it contains is MORAL force of the highest order, and to deny its importance is deny the principles on which this country was founded.
It is also to deny the importance of morality and the source of morality. Where do morals come from Poobah? Time to state your position more clearly.
Fine. Unless God cares to revoke the free will he gave us and run this nation Himself, it's still not enforceable law.
You're correct. It isn't enforceable law because it isn't a law.
You keep saying that over and over, but please show me any statement I have made, or any of the others here rebuking the Lost Cause myths about the war, that claim the North was above reproach?
I don't know where you're seeing the "PC attitude" but it sure isn't from me.
We have free will, but we also have the light. If we turn from the light of Truth, we will fall...as we are falling right now. The founders stated over and over that LIBERTY IS ROOTED IN MORALITY AND VIRTUE OF THE PEOPLE AND MORALITY COMES FROM RELIGION. Even the Humanist Manifesto recognizes that dilemma - that morality has no force if it is manmade - you are stuck with "might makes right" and I don't think you can defend that philosophy very well.
Your posts do have a secular slant, but you must know that the secular humanist worldview clashes with that of the founders. Liberty is rooted in the freedom to do moral good, not in amoral license. When you fall into amoral license, liberty disappears as the governmental power seeks to control the behavior of its lawbreaking citizens to prevent chaos; and as the laws increase, liberty decreases until it is GONE. That is what is happening today Poobah. People will always choose TYRANNY over CHAOS. Liberty is not license.
Not you specifically perhaps, but on these civil war threads, I always see an unfair attack on anything southern coupled with an unqualified defense of the North. It's not a balanced approach that I have seen.
Well let's put it this way. The Declaration says that RIGHTS come from God - that is a UNIVERSAL LAW, which is higher law than any law in the United States Code. Are you saying that the government can usurp God's sovereignty and become the granter and abrogator of human rights? I think you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I can very quickly show you 5 times the opposite, and that's just stand watie. If we want to include other Lost Causers, we would probably have to use exponents. ;~))
Show me just one "unqualified" defense of the North on this thread.
That's a laugh. Lincoln didn't worry about constitutional limitations when he suspended Habeus Corpus, or to the Courts today as they trample the FREE EXCERCISE CLAUSE underfoot.
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.