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.
The most important laws establishing the dictatorship in Germany were the Reichstag Fire Decree, promulgated by President Hindenburg, that lifted the constitutional protections of the Weimar Constitution analogous to our Bill of Rights, and the Enabling Law, passed by the legislature, under which the executive branch -- now Hitler's executive branch -- could enact any laws and even, within certain limits, amend the constitution without any need for approval by the legislature.
Why did the author indicate 'cannons' was a misspelling? It's perfectly standard.
Ex parte is latin for one party. Ex parte proceedings are ones where one party is not present in court and is not represented by counsel. It has nothing to do the legitmacy of the decision
The Supreme Court found that a blockade was lawful under the Laws of War and found in existence a War.
Now you are, once again, desperately citing the part of an Act regarding obstruction of the courts, and action permitted to assist the marshals of the courts.
Now, instead of fighting a war, you have The Lincoln combatting obstruction of the judicial system.
The Supreme Court found it was a WAR. They proclaimed the blockade lawful under THE LAWS OF WAR.
Yes, I'm familiar with that meaning, and, as far as I know, the Merryman proceedings were not ex parte in that sense. I believe the federal government made pleadings in the case.
U.S. Const. Art 3, Sect 2, Cl 2, "In all other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Rev. 6th ed. (1856):
Ex parte - Of the one part. Many things may be done ex parte, when the opposite party has had notice; an affidavit or deposition is said to be taken ex parte when only one of the parties attends to taking the same.
As such, it was not an authoritative statement of the law of the land.
Even ex parte, that does not render it a "personal" opinion. It was the official, legal opinion of the Circuit court in question, and until appealed, is the "law of the land."
Yes, so much for federalism and self-government, eh? Self-government is a dead duck - can anyone pretend that any State or City or County is self-governing? There are so many federal regulations, taxes, etc., that self-governance is but a mere memory. The feds even tell the states that they can't erect 10 comandments in their own courthouses, or pass laws against sodomy, which are clearly allowed under the 10th Amendment. The invented doctrine of incorporation came very late in time (20th century) just as the phoney doctrine of separation and church and state (Everson 1947) did.
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.