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.
Note: Your meaning is clear, but technically Circuits are distinguished from Districts.
The situation that obtains is that two circuits disagree on their interpretation of some aspect of the Constitution. Something may be considered constitutional in one Circuit and unconstitutional in another. Obviously, at least one of them is incorrect. The law is interpreted differently in the two jurisdictions and future rulings will be based on those differing interpretations until the Supreme Court weighs in with its opinion, which could adopt that of either circuit, or determine neither is correct and impose its own opinion.
It is actually a fairly common manner in which an issue arrives at the Supreme Court.
Circuit Conflicts
Federal and state appellants typcially have, as a matter of right, one appeal to an intermediate appellate court. However, the highest courts in each jurisdiction -- the U.S. Supreme Court and most state supreme courts -- have discretionary review. That is, the losing side in the intermediate appellate court can petition the higher court for review, but the higher court is not required to take the case.
One factor most higher courts consider in deciding whether to take review is whether the intermediate appellate courts have split on the issue and reached different results. If so, there is a circuit conflict, and the higher court is more likely to grant review.
When a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling that establishes a precedent, where is it considered “binding”?
A United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is binding only on the inferior courts within its jurisdiction, though the decisions can be “trend-setting” or influence the reasoning of other federal courts. For example, the decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that interprets the Second Amendment of the Constitution to protect an individual, rather than collective, right to bear arms is only binding on the courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has developed a reputation as a “rogue” or “trend-setting” court for its constitutional interpretations (e.g., the Pledge of Allegiance case).
Supreme Court agrees to hear U.S. v. Lara
From: Staff
Category: General Comment
Date: 12/3/2003
From Indianz.com
Wednesday, October 1, 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will resolve whether tribal governments have inherent sovereignty over all American Indians, not just members of their own tribes.
In a case with national significance, the justices accepted an appeal filed by the Bush administration. The Department of Justice is arguing that dual tribal and federal prosecution of Indian offenders does not violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on double jeopardy.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded otherwise and said that an Indian man who pleaded guilty in tribal court could not be tried for the same offense in federal court. A divided panel of judges voted 7-4 in March to strike down a federal indictment against Billy Jo Lara on charges that he punched a police officer on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota.
But the 9th Circuit arrived at a different conclusion in June 2001. In an 11-0 decision that escaped review by the Supreme Court, a full panel of judges said tribes who prosecute members of other tribes are exercising sovereignty independent of the federal government.
Nonsense. It only says that habeas corpus cannot be suspended except when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it. Nowhere does it specifically say that only congress can suspend it. And nowhere does it say that it requires an act of legislature to do it.
The Prize Cases majority opinion clearly refers to the Militia Act and says the president has the power under that act to call out the Militia and suppress insurrection and rebellion.
This is just another case of a neo-reb wanting only part of the record considered.
I can't imagine how you expect to sway people when you are so blatantly unfair. It's just like GOPcap discounting the opinion of the present chief Justice on the habeas corpus issue.
Walt
They simply wanted to be left alone, they did not seek to overthrow the federal government, nor oust Lincoln from office. The states constituting the Confederacy seceded and resumed their powers of self-government, certainly legal absent ANY prohibition to the contrary. Their citizens met in convention and voted to rescind their ratifications - it was not simply a legislative act, it was an act of republican governments expressing their sovereign rights.
There are certainly those who would dispute the 'absent ANY prohibitions' part, but it doesn't change the fact that in leaving you seized property and facilities that did not belong to you and chose to fire on those that the Lincoln administration insisted on holding on to. You initiated the war. I'm sorry that things didn't turn out to your liking but wars are like that.
Please post the prohibition, if any, that existed prior to the war. Anything along the lines of "Thou shalt not secede" will be given extra consideration.
... but it doesn't change the fact that in leaving you seized property and facilities that did not belong to you ...
If the act of seizing property was a declaration of war, then why didn't Congress declare it when they were in session?
... and chose to fire on those that the Lincoln administration insisted on holding on to. You initiated the war. I'm sorry that things didn't turn out to your liking but wars are like that.
The Confederacy considered herself to be an independent nation - and the warships were just that - an invasionary force. The invasion broke the armistice in force. The majority of Lincoln's cabinet advised against sending the troops, that it would be an act of war.
'The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary.'
Henry Hallam, The Constitutional History of England: From the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II, New York: W. J. Widdleton, 1871, Vol. II, p. 219.
It may not have been clear from a legal view, but they surely had even higher obligations to keep faith with the Republic. They pledged a solemn faith and violated it for light and transient reasons. They had other options to address their concerns and instead choose to give a unilateral middle finger to the legacy of the Framers because they swallowed their own macho propaganda that no one would dare stop them. They were arrogant, self-absorbed fools.
In my book, that is far more egregious than any legal violation.
Unilateral actions on the part of the states is not supported by the Constitution.
If the act of seizing property was a declaration of war, then why didn't Congress declare it when they were in session?
It certainly wasn't the actions of those desiring a peaceful solution.
The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary.'
Why was use of force necessary at Sumter?
Pure Bravo Sierra. That is the biggest Lost Cause lie ever told. Slavery had never been more profitable than in 1860.
'[N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.'
It certainly wasn't the actions of those desiring a peaceful solution.
No, it came after sending peace commissioners from SC, the Corwin amendment being blocked by republicans, the Washington Peace Conference failure, the Confederate Peace Commissioners sent 'to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations' being rejected, etc.
Why was use of force necessary at Sumter?
Warships entering the harbor despite assurances from Lincoln to the contrary.
And when did that happen?
No, it came after sending peace commissioners from SC, the Corwin amendment being blocked by republicans, the Washington Peace Conference failure, the Confederate Peace Commissioners sent 'to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations' being rejected, etc.
Bull. It started in December 1860 with the seizure of facilities in Charleston and continued throughout the south in the months that followed. Before the Corwin Amendment. Before the Washington Peace Conference, before the so-called confederate peace commission.
Warships entering the harbor despite assurances from Lincoln to the contrary.
I see. So they were shooting at warships and hit Sumter by mistake? </sarcasm>
Who says that being ex parte somehow denigrates this decision? Or any other ex parte decision for that matter?
The constitution specifically says in the article containing the habeas corpus power that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." That means Congress and Congress alone may suspend it.
So exactly what is it about the phrase "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" that you do not understand, non-seq?
If that is so then why were its costs exhibiting a continuous upward trend?
Irrelevant. Your statement assumes that it was absolutely necessary to suspend the writ in the first place (as if he could not seek arrests and simply file charges with them). It is also incomparable to any situation Lincoln ever faced because where Jackson did not have a telegraph and was hundreds of miles away from the capital building, Lincoln DID have a telegraph and was about half a mile away from the capital building.
Yes they had, but the King didn't hold up his end of the bargain and only after 10 years of petitioning to redress their grievances did they renounce their allegiance and even then, only after the King sent his army to enforce his illegitimate decrees. No such process preceded the treason of of the 1860s. It was unilateral and completely unjustified.
I understand that it is difficult for a true believer of the Lost Cause lies to understand the differences between the Patriots of '76 and the slaveocrats of '61, but read the Declaration of Independence some time. It explains the difference quite nicely.
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.