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.
According to you it isn't, so what are you worried about? I explained why the rest of the world thinks it's ex parte back in reply 547.
Siezures? Hardly. Robert Anderson ABANDONED those forts. The SC troops simply moved in and claimed what was originally theirs to begin with.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
So where does it say that habeas corpus can be suspended only by Congress or through legislation, GOP?
The capitol building where no one was home, while the rebels had sabatours burning the bridges between Philaderlphia and Baltimore that were to only way members of Congress could return to Washington in an expediant manner. There was no Reagan Ariport or I 95 in those days, ya know.
What would President Bush do if an insurrection broke out in the Washington suburbs today while Congress is out of session?
It's a unilateral action. Georgia could refuse to send Senators to Washington, and the government couldn't legally do a thing about it. Unilateral state action. But the states were illegally deprived of representation after ratifying the 13th and failing to ratify the 14th.
Bull. It started in December 1860 with the seizure of facilities in Charleston and continued throughout the south in the months that followed.
Whoop-ti-doo. And Congress declared war on them for doing so, right? Even after seizing the forts on their coasts, they still attempted on multple occasions to negotiate. Lincoln wanted war, and he got one.
I see. So they were shooting at warships and hit Sumter by mistake? </sarcasm>'
No. Informed that warships were almost there, the Confederacy demanded surrender of the fort. Maybe if Lincoln had negotiated in faith, instead of lying to Justice Campell et al, the war never would have been fought.
Why wouldn't arresting and holding people on criminal charges solve any such problem?
What costs were up? The price of slaves was on a steep upward trend for sure, even with their rapidly growing supply of slaves. That can only indicate that they were increasingly more valuable both as labor, and as a self-replicating investment vehicle.
IF slavery was becoming less profitable, the price of slaves would have been dropping, not rising.
But then again, maybe Lost Cause economics operates in a different universe.
As for the south's alleged "unfair edge," it was becoming anything but that. In 1860 slavery was becoming increasingly less viable in an economic sense. Wage labor costs were going down and slave labor costs were going up - a trend that had been occurring for at least a decade. When prices on an economic input continually rise entrepreneurs eventually substitute it with a cheaper alternative.
I can only speculate on, and I speculate thus: Can't conceive of wages honestly paid ever being lower than slave wages. The capital owned is always cheaper than the capital rented, except perhaps in anomolous situations of market distortion (interference).
Thanks for the refresher. Oh, and I have a little rule of thumb: The Invisible Hand (the One whom I acknowledge with my screen name) sees to it that the cost of immorality in the marketplace will eventually bankrupt the enterprise; the principle being at times speedy and at other times very slow, but at all times inexorable. You can take it to the bank.
First of all, suspension of the writ means they are not charged. But suppose that the next time Congress is out of session, thousands of people come storming out of mosques after Friday prayers screaming death to America and then suddenly bridges along 95 and 270 start blowing up, the airport, the Capital building and the Pentagon start taking random mortor rounds, and suicide bombers are blowing up on crowded metro platforms.
We kind of know the source of the problems, but we don't know which individuals may be the problem. We have a very nice profile of likely suspects, but we have no direct evidence on any of them.
You're the President. What would you do?
Arrest a lot of people on a charge like criminal conspiracy, and wait to see how the courts handle the cases. I think the people that wrote the Constitution made the judgment that that would be preferable to holding people without any charges specified. And I think they were right in that judgment.
You wouldn't make it through the arraignment. They'll be out the door in less than 24 hours. You have to show probable cause for a judge to remand the case. You don't have probable cause, and shouting death to America is not illegal nor a conspiracy.
I'm damn glad you're not President.
The states freely withdrew their representation when they began their rebellion. They willingly participated in the rebellion. They accepted the results of their actions, and that included keeping those who led the rebellion from returning to Congress as if nothing had happened.
Lincoln wanted war, and he got one.
In the immortal words of my good and learned friend, Ditto, Bravo Sierra. Davis wanted the war. He needed the war. He got the war, and the results of it.
Maybe if Lincoln had negotiated in faith, instead of lying to Justice Campell et al, the war never would have been fought.
Negotiate what? The so-called peace commissioners were tasked with obtaining recognition of the legitimacy of the Davis regime and the success of the southern rebellion, and only then with issues of disagreement between governments. In other words, surrender to confederate demands. There was nothing to discuss.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
do you REALLY believe that nonsense & REVISIONIST drivel????
free dixie,sw
the USA would be MUCH better off w/o all those damnyankees & LIBs.<P.free dixie,sw
BUT there are hundreds of thousands of PALEO-Confederates, who have not forgotten that our families once had LIBERTY from 1861-65.free dixie,sw
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.