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.
Bears repating:
"Ruffin the Reb had the honor of firing the first shot. The Southrons were stupid enough to take Lincoln's bait and the paid dearly for their error. Dixie was ground into the mud and did not recover fully for three generations. And they also lost their slaves. The Southrons wanted everything and got damned little. It served them right. Those who sow the wind will, in due course, reap the whirlwind."
Walt
"...and to cause the laws to be duly executed."
Loyal Union men, of whom President Lincoln said, "no partizan cause could make false to the nation's life", ensured that the laws were "duly executed."
I mean, the rebellion did collapse, didn't it?
Walt
Where does it say that?
Your assertion is that the President - by meeting with anyone - establishes diplomatic relations?
I never suggested that a simple meeting established diplomatic relations. I said that, given the southern demand that Lincoln recognize them as a sovereign nation, there was nothing to talk about.
The blockade extended - by international law - official recognition of a foreign government.
Utter nonsense. Not a single foreign government recognized confederate independence.
The Constitution does not state that.
Title 22 of US Code IIRC.
Utter nonsense. Not a single foreign government recognized confederate independence.
Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled Them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America.When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties...
The Supreme Court ruled that the president was empowered under the Militia Act to call out the Militia, based on the events of early 1861.
See the Prize Cases ruling.
Walt
Yes it does. Once again, exactly what is so confusing to you about the phrase "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States"? Do you not understand the meaning of words like "herein" and "granted"? Do you not desire to understand their meaning or understand its application for political reasons? Or are you just plain dumb? I ask because I cannot reasonably see what you do not comprehend.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
If you invoke domestic violence, you are impaled on the Constitution. You need the application of the state Legislature or the state Executive. That is why said provision is repeated in the Militia Act. If it were not in the Militia Act, the Militia Act would be unconstitutional.
[Walt] The Supreme Court ruled that the president was empowered under the Militia Act to call out the Militia, based on the events of early 1861. See the Prize Cases ruling.
If you could quote the Prize Cases saying that, you would. You can't. The Court didn't.
The Prize Cases says no such thing. Besides, you have thus far been unable to make up your mind whether you are attempting to invoke an invasion, (Sec 1, Cl 1), an insurrection against a state (Sec 1, Cl 2) or Obstruction of the Courts (Sec 2).
The Court recognized the CSA as a belligerent party and determined that a state of war existed. The Court invoked the Laws of War (jus belli) to legitimize the BLOCKADE.
Foreign ships and cargo were seized as Prize of War, not Prize of Obstruction of the Courts. It is called the Prize Cases because it involved four cases of ships and cargo seized as Prize of War.
As many times as you choose to misstate the ruling in the Prize Cases, I will repeat it for you so all can read a quote of the actual ruling and see that it was not based on the Militia Act of 1795.
The Militia Act of 1795 was irrelevant to the Prize Cases. Lincoln proclaimed and instituted a BLOCKADE. The Prize Cases concerned the legality of a BLOCKADE.
AGAIN, HERE IS HOW THE COURT ACTUALLY RULED, QUOTING FROM THE PRIZE CASES DECISION:
THE QUESTION:Mr. Justice GRIER.
There are certain propositions of law which must necessarily affect the ultimate decision of these cases, and many others, which it will be proper to discuss and decide before we notice the special facts peculiar to each.
They are, 1st. Had the President a right to institute a blockade of ports in possession of persons in armed rebellion against the Government, on the principles of international law, as known and acknowledged among civilized States?
THE SUPREME COURT RULING ON THAT QUESTION:
On this first question therefore we are of the opinion that the President had a right, jure belli, to institute a blockade of ports in possession of the States in rebellion, which neutrals are bound to regard.
"The president had a right, jure belli...."
The president had a right pursuant to the laws of war....
HAD THE PRESIDENT A RIGHT TO INSTITUTE A BLOCKADE?
YES, PURSUANT TO THE L-A-W-S O-F W-A-R.
Moreover, The Lincoln did not just call up the militia. Read about it in The Lincoln's own words:
Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that, at first, a call was made for seventy-five thousand militia; and rapidly following this, a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of Blockade. So far all was believed to be strictly legal. At this point the insurrectionists announced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering. Other calls were made for volunteers, to serve three years, unless sooner discharged; and also for large additions to the regular Army and Navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a public necessity; trusting, then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency of Congress.The Lincoln did not call up the militia to assist the marshals in the CSA, but primarily to subjugate Maryland. One may understand that The Lincoln did not want the capital of the USA to be physically located inside the CSA. The idea of invading and coercing of the South with 75,000 90-day wonders does not pass the laugh test.
The additions to the Army and Navy were unconstitutional. The Constitution specifically reserves this authority to the Congress.
The Lincoln notes that he did nothing beyond the constitutional competency of Congress. His statement is correct. However, The Lincoln was not The Congress. The Lincoln did not have said authority.
From the Prize Cases:
By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare war against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority. And whether the hostile party be a foreign invader, or States organized in rebellion, it is none the less a war, although the declaration of it be 'unilateral.' Lord Stowell (1 Dodson, 247) observes, 'It is not the less a war on that account, for war may exist without a declaration on either side. It is so laid down by the best writers on the law of nations. A declaration of war by one country only, is not a mere challenge to be accepted or refused at pleasure by the other.
And so, Mr. Justice Grier herniated himself and the facts in finding that the South had invaded the North. He stated that it did not matter whether the foreign invader be a foreign invader or States organized in rebellion.
He is most definitely not talking about obstruction of the courts (Militia Act of 1795, Sec 2), nor is he talking about insurrection (Id., Sec 1, Cl 2). He most definitely spoke of an invasion and war.
In that case, the Militia Act of 1795 states, at Sec 1, Cl 1:
That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion, from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states, most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders, for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper.In your opinion Walt, was the CSA:
- a foreign nation, or
- an Indian tribe?
Or are you still stuck in the wrong source?
If you could quote the Prize Cases saying that, you would. You can't. The Court didn't.
I -can- quote the Court to that effect.
"But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."
Walt
[Walt] "...and to cause the laws to be duly executed."
That's a good quote Walt. It does not exist anywhere in the Prize Cases, however. No wonder you are so confused.
If you are going to assert you are quoting something from the Prize Cases, at least look at the Prize Cases. Quoting a phrase from the Militia Act of 1795 does not magically make it appear in the text of the Prize Cases decision.
The Prize Cases decision contains the phrasing "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That did not come from the Militia Act of 1795. The Prize Cases decision makes its source explicitly clear:
The Constitution declares that Congress shall have power 'to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.' Another clause, 'that the President shall be Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of United States;' and, again, 'He shall take care that the laws shall be faithfully executed.'
The actual phrase used in the Prize Cases is quoted from the Constitution.
[nolu chan] If you could quote the Prize Cases saying that, you would. You can't. The Court didn't.
[Walt] I -can- quote the Court to that effect.
[Walt] "But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States."
That is only a recitation of the law. It says nothing about any events of 1861 nor its applicability thereto.
Just taking your quote, it is equally true that President George W. Bush, by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, is authorized to call out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States.
That statement contains no finding that any case applicable to the Act of 1795 exists.
The part you quote refers strictly to the cases of "invasion" and "insurrection."
The Militia Act of 1795 is clear and specific in what it allows in those those cases.
You are still mired in the wrong source.
Be it enacted, &c.,That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the State or States most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper.
And, in case of an insurrection in any State against the Government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the Legislature of such State, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be convened,) to call forth such number of the militia of any other State or States as may be applied for, as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection,
Do you allege:
You are still mired in the wrong source.
It appears you legal argument has been reduced to "superior force prevailed."
No it does not. The clause reads in its entirity, "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." Where does it explicitly say that it may be suspended only through legislation? Where does it explicitly say that only Congress can suspend it?
That's the best you got? I'll repeat my claim. Not a single foreign government recognized confederate independence.
What the hell are you babbling about?Non-seq
Well Non-seq, it simply means that I think you are a liberal that thrives to subvert the Constitution of this country, and the foundation of your reply here proves that you can not even remember your lies. Let me repeat the question that I asked you a year ago, 'Did Linclon mention the Fugitve Slave Act in his inaugural speech'? Either a YES or a NO will make you a liar in either case at this point in time. Of course, I will expect a liberal answer. You are free to babble on...........
It appears you legal argument has been reduced to "superior force prevailed."
Oh, boo-hoo-hoo.
It appears I mean a fight came down to a toe-to-toe slugfest, and Union men prevailed.
It's why you'll sleep safely tonight.
Walt
It doesn't need to. That much is logically presumed and inherent to any act of Congress, which by its own nature must be legislative.
Where does it explicitly say that only Congress can suspend it?
Article I, Section 1, which governs all the clauses below it in Article I, among them the habeas corpus clause. To deny this is to deny both the plainly stated words of the constitution and the plainly stated understanding of those words given by the founding fathers who witnessed, drafted, and implemented that constitution.
Put differently, you are skating on very thin legal ice, non-seq. Your arguments on habeas corpus are of the exact same character as the "meaning of is" and the "definition of what constitutes sex" in a Clinton deposition; that is to say they reek of orchestrated semantical deception and leave behind them a trail of slime indicative of their intentionally slippery nature.
I will sleep safely tonight as I did my 20 years active duty, and I know that your attempt to revise the Constitution, the laws, and the decisions of the Supreme Court failed.
When you were on active duty, were you willing to apply superior force?
Walt
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.