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.
Please quote that portion of the Militia Act which, in your opinion, makes state secession impossible.
If secession is made impossible by the Constitution, please quote the portion of the Constitution which, in your opinion, makes state secession impossible.
If secession is not made impossible by the Constitution, please explain, in your opinion, how the Militia Act or any other Federal law can usurp the Constitution.
Corporal Munger happened to look back and made out someone leaving the tent. He turned to go back. As he approached the tent and called to the two figures to stop, saying that there seemed to be some firing from the direction of the creek, too, and they could be in danger, Varina emerged. Munger asked what she and the other two were doing. "We're going to the creek to get water to perform our toilet," said Varina, adding that they were not afraid of bullets. Meanwhile, Davis and the woman, now about 40 paces away, changed their path as if heeding the trooper, but kept walking. Then two more troopers rode to the tent, where Varina tried to distract them, too, becoming increasingly excited as they kept looking at the two receeding figures. Finally, Munger made out Davis's distinctly unfeminine cavalry boots and spurs.
"Who is that?" he demanded as he pointed to Davis.
"That is my mother," said Varina.
"What is your mother doing with boots on?" Munger replied, and yelled for Davis to stop."
From "An Honorable Defeat: The Last Days of the Confederate Government", by William C. Davis. Davis attributes the details to the Chester Bradley, "Was Jefferson Davis Disguised as a Woman When Captured," pp. 243ff; W.T. Walthall, "The True Story of the Capture of Jefferson Davis," p111; Wood Diary, May 10, 1865, John Taylor Wood Papers, Southern Historical Collection; Fairfax Harrison ed., "The Harrisons of Skimino", pp. 258-259, 260n.; Harrison to Davis, September 1877, Dunbar Rowland ed.; "Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist", vol. VII, p, 589; W.T Walthall, "The True Story of the Capture of Jefferson Davis," p 111; Davis to W.M. Green, May 8, 1872, St. Louis Post Dispatch, January 22, 137; Account by George M. Munger, n.d., J. B. Munger, "Munger Book", pp4750476; Willam C. Davis, "Jefferson Davis, The Man and His Hour", p. 637
The Constitution delegates the power to approve the admission of states to the Union, and any change in their status while part of the Union. Clearly leaving the Union is included in this.
Please stop making this up. The Constitution allows Congress to regulate the process of admission of new states, the creation of a new state from parts of an existing one. It is absolutely silent about one leaving, seeking approval to leave, or in any way preventing one from leaving.
I don't. The Union officer present at capture doesn't. The official accounts of the capture do not state that Davis attempted escape wearing womens clothing.
I do. The soldier involved in apprehending Davis did. Mrs. Davis did. And numerous accounts of the incident do, as I listed in reply 1022.
Oh, please. You all are the last ones to accuse others of making things up. The Consitution gives the Congress the power to approve any change in the status of the states, from combining, to splitting in two or more parts, to changing the borders a fraction of an inch. By implication that would include leaving. Why should the ultimate change of status be any different?
The firsthand report of the commanding officer the day after the capture, notice no mention of any disguise is mentioned - certainly such an incident would be worthy of mention:
Copy of he original letter written with a pencil by Col. Pritchard, announcing the capture of Jefferson Davis:
Headquarters 4th Michigan Cavalry,
Abbeville, GA., May 11th, 1865
Capt. Scott, A. A. A. G., 2d Division, C. C. M. D. M.
Sir:-I have the honor to report that at daylight yesterday in Irwinville, I surprised and captured Jeff Davis and family, together with his wife's sister and brother, his Postmaster-General (Ragan) his private Secretary (Colonel Harrison,) Col. Johnson, A. D. C. on Jeff's staff, Col. Morris, Col. Lubbock, Lieut. Hathaway, also several unimportant names, and a train of five wagons and three ambulances, making a most perfect success, had not a most painful mistake occurred by which the 4th Michigan and 1st Wisconsin collided which cost us two men killed and Lieut. Bourtelle wounded through the arm, in the 4th Michigan, and three men wounded in the 1st Wisconsin. This occurred just at daylight after we had captured the camp, by the advance of the 1st Wisconsin, not properly answering our challenge, by which we were mistaken for the enemy. I returned to this point last night and shall move right on to Macon without awaiting orders from you as directed feeling that the whole objects of the expedition are accomplished. It will take at least three days to reach Macon as we are 75 miles out and our stock is much wearied. I hope to reach Hawkinsville to-night.
I have the honor, sir, to be, very respectfully, your ob'dt servt,
D.B. Pritchard, Lieut. Col. 4th Michigan
Charles Lanman, The Red Book of Michigan; A Civil, Military and Biographical History, Detroit: E. B. Smith & Co., 1871, pp. 285-286
Article IV § 3: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
From Madison in Federalist No. 43,
The general precaution that no new States shall be formed without the concurrence of the federal authority and that of the States concerned, is consonant to the principles which ought to govern such transactions. The particular precaution against the erection of new States, by the partition of a State without its consent, quiets the jealousy of the larger States; as that of the smaller is quieted by a like precaution against a junction of States without their consent.
The Constitution is absolutely silent as to the preventing a state from disposal of state lands, the secession of a state, or any other condition outside of the creation of a new state. The only items addressed in this section are the admission/creation of a new state into the union, regardless of where the territory came into possession.
The Constitution is absolutely silent on who specifically can suspend habeas corpus, but that doesn't stop your cohort from stating that since Congess is mentioned in Section 1 then the implication is that Section 9 applies only to Congress as well. Why are implied powers OK there and not OK in Article IV? Other than the fact that one fits your purposes and one does not, of course.
WRONG. The power to suspend is the writ is listed in Article I, prefaced by, 'All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.'
'All' as in ALL powers. 'Legislative' powers, not Executive nor Judicial, not shared. 'Shall be vested' in Congress, not the President. 'Herein' granted, as in this Article.
Article II states, 'The executive Power shall be vested in a President'. No mention of suspending the writ. Same for all other Articles.
Chief Justice John Mashall thought so when he wrote, 'If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. A decision of the US Supreme Court. Just as Chief Justice Taney thought it was for the legislature to decide when he wrote that it was, 'one of those points of constitutional law upon which there is no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended except by act of Congress.'
Please quote that portion of the Militia Act which, in your opinion, makes state secession impossible.
The relevent portion of the law is as follows:
Third Congress, Session II, Ch. 36
February 28, 1795
[Section 1 deals with invasion or insurrection within a state and permits the President to call out the militias of the states upon application of the state's executive or legislature.]
Section 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.
Section 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it is necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.
[Section 4 limits the service of a militiaman under this act to no more than "three months, after his arrival at the place of rendezvous, in any one year". The remaining sections of the act deal with issues of courts-martial, pay, fines, and so forth.]
Some commentary:
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 the United States." U.S. CONST., art. II, § 2, cl. 1.
Conduct of United States foreign policy resides in the Executive Branch, and Presidents have often used armed forces as a tool of diplomacy, ranging from supporting humanitarian missions in response to natural disasters to traditional "saber rattling" to discourage certain types of conduct by nations.
The President of the United States is bound as Chief Executive of the United States and Commander in Chief of its armed forces to defend the United States from attack: If 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. . . . [F]or war may exist without a declaration on either side.
The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. (2 Black) 635, 668 (1862) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In situations such as above, subsequent ratification by the Congress cures any defect of acting without express Congressional approval.
The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 671. The Court generally defers to the President regarding what actions must be taken to meet the military threat. The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. at 670.
http://www.aclj.org/news/breakdown.asp
Walt
I do.
Well, maybe Jeff was just getting a jump on the unisex clothing trend.
Walt
Please quote that portion of the Militia Act which, in your opinion, makes state secession impossible.The relevent portion of the law is as follows:
Third Congress, Session II, Ch. 36
February 28, 1795
[Section 1 deals with invasion or insurrection within a state and permits the President to call out the militias of the states upon application of the state's executive or legislature.]
Section 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.
Section 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it is necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.
[Section 4 limits the service of a militiaman under this act to no more than "three months, after his arrival at the place of rendezvous, in any one year". The remaining sections of the act deal with issues of courts-martial, pay, fines, and so forth.]
As ever, you ignore the relevant part of the statute to have it permit the Lincoln to do what he cannot do.
Section 3. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That whenever it is necessary, in the judgment of the President, to use the military force hereby directed to be called forth, the President shall forthwith, by proclamation, command such insurgents to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, within a limited time.
Now, let us look at what was "hereby directed."
As quoted by Walt:
[Section 1 deals with invasion or insurrection within a state and permits the President to call out the militias of the states upon application of the state's executive or legislature.]Do you allege there was insurrection against a state which resulted in the application of the state's executive or legislature for invasion by Federal troops?
As quoted by Walt:
Section 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed, or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth the militia of such state, or of any other state or states, as may be necessary to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed; and the use of militia so to be called forth may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the then next session of Congress.Do you allege Lincoln invaded 13 states because someplace there was allegedly "combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act"?
All Federal officials had resigned and there were no courts to interfere with. All Federal marshals had resigned and there were no marshals to assist.
Did Lincoln invade 13 states to suppress the non-existent combinations interfering with the non-existent marshals of the non-existent courts?
Are you calling this the Great American Civil Disturbance? This section only applies to interference with the courts.
By the way, the Militia Act only authorizes calling forth the militia, not the regular army.
Do you have any authority for Lincoln to increase the size of the standing Army without Congressional authorization?
Do you have any authority for Lincoln to send an invading Army into the South?
Where is the part of the Militia Act that, in your opinion, makes unilateral secession impossible?
Chief Justice Marshall did believe that. And had the matter come before him I have no doubt that he would have voted that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus. Heck, if I was on the Supreme Court I would rule that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus. But I'm not on the court and the matter never came before the court while Justice Marshall was a member, and the Constitution is not clear on the matter since it does not say only Congress can suspend it or that it can be only suspended by an act of legislation. So the matter is still open.
But unilateral secession, on the other hand, was settled by the Supreme Court in 1869. They ruled is was illegal, and so it remains.
Walt
Yeah, it's not like Davis didn't have more things to be embarassed about than a little cross-dressing.
I don't think so. Look at that Lincoln statue that the DamnYankees forced on Richmond.
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.