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.
I am amused by your choice of words in the first sentence... because you are using war terms when describing Lincoln's actions/motives concerning Ft. Sumter. complete and total surrender...acts of aggression ...acts of appeasement
Thank you for the history lesson, but I do understand that Lincoln considered the South in rebellion...
in your eyes that makes him a warmonger
A warmonger? Really? Did I make Lincoln a warmonger? I don't think so.
but as Lincoln himself pointed out the south would not have its war without the south initiating it. And that is what the south did.
How Bill Clinton of Lincoln to suggest that if he forced a confrontation and played out the drama (and he knew how the drama would unfold) then somehow all the responsibility would lie with South.
There is a subtle deceit and dishonesty in Lincoln's actions. He said that he would not initiate war, then proceeded to act in a manner that he knew would clearly do just that. His words were noble and full of peace. His actions were not. He lit a match to a can of gasoline, and then has the audacity to blame the can of gasoline when it erupts into flames.
No... my posts have consistently said that the South was spoiling for a fight. They were not dragged into the fight. They were as culpable as the North.
It seems to me that you resent any post that dares suggest that the North might be responsible or culpable for any part of the Civil War. You have put 110% of the blame on the South. And you defend the North's innocence with passion. (Good for you) So, it is no wonder you see insult and accusations against the North where no insult or accusations have been levied.
Doesn't sound as if the confederates were interested in compromise, does it?
Both sides equally wanted to fight... So, when the opportunity presented itself.... they both took to war like duck to water.
What other descriptions are appropriate? Your solution was to turn over Sumter to South Carolina. What is that but surrender to the Davis government? Lincoln would have been ignoring his promise to retain federal property and instead give in to those who would take that property. Give in rather than take a stand, that was your suggestion. What is that but surrender? How would that not be appeasement?
The leaders of the rebellion seized federal forts and facilities throughout the south prior to Lincoln's inauguration. They took these facilities in spite of the fact that they did not belong to them, without the permission of the government, and without compensation. They often took control of them using the local state militias, armed militias, to do so. What is that if not aggression? Those are certainly not the actions of a peaceful government intent on a peaceful solution.
You lay the blame on Lincoln and pay lip-service to southern culpability. If Lincoln had only done this, if he had not done that, none of this would have happened. Well, if Lincoln had done all that you insist then there would still be a war because the Davis government was determined to have one. Lincoln didn't light the match, or provide the gasoline. Lincoln tried to extinguish the flame struck buy the southern leaders long before he became president, and you want to point and say, "He did it!" Sorry if I don't play along.
never in US history had an ogre, tyrant & war CRIMINAL been so quickly transformed into a saint.
free the southland,sw
southerners just wanted to be LEFT ALONE!
when the damnyankees failed to get out of our families lives & affairs, the south had no other honorable course than political separation.
free the south,sw
CERTAIN WORDS & PHRASES have recognized meanings.
REVISIONISM/REVISIONIST is one of those "terms of art."
REVISIONISM is a product of the most extreme LEFTIST/SOCIALIST (some would say COMMUNIST!) school of political thought, which rose out of the poison-ivy league schools of the northeast.
whatever else we southrons are, it is not LEFTIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST! we leave that to the damnyankee elitists!
free dixie,sw
he is the Damnyankee Minister of Propaganda on FR! everything done by us southerners was wrong;everything done by the evil-spirited,hateFILLED,arrogant,ignorant damnyankees was PERFECT in every way, according to the Minister!
it is the NATURE of a PROAGANDIST to LIE, as it is the nature of a worm to wriggle.
free dixie,sw
How were the damnyankees controlling dixie in 1861?
also lincoln, the GREAT blood-spiller, tyrant & WAR CRIMINAL made sure that the policy of the government was to commit atrocities against civilians & innocent/helpless POWs on a wholesale basis.
free dixie,sw
Well, if Lincoln had done all that you insist then there would still be a war because the Davis government was determined to have one.
I am typing really slow now... so I hope you will finally understand what I have been posting all morning.
Yes, the Davis government wanted a war as badly as the Federal government did. Yes... the conflict had gone too far to ever be resolved by any other means than war...
Now...let's get back to Lincoln. You are reading far more into my posts than are there because you are offended for Lincoln's sake because you think I'm turning him into a war-mongering monster.
I am not. My posts have stated that Lincoln was insincere in stating that he did not a war when he set on a course of action that could only result in war. Lincoln could make all the pretty speeches he wanted... but the fact is that when he sent the fleet into the harbor, he knew war would be the end result. To blame the South alone (and that is what you are doing, and I am not)... is a perversion of history.
how many years do you think it would have taken the damnyankees to free the TENS of THOUSANDS of THEIR slaves????
my guess is about the same number of years. what's your guess???
free dixie,sw
they were the PRIVATELY PUBLISHED ramblings/rantings of a SMALL group of elitist slave owners, who spoke for NOBODY but themselves.
few average southerners KNEW and or CARED what they thought/wrote/published.
free dixie,sw you KNOW this to be true!
your post is just another in a LONG line of damnyankee apologist LIES, distortions & outright fabrications that come from the most extreme, leftist/marxist school of northeastern elitist political thought.
brown had "delusions of grandeur", heard "voices from the sky" & was reported, even in the north, to be "Unbalanced & not in contact with reality."
that's why.
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
free dixie,sw
he KNOWS the TRUTH but tells KNOWING LIES!
according to him, everything the southerners did was wrong & evil. according to him,everything done by the north was PERFECT IN EVERY WAY!
nobody here on FR, who has a brain, believes him.
that too, is TRUTH!
free dixie,sw
lincoln, the tyrant, was NOT INTERESTED in PEACE. he wanted CONQUEST, WAR & personal POLITICAL POWER from the war! so did the majority of the radicals in congress.
IF the damnedyankees had had a brain, they would have peacefully resolved the issue. instead they planned/prosecuted a war of CONQUEST, which cost the needless loss of over a MILLION citizens!
one wonders, if TODAY the southland chose to secede again, how many MILLIONS of people would the elitist,south HATING, freedom-despising, arrogant damnyankees be willing to KILL????
i suspect the loss of 25-100,000,000 would be A-OK with them, as long as they felt that they could remain in control of the remainder, as in "king of the smoking refuse pile".
to the damnyankee elitists, POWER and the pursuit of more power/money is EVERYTHING.
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.