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.
free the south,sw
for example, the government placed a TAX and a export tarriff on RAW COTTON, saying that every grower was being equally treated/taxed, while knowing that NO cotton was grown in the north.
otoh, FINISHED yard goods, made from that same cotton, were NOT TAXED and/or subject to the export controls.the finished yard goods were made in northern textile mills!<P.free dixie,sw
I have a degree in history and I understand that many historians apply their ideology when interpretating history. However, this is a form of bias and is a historiographical weakness, not a strength; and in order to accurately assess any written history, historiography must be taken into account. There is only one true account of any event in history, and the best history books are the most objective history books (i.e. the ones with the least ideological bias). That being said, some aspects of historical events cannot be known - like people's motives for doing things (especially in the absence of stated motives). In these cases, it becomes a psychological analysis, not a historical analysis, per se.
So, I reject this book for the same reason I reject Marx. I believe this is a twisting of history, that seems to elevate a less prominent cause of the civil war (economics) to a more prominent role than it deserves.
I'm interested in truth, I am not excited by subjective twists.
And just how do you single out those books which contain just the "truth" and no "subjective twists"? What basis do you have for even thinking that such books exist?
And just how do you single out those books which contain just the "truth" and no "subjective twists"? What basis do you have for even thinking that such books exist?
Of course, no one can be perfectly objective. However, blatant bias is not that hard to spot. Primary sources of evidence are the key, of course. Secondary sources are more prone to bias and inaccuracy. There is a correct interpretation of evidence and an incorrect interpretation of evidence. All differing accounts of the same event cannot be true (law of contradiction comes into play). That is precisely why historiography is an important part of being an historian.
Like all other disciplines these days, history is rife with postmodern relativism - and it's a false way of looking at the world. Truth exists.
for example, the government placed a TAX and a export tarriff on RAW COTTON, saying that every grower was being equally treated/taxed, while knowing that NO cotton was grown in the north.
Do you just make this stuff up as your go along? Show us some record of your imaginary Export Tax. When was it inacted? What was the rate? And what color is the sky in your world?
Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. There is no way we could possibly know for sure. If there is an afterlife maybe we will find out then.
Baloney. I will prove it right now with two simple true statements: Gravity will make you fall if you jump off a bridge. Care to test that truth?
Here's another one: If you were to go mushroom hunting and you accidentally picked and ate the poisonous variety believing it was the edible variety, would you get sick? The truth is the mushroom would be poison no matter what you thought about it.
The Defense rests. Truth exists.
I do, however, realize I asked the wrong question. It isn't whether Stonewall Jackson owned slaves, but rather "what happened to the slaves that Stand Watie owned?". Of course, the war had nothing to do with slavery. Pardon me while I quote from limited sources, in what apparently seems to be an acceptable practice:
From http://www.georgiahistory.ws/articles/stand_watie.asp
*****
As a prosperous planter and slave owner (emphasis mine), Stand Watie was sympathetic to the Southern cause, but his dedication had little to do with his loyalty to the Southern states. (emphasis mine) He, no doubt, saw the war as an opportunity to get rid of his old treaty party enemies – the John Ross regime.
When Confederate emissaries approached him for his support, he agreed to organize a cavalry unit. With the outbreak of the war, Stand Watie was made a colonel in the Confederate army and he raised a regiment of mostly mixed-blood, pro-slavery (need I say it? Emphasis mine) soldiers known as the Cherokee Mounted Volunteers.21
*****
Doesn't seem that economics or being left alone were either one a strong motivation here. But as I stated earlier, I'm using a very limited number of courses here.
It positively wears me out trying to decide which buttons to push. And here I'm out of popcorn. Guess I'll have to resort to pretzels for this show. Enjoy yourselves! Doubt I'll post again in this thread. I'll be too busy watching. :-)
The fact is that history can be known for certain in many respects. There is truth in history. If there wasn't then eyewitness accounts at murder trials would not carry the weight that they do in our legal system. Certain things can be known for sure, e.g. George Washington was 1st president, Lincoln was assassinated at Ford's Theatre in April 1965, slavery and states rights were two major underlying causes of the civil war, many southerners fought to defend their homeland (e.g. Jackson, Lee) - not for slavery, etc. etc. etc. Primary sources reveal true facts that cannot be denied. There is true history - logic does not allow that there be 2 opposing or contradictory TRUE accounts of the exact same event. That violates the law of contradiction and the law of contradiction is irrefutable.
I'm sorry, I didn't think, given the context, that it was necessary, and I still don't.
Again, you come down to facts - not addressing the issue. Historical facts can be known with varying degrees of certainty. Yes we can be virtually certain of the main details of Lincoln's assassination. Concerning the issue raised on this forum the other day of whether or not Lincoln issued a warrant for Taney's arrest, it is probably beyond our power to know. But your criticism of the Thornton-Ekelund book was not about facts, it was about interpretation. Like the example I gave of the depression. I notice that you didn't address that example at all. Your final statement refers to "factual" historical accounts. But few historians are content with merely factual accounts. They also interpret and "explain". Two interpretive-explanatory accounts can both be logically consistent, consistent with all the known facts and relevent laws or principles (economic, sociological, etc.) and still be quite different. How would you distinguish the true from the false? Or prove the supposedly true one true. Interpretive-explanatory accounts are of necessity ideologically grounded.
It was an unreasonable of Lincoln to expect that a fleet of warships from a hostile power would be permitted entry into Charleston harbor. Their mission, which included orders to fight their way in when they were inevitably refused entrance, was one of inherent hostility. The simple fact is that without Lincoln's fleet there would have been no bombardment. It was the direct and causal instigating event.
Sure they did - just not in one single document. The secession speeches in Congress quoted directly from the declaration several times. Several of the secession ordinances mirrored its clauses individually. Even Ex Parte Merryman quoted from it in reference to Lincoln's replacement of the civil authority with the military.
Cause he used to kidnap families from their homes in the middle of the night, take them out into the woods, hack their heads into pieces, and spread their desecrated and chopped up body parts on the roadside as a "warning" to travellers.
If his intent was NOT to start a war then why send warships instead of a resupply vessel? Why plow ahead with the warships after being explicitly warned by half your cabinet that doing so would provoke war? Why refuse to meet with negotiators who had sought to resolve the thing peacefully? Why send a letter after the war was started there informing the commander of the expedition that its outcome --meaning war-- was the desired effect even if the expedition did not go as planned?
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.