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.
Then you should read the EP again, and Lincoln's explanation of the Constitutional rational and limitations. You should also read his pleadings with the congressional representatives of the 4 Union slave states (none of them were northern and two of them in fact also had rump Confederate legislatures and Representatives in the Confederate congress) virtually pleading with them to lead the efforts in their states to end slavery.
As to Lincoln's suspension of HC and ignoring Taney's order in the Merryman case, let me say this. Lincoln himself admitted that he "likely" did overstep his authority on suspending HC, but that he did it only to defend the rest of the Constitution in a moment of unpresidented crisis. ("Should I respect this one law while the rest of the Constitution is destroyed?) If he had not acted decisively the capitol city would have been cut off from the rest of the Union, and the United States of America would have likely ended that very day.
Current constitutional experts including Chief Justice Renquist have examined Lincoln's actions in the suspension of the writ and said since Congress was not in session and the crisis was immediate, the mere fact that he used a suspension fully proscribed in Article 1 was not in itself unconstitutional. That is a 20th Century interpretation of course, but it does come from a strict constructionist. My own feeling is that the Framers did not intend Constitutional limitations to inadvertently become the source of its own destruction.
As to ignoring Taney, I'd remind you that there is no requirement in the Constitution for either the Legislative or the Executive branch to automatically submit to any ruling from the judicial branch. Separation of powers. If congress didn't like what he did, they could have impeached him, but no ruling from the bench automatically forces any president to do anything. Ignoring the court can be an impeachable offense, but it is not unconstitutional.
I'd also remind you that when Congress returned for an emergency session in July, they not only affirmed every action Lincoln took from April on, but went well beyond in declaring emergency powers. Lincoln spent much time through the next 4 years restraining many of their more extreme actions.
I agree. But they continually do submit, even as the Bill of Rights is stomped on repeatedly by the secular humanist anti-Christiani bigots in the judiciary and their co-conspirators in the ACLU.
Anytime any official does anything in contravention to the codified law (U.S. Constitution) they overstep their authority and become a law unto themselves. If you can make an excuse for Lincoln, the same excuse can be made for any dismissal of Constitutional Law. The Constitution is not a suggestion - it is the LAW OF THE LAND. It is superior to any president, any judge, any Congress. Only the people can amend it and that process is purposefully difficult. But John Adams foresaw what would happen - he observed that the Constitution was "written for a moral and religious people and it is inadequate for the government of any other". Unvirtuous and BAD leaders and judges render the Constitution meaningless as they can interpret it away on sheer whim. It is a matter of time before all liberty is gone in America - we are on that path. Dictatorship is just around the corner.
I'll say one more thing on what is going on today. 200 years, ago, Americans were very familiar with the Constitution and they cherished its protections. Toqueville observed that the notions of liberty and Christianity were inseparable in the minds of Americans of that time. Today, 99% of Americans wouldn't know liberty and its true source if it up and bit them in the nose.
That was not a minor mistake - it went to the very foundations of the moral principles of our republic - the very value of human life.
Interesting phrase...as if the meaning of the words actually change over time. "Current Constitutional Experts" include many legal positivists who seem to believe that right and wrong evolve, and that cultures (and even international laws) trump the original intent of the founding fathers. Such people should be disbarred in my opinion - they aren't fit to practice law if they do not understand the foundation of law.
We agree. The two most shameful decisions in history.
Maybe I sould have said "living" experts, but even you have to admit that Renquist is not a "living document" kind of guy.
I'd be interested to see what Thomas or Scallia would say about Lincoln's actions regarding the suspension. To my knowledge, they have never written or talked about it.
I'll see if I can find the Renquist article. It was from a legal forum some years ago. Justice O'Connor was at the same forum and although she is not as conservative as Renquist, she's no blowing in the wind lefty in her constitutional interpertations either.
Robert Toombs warned Davis that would happen and predicted the eventual outcome of starting the war would be the destruction of the south. Davis choose to ignore him.
The Nashville was flying no flag and heading into an American port. The Lane fired a shot across it's bow, the Nashville raised the stars & stripes, and continued on it's way. That was standard operating procedure. All ships must identify their nationality by flying a flag. If the Nashville or any other ship were sailing into Boston harbor, or anywhere else even near American coastal waters without a flag, and came across the Lane or any other warship, with or without secession, that shot would have fired.
It's silly for these Lost Causers to continue to insist that was "the first shot", but then again, all of their mythology is silly.
And that continues to be one of the more ridiculous statements that you make on a regular basis around here. Slavery in the south, absent a Union victory in the Civil War, would have continued for decades after the war. Probably well into the 20th century.
Nonsense. The boat had been chartered to make the trip to Sumter. The soldiers were able to make the trip without the assistance of the captain, and returned his boat to him when they were done.
Lincoln never said anything like that. He avoided saying that. On the other hand, he said that so far as tested, black soldiers were as good as any, and of course he proposed voting rights for black soldiers.
Maybe he heard of this engagement:
"On the steaming night of June 6, 1863, four rebel regiments surprised black guards. The black novices, soldiers for only sixteen days, fumbled with their guns, fell back, stood firm, and flashed their bayonets. The blacks' white captain called the ensuing bayonet brawl "a horrible fight, the worst I was ever engaged in—not even excepting Shiloh."
In one ironic tableau, a Union black and a Confederate white lay slain, arms lodced like brothers, each with the other's bayonet planted in his belly. At last, a Union ship reinforced the unyielding blacks, and the rebels retreated. Black soldiers, declared an astounded Confederate battle report, resisted us "with considerable obstinacy, while the white or true Yankee portion ran like whipped curs."
One Confederate master suffered the best proof of black obstinacy. His slave captured him "and brought him into camp with great gusto." A Wisconsin cavalry officer described the lesson many Northerners learned from Fort Wagner and Milliken's Bend (and from the battle for Port Hudson, Louisiana, where black troops futilely charged and their bodies were left to rot under the blazing sun), "I never believed in niggers before, but by Jasus, they are hell for fighting."
--"The South vs. the South" p. 127 by William Freehling.
Walt
Oh. So it was a criminal act.
Walt
In the normal course of administering the government, the president had no power to affect slavery at all. It was a state institution, clearly protected in the Constititution. But areas where an armed insurgency existed -- ah, those areas came under the president's war powers. Oops.
Any general text on the war will tell you all this. Have you read any books about the Civil War? Fascinating subject.
Consider what President Lincoln said:
"You dislike the emancipation proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently. I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?"
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.