Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Economics of the Civil War
LewRockwell.com ^ | January 13, 2004 | Mark Thornton and Robert Ekelund

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dixie; dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 1,101-1,131 next last
To: WhiskeyPapa
When they refunded Andrew Jackson's $1,000 fine with interest. Heck, he wasn't even president when he suspended the Writ.

Would that Lincoln could have obeyed the judge like Andrew Jackson eventually did. On paying the fine in New Orleans for having suspended to writ illegally, Jackson said:

Considering obedience to the laws, even when we think them unjustly applied, is the first duty of the citizen, and I do not hesitate to comply with the sentence you have heard pronounced; and I entreat you to remember the example I have given you of respectful submission to the administration of justice.

Didn't Congress remit Jackson's fine when he was about to become president a decade or more after he paid the fine?

651 posted on 01/20/2004 6:38:57 PM PST by rustbucket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
If I had been president, I would have followed Seward's advice. And there would have been no war.

That is an interesting comment.

IIRC Secretary of State Seward also wanted to gin up a conflict with Great Britain as a means of preserving the Union. So by following Seward's advice there would have been a war, just not a civil war.

652 posted on 01/20/2004 7:08:09 PM PST by mac_truck (Aide toi et dieu l’aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
When they refunded Andrew Jackson's $1,000 fine with interest.

Legislative acts of Congress do not overturn judicial decisions.

653 posted on 01/20/2004 7:53:13 PM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
The fact is, I need to research it further myself - taking all of the info into account - before I can form a position.

Good. Even the Supreme Court could only invent a decision based upon this being a "more perfect union" - they could not find any provision preventing secession. The founders, every single one in the federal and state conventions that voted to ratify, was a secessionist.

654 posted on 01/20/2004 7:57:07 PM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 632 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist; hirn_man
Ronald Reagan is a Californian. Why would you want him to lose his constitutionaly gaurenteed right to a republican form of government?

Alexander Hamilton opined during the debates that even a monarchy was "republician" if voted to that position. In Federalist no. 78 he wrote that it is the 'fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness.' Hamilton was a New Yorker, and agreed with his state regarding the resumption of powers.

655 posted on 01/20/2004 8:06:33 PM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 635 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Where does it say that habeas corpus may be suspended only through legislation?

Article I, Section 1. More specifically, it says that it may only be suspended by Congress, which implied by necessity an act of legislation.

656 posted on 01/20/2004 8:17:03 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 650 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Why, Congress, of course.

Give the names and provide the quote where they said somebody else could suspend it.

When they refunded Andrew Jackson's $1,000 fine with interest.

Jackson wasn't president and a simple refund of his fine does not make his act legal after the fact.

657 posted on 01/20/2004 8:19:06 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 645 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
Perhaps the strategy was to use economic weapons to crush the south's unfair edge in the marketplace -- slave labor.

That makes for a fancy excuse, but not economic sense. The yankee protectionists in 1860 said not a word about using economics to defeat slavery, nor did they likely even understand that much. Their entire message was nothing more than the following: we need government to help us overcome competition from abroad.

As for the south's alleged "unfair edge," it was becoming anything but that. In 1860 slavery was becoming increasingly less viable in an economic sense. Wage labor costs were going down and slave labor costs were going up - a trend that had been occurring for at least a decade. When prices on an economic input continually rise entrepreneurs eventually substitute it with a cheaper alternative.

658 posted on 01/20/2004 8:24:44 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
[Walt, hopelessly misinformed again] They proclaimed the actions of the president lawful under the Militia Act.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT SAID:

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....

Stop waving your dicta all over the place. It is unseemly and calls attention to your shortcomings.

659 posted on 01/21/2004 12:25:04 AM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
No... explain how Jackson was going to get in touch with the Congress and ask them to suspend the Writ -- with no telegraph and the Brits on the doorstep.

Jackson did the right thing. President Lincoln did the right thing.

Walt

660 posted on 01/21/2004 1:30:40 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 657 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
[N-S] While I agree that a Circuit Court may rule on cases in its district, I find the idea that something may be Constitutional in the 2nd District and not Constitutional in the 9th to be suspect. Only the Supreme Court can determine that.

Note: Your meaning is clear, but technically Circuits are distinguished from Districts.

The situation that obtains is that two circuits disagree on their interpretation of some aspect of the Constitution. Something may be considered constitutional in one Circuit and unconstitutional in another. Obviously, at least one of them is incorrect. The law is interpreted differently in the two jurisdictions and future rulings will be based on those differing interpretations until the Supreme Court weighs in with its opinion, which could adopt that of either circuit, or determine neither is correct and impose its own opinion.

It is actually a fairly common manner in which an issue arrives at the Supreme Court.

LINK

Circuit Conflicts

Federal and state appellants typcially have, as a matter of right, one appeal to an intermediate appellate court. However, the highest courts in each jurisdiction -- the U.S. Supreme Court and most state supreme courts -- have discretionary review. That is, the losing side in the intermediate appellate court can petition the higher court for review, but the higher court is not required to take the case.

One factor most higher courts consider in deciding whether to take review is whether the intermediate appellate courts have split on the issue and reached different results. If so, there is a circuit conflict, and the higher court is more likely to grant review.

LINK

When a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling that establishes a precedent, where is it considered “binding”?

A United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is binding only on the inferior courts within its jurisdiction, though the decisions can be “trend-setting” or influence the reasoning of other federal courts. For example, the decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that interprets the Second Amendment of the Constitution to protect an individual, rather than collective, right to bear arms is only binding on the courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has developed a reputation as a “rogue” or “trend-setting” court for its constitutional interpretations (e.g., the Pledge of Allegiance case).

LINK

Supreme Court agrees to hear U.S. v. Lara
From: Staff
Category: General Comment
Date: 12/3/2003
From Indianz.com

Wednesday, October 1, 2003

The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will resolve whether tribal governments have inherent sovereignty over all American Indians, not just members of their own tribes.

In a case with national significance, the justices accepted an appeal filed by the Bush administration. The Department of Justice is arguing that dual tribal and federal prosecution of Indian offenders does not violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on double jeopardy.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded otherwise and said that an Indian man who pleaded guilty in tribal court could not be tried for the same offense in federal court. A divided panel of judges voted 7-4 in March to strike down a federal indictment against Billy Jo Lara on charges that he punched a police officer on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota.

But the 9th Circuit arrived at a different conclusion in June 2001. In an 11-0 decision that escaped review by the Supreme Court, a full panel of judges said tribes who prosecute members of other tribes are exercising sovereignty independent of the federal government.

661 posted on 01/21/2004 2:09:22 AM PST by nolu chan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
More specifically, it says that it may only be suspended by Congress, which implied by necessity an act of legislation.

Nonsense. It only says that habeas corpus cannot be suspended except when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it. Nowhere does it specifically say that only congress can suspend it. And nowhere does it say that it requires an act of legislature to do it.

662 posted on 01/21/2004 3:52:58 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: nolu chan
Stop waving your dicta all over the place. It is unseemly and calls attention to your shortcomings.

The Prize Cases majority opinion clearly refers to the Militia Act and says the president has the power under that act to call out the Militia and suppress insurrection and rebellion.

This is just another case of a neo-reb wanting only part of the record considered.

I can't imagine how you expect to sway people when you are so blatantly unfair. It's just like GOPcap discounting the opinion of the present chief Justice on the habeas corpus issue.

Walt

663 posted on 01/21/2004 4:12:53 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Virtue is the uncontested prize.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: Aurelius
My lord. Whenever I begin to read these Civil War threads (139 years now guys, get over it), I always hear "Dueling Banjoes" in my head when I hear the rebel apologists play make-believe soldier.
664 posted on 01/21/2004 5:06:07 AM PST by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Jefferson Davis took up arms against the lawful government.

They simply wanted to be left alone, they did not seek to overthrow the federal government, nor oust Lincoln from office. The states constituting the Confederacy seceded and resumed their powers of self-government, certainly legal absent ANY prohibition to the contrary. Their citizens met in convention and voted to rescind their ratifications - it was not simply a legislative act, it was an act of republican governments expressing their sovereign rights.

665 posted on 01/21/2004 5:14:26 AM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 648 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
The states constituting the Confederacy seceded and resumed their powers of self-government, certainly legal absent ANY prohibition to the contrary.

There are certainly those who would dispute the 'absent ANY prohibitions' part, but it doesn't change the fact that in leaving you seized property and facilities that did not belong to you and chose to fire on those that the Lincoln administration insisted on holding on to. You initiated the war. I'm sorry that things didn't turn out to your liking but wars are like that.

666 posted on 01/21/2004 5:41:45 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
There are certainly those who would dispute the 'absent ANY prohibitions' part,

Please post the prohibition, if any, that existed prior to the war. Anything along the lines of "Thou shalt not secede" will be given extra consideration.

... but it doesn't change the fact that in leaving you seized property and facilities that did not belong to you ...

If the act of seizing property was a declaration of war, then why didn't Congress declare it when they were in session?

... and chose to fire on those that the Lincoln administration insisted on holding on to. You initiated the war. I'm sorry that things didn't turn out to your liking but wars are like that.

The Confederacy considered herself to be an independent nation - and the warships were just that - an invasionary force. The invasion broke the armistice in force. The majority of Lincoln's cabinet advised against sending the troops, that it would be an act of war.

'The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary.'
Henry Hallam, The Constitutional History of England: From the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II, New York: W. J. Widdleton, 1871, Vol. II, p. 219.

667 posted on 01/21/2004 6:09:26 AM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
"You seem to presuppose a legal obligation not to secede, something that is at least not clear."

It may not have been clear from a legal view, but they surely had even higher obligations to keep faith with the Republic. They pledged a solemn faith and violated it for light and transient reasons. They had other options to address their concerns and instead choose to give a unilateral middle finger to the legacy of the Framers because they swallowed their own macho propaganda that no one would dare stop them. They were arrogant, self-absorbed fools.

In my book, that is far more egregious than any legal violation.

668 posted on 01/21/2004 6:18:42 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
Please post the prohibition, if any, that existed prior to the war.

Unilateral actions on the part of the states is not supported by the Constitution.

If the act of seizing property was a declaration of war, then why didn't Congress declare it when they were in session?

It certainly wasn't the actions of those desiring a peaceful solution.

The aggressor in war is not the first who uses force, but the first who renders force necessary.'

Why was use of force necessary at Sumter?

669 posted on 01/21/2004 6:25:26 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
"In 1860 slavery was becoming increasingly less viable in an economic sense.

Pure Bravo Sierra. That is the biggest Lost Cause lie ever told. Slavery had never been more profitable than in 1860.

670 posted on 01/21/2004 6:31:46 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Unilateral actions on the part of the states is not supported by the Constitution.

'[N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.'

It certainly wasn't the actions of those desiring a peaceful solution.

No, it came after sending peace commissioners from SC, the Corwin amendment being blocked by republicans, the Washington Peace Conference failure, the Confederate Peace Commissioners sent 'to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations' being rejected, etc.

Why was use of force necessary at Sumter?

Warships entering the harbor despite assurances from Lincoln to the contrary.

671 posted on 01/21/2004 7:25:20 AM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
'[N]o State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.'

And when did that happen?

No, it came after sending peace commissioners from SC, the Corwin amendment being blocked by republicans, the Washington Peace Conference failure, the Confederate Peace Commissioners sent 'to agree, treat, consult, and negotiate of and concerning all matters and subjects interesting to both nations' being rejected, etc.

Bull. It started in December 1860 with the seizure of facilities in Charleston and continued throughout the south in the months that followed. Before the Corwin Amendment. Before the Washington Peace Conference, before the so-called confederate peace commission.

Warships entering the harbor despite assurances from Lincoln to the contrary.

I see. So they were shooting at warships and hit Sumter by mistake? </sarcasm>

672 posted on 01/21/2004 7:36:52 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If the decision was ex parte only because the attorney general refused to respond, or because the government refused to present Merryman to the court, why does its being ex parte somehow vitiate Taney's opinion?
673 posted on 01/21/2004 7:43:28 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 649 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Hadn't the American colonists sworn allegiance to the King of England?
674 posted on 01/21/2004 7:46:08 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
...why does its being ex parte somehow vitiate Taney's opinion?

Who says that being ex parte somehow denigrates this decision? Or any other ex parte decision for that matter?

675 posted on 01/21/2004 7:51:56 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 673 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Nonsense. It only says that habeas corpus cannot be suspended except when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it. Nowhere does it specifically say that only congress can suspend it. And nowhere does it say that it requires an act of legislature to do it

The constitution specifically says in the article containing the habeas corpus power that "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." That means Congress and Congress alone may suspend it.

So exactly what is it about the phrase "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" that you do not understand, non-seq?

676 posted on 01/21/2004 7:56:50 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Slavery had never been more profitable than in 1860.

If that is so then why were its costs exhibiting a continuous upward trend?

677 posted on 01/21/2004 7:57:44 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 670 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I believe one of your compadres earlier on this thread spoke of Taney's decision as ex parte as though that somehow vitiates it. That was why I started asking in what way it was ex parte. By the way, can somebody tell me -- I still don't quite know, and that's what I've been asking -- exactly what about the case made the decision ex parte?
678 posted on 01/21/2004 7:59:19 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 675 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
No... explain how Jackson was going to get in touch with the Congress and ask them to suspend the Writ -- with no telegraph and the Brits on the doorstep.

Irrelevant. Your statement assumes that it was absolutely necessary to suspend the writ in the first place (as if he could not seek arrests and simply file charges with them). It is also incomparable to any situation Lincoln ever faced because where Jackson did not have a telegraph and was hundreds of miles away from the capital building, Lincoln DID have a telegraph and was about half a mile away from the capital building.

679 posted on 01/21/2004 8:00:48 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 660 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
"Hadn't the American colonists sworn allegiance to the King of England?"

Yes they had, but the King didn't hold up his end of the bargain and only after 10 years of petitioning to redress their grievances did they renounce their allegiance and even then, only after the King sent his army to enforce his illegitimate decrees. No such process preceded the treason of of the 1860s. It was unilateral and completely unjustified.

I understand that it is difficult for a true believer of the Lost Cause lies to understand the differences between the Patriots of '76 and the slaveocrats of '61, but read the Declaration of Independence some time. It explains the difference quite nicely.

680 posted on 01/21/2004 8:01:34 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 674 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
...exactly what about the case made the decision ex parte?

According to you it isn't, so what are you worried about? I explained why the rest of the world thinks it's ex parte back in reply 547.

681 posted on 01/21/2004 8:03:14 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 678 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Bull. It started in December 1860 with the seizure of facilities in Charleston

Siezures? Hardly. Robert Anderson ABANDONED those forts. The SC troops simply moved in and claimed what was originally theirs to begin with.

682 posted on 01/21/2004 8:04:28 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
I thought those "illegitimate decrees" were Acts of Parliament.
683 posted on 01/21/2004 8:05:13 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 680 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
So exactly what is it about the phrase "shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" that you do not understand, non-seq?

"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."

So where does it say that habeas corpus can be suspended only by Congress or through legislation, GOP?

684 posted on 01/21/2004 8:05:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 676 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Lincoln DID have a telegraph and was about half a mile away from the capital building.

The capitol building where no one was home, while the rebels had sabatours burning the bridges between Philaderlphia and Baltimore that were to only way members of Congress could return to Washington in an expediant manner. There was no Reagan Ariport or I 95 in those days, ya know.

What would President Bush do if an insurrection broke out in the Washington suburbs today while Congress is out of session?

685 posted on 01/21/2004 8:07:08 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 679 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And when did that happen?

It's a unilateral action. Georgia could refuse to send Senators to Washington, and the government couldn't legally do a thing about it. Unilateral state action. But the states were illegally deprived of representation after ratifying the 13th and failing to ratify the 14th.

Bull. It started in December 1860 with the seizure of facilities in Charleston and continued throughout the south in the months that followed.

Whoop-ti-doo. And Congress declared war on them for doing so, right? Even after seizing the forts on their coasts, they still attempted on multple occasions to negotiate. Lincoln wanted war, and he got one.

I see. So they were shooting at warships and hit Sumter by mistake? </sarcasm>'

No. Informed that warships were almost there, the Confederacy demanded surrender of the fort. Maybe if Lincoln had negotiated in faith, instead of lying to Justice Campell et al, the war never would have been fought.

686 posted on 01/21/2004 8:09:23 AM PST by 4CJ (||) Dialing 911 doesn't stop a crime - a .45 does. (||)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 672 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
What would President Bush do if an insurrection broke out in the Washington suburbs today while Congress is out of session?

Why wouldn't arresting and holding people on criminal charges solve any such problem?

687 posted on 01/21/2004 8:09:47 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 685 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
If that is so then why were its costs exhibiting a continuous upward trend?

What costs were up? The price of slaves was on a steep upward trend for sure, even with their rapidly growing supply of slaves. That can only indicate that they were increasingly more valuable both as labor, and as a self-replicating investment vehicle.

IF slavery was becoming less profitable, the price of slaves would have been dropping, not rising.

But then again, maybe Lost Cause economics operates in a different universe.

688 posted on 01/21/2004 8:15:32 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 677 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
I guess I'd have to take your word for that. But this part:

As for the south's alleged "unfair edge," it was becoming anything but that. In 1860 slavery was becoming increasingly less viable in an economic sense. Wage labor costs were going down and slave labor costs were going up - a trend that had been occurring for at least a decade. When prices on an economic input continually rise entrepreneurs eventually substitute it with a cheaper alternative.

I can only speculate on, and I speculate thus: Can't conceive of wages honestly paid ever being lower than slave wages. The capital owned is always cheaper than the capital rented, except perhaps in anomolous situations of market distortion (interference).

Thanks for the refresher. Oh, and I have a little rule of thumb: The Invisible Hand (the One whom I acknowledge with my screen name) sees to it that the cost of immorality in the marketplace will eventually bankrupt the enterprise; the principle being at times speedy and at other times very slow, but at all times inexorable. You can take it to the bank.

689 posted on 01/21/2004 8:23:52 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (do not remove this tag under penalty of law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 658 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Why wouldn't arresting and holding people on criminal charges solve any such problem?

First of all, suspension of the writ means they are not charged. But suppose that the next time Congress is out of session, thousands of people come storming out of mosques after Friday prayers screaming death to America and then suddenly bridges along 95 and 270 start blowing up, the airport, the Capital building and the Pentagon start taking random mortor rounds, and suicide bombers are blowing up on crowded metro platforms.

We kind of know the source of the problems, but we don't know which individuals may be the problem. We have a very nice profile of likely suspects, but we have no direct evidence on any of them.

You're the President. What would you do?

690 posted on 01/21/2004 8:28:40 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 687 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
You're the President. What would you do?

Arrest a lot of people on a charge like criminal conspiracy, and wait to see how the courts handle the cases. I think the people that wrote the Constitution made the judgment that that would be preferable to holding people without any charges specified. And I think they were right in that judgment.

691 posted on 01/21/2004 8:34:16 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 690 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
Arrest a lot of people on a charge like criminal conspiracy, and wait to see how the courts handle the cases.

You wouldn't make it through the arraignment. They'll be out the door in less than 24 hours. You have to show probable cause for a judge to remand the case. You don't have probable cause, and shouting death to America is not illegal nor a conspiracy.

I'm damn glad you're not President.

692 posted on 01/21/2004 8:41:35 AM PST by Ditto ( No trees were killed in sending this message, but billions of electrons were inconvenienced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 691 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
But the states were illegally deprived of representation after ratifying the 13th and failing to ratify the 14th.

The states freely withdrew their representation when they began their rebellion. They willingly participated in the rebellion. They accepted the results of their actions, and that included keeping those who led the rebellion from returning to Congress as if nothing had happened.

Lincoln wanted war, and he got one.

In the immortal words of my good and learned friend, Ditto, Bravo Sierra. Davis wanted the war. He needed the war. He got the war, and the results of it.

Maybe if Lincoln had negotiated in faith, instead of lying to Justice Campell et al, the war never would have been fought.

Negotiate what? The so-called peace commissioners were tasked with obtaining recognition of the legitimacy of the Davis regime and the success of the southern rebellion, and only then with issues of disagreement between governments. In other words, surrender to confederate demands. There was nothing to discuss.

693 posted on 01/21/2004 8:54:32 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 686 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
WELL SAID!

free dixie,sw

694 posted on 01/21/2004 8:57:19 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 516 | View Replies]

To: aristeides
YEP!

free dixie,sw

695 posted on 01/21/2004 9:01:08 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 552 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
what an INCREDIBLY & ARROGANTLY STUPID post!

do you REALLY believe that nonsense & REVISIONIST drivel????

free dixie,sw

696 posted on 01/21/2004 9:03:34 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
If there's no probable cause, they shouldn't be held. Not, at least, as long as Congress has not suspended habeas corpus after judging that the constitutional requirements (rebellion or invasion, plus threat to public safety) are met.
697 posted on 01/21/2004 9:05:25 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
if i were POTUS for a day, i'd ENCOURAGE new england, CA,OR,WA & NY to secede & happily wave goodbye/good riddence to them from the rest of the country.

the USA would be MUCH better off w/o all those damnyankees & LIBs.<P.free dixie,sw

698 posted on 01/21/2004 9:10:47 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: hirn_man
there are NO neo-confederates, period, end of story.

BUT there are hundreds of thousands of PALEO-Confederates, who have not forgotten that our families once had LIBERTY from 1861-65.free dixie,sw

699 posted on 01/21/2004 9:13:21 AM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. -T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 593 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
How do you distinguish the actions of the German government under the Reichstag Fire Decree from the kinds of actions you apparently require from the American government in emergency situations?
700 posted on 01/21/2004 9:13:23 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 601-650651-700701-750 ... 1,101-1,131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson