Skip to main content
Log in

Desperation votes and private interests: an analysis of Confederate trade legislation

  • Published:
Public Choice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Confederate Congress passed draconian trade legislation in February 1864 to regulate the blockade running business in contrast to their free trade agenda. This legislation created higher prices and deadweight costs except in areas under Union control. We examine the series of votes and proposed amendments relating to the passage of this legislation and find that representatives were more likely to vote for trade regulations if their districts would be largely unaffected by the legislation, such as those districts under Union occupation. This private interest explanation provides a heretofore unexplored historical example of public choice theory under extreme conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexander, T. B., & Beringer, R. E. (1972). The anatomy of the confederate congress: a study of the influences of member characteristics on legislative voting behavior, 1861–1865. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman, F., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Was “V” for victory or votes? A public choice analysis of World War II federal spending. Public Choice, 144, 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bensel, R. F. (1990). Yankee leviathan: The origins of central state authority in America, 1859–1877. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beringer, R. E., Hattaway, H., Jones, A., & Still, W. N. Jr. (1986). Why the south lost the Civil War. Athens: University of Georgia Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Confederate States of America, Congress. (1904–1905). Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, 1861–1865. [U.S.] 58th Congress, 2nd session, Senate Doc. no. 234. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

  • Dougherty, K. L., & Heckelman, J. C. (2008). Voting on slavery at the Constitutional Convention. Public Choice, 136, 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekelund, R. B., Jackson, J. D., & Thornton, M. (2004). The ‘unintended consequences’ of confederate trade legislation. Eastern Economic Journal, 30, 187–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekelund, R. B., & Thornton, M. (1992). The union blockade and demoralization of the south: relative prices in the Confederacy. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 890–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ekelund, R. B., & Thornton, M. (2001). The Confederate blockade of the south. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 4, 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faust, D. G. (1988). The creation of Confederate nationalism: ideology and identity in the Civil War south. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougherty, K., & Heckelman, J. (2008). Voting on slavery at the constitutional Convention. Public Choice, 136, 293–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, B., & Kower, P. (2005). Technological diffusion and profitability of blockade running during the civil war: the Lebergott paradox undone. Paper presented at the 75th annual meeting of the Southern Economic Association, Washington, D.C.

  • Hetherington, B., & Kower, P. J. (2009). A reexamination of Lebergott’s paradox about blockade running during the American civil war. The Journal of Economic History, 69, 529–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., & Elliott, K. A. (1990). Economic sanctions reconsidered. Washington: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel, J. R. (1996). Emancipating slaves, enslaving free men: a history of the American civil war. Chicago: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. A. (1999). Examining the bonding effects of party: a comparative analysis of roll-call voting in the U.S. and confederate houses. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 1144–1165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. A. (2000). Examining the robustness of ideological voting: evidence from the confederate house of representatives. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 811–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, J. A., & Weidenmier, M. (1999). Ideology, economic interests, and congressional roll-call voting: partisan instability and bank of the United States legislation, 1811–1816. Public Choice, 100, 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. B. (1961[1861–1865]). In E. S. Miers (Ed.), A rebel war clerk’s diary. New York: A.S. Barnes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebergott, S. (1981). Through the blockade: the profitability and extent of cotton smuggling, 1861–1865. Journal of Economic History, 41, 867–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majewski, J. (2009). Modernizing a slave economy: the economic vision of the Confederate Nation. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. E., & Tollison, R. D. (1981). Politicians, legislation, and the economy. Boston: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, R. A., & van Cott, T. N. (2002). The Confederate constitution, tariffs, and the Laffer relationship. Economic Inquiry, 40, 428–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montenegro, C., & Soto, R. (1996). How distorted is Cuba’s trade? Evidence and predictions from a gravity model. Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 5, 45–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, R. T. (2001). Economic warfare: sanctions, embargo busting and their human cost. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owsley, F. L. (1959[1931]). King cotton diplomacy: foreign relations of the confederate states of America, 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. W. (1948). Ships that tested the blockade of the Carolina ports, 1861–1865. American Neptune, 8, 196–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. W. (1951). Ships that tested the blockade of the gulf ports, 1861–1865. American Neptune, 11, 279–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. W. (1952). Ships that tested the blockade of the gulf ports, 1861–1865. American Neptune, 12, 52–59, 154–161, 229–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, M. W. (1955). Ships that tested the blockade of the Georgian and east Florida ports, 1861–1865. American Neptune, 15, 229–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rable, G. C. (1994). The Confederate republic: a revolution against politics. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Razaghian, R. (2004). Financing the civil war: the confederacy’s financial strategy. Yale ICF Working Paper No. 04-45 (December).

  • Surdam, D. G. (2001). Northern naval superiority and the economics of the American Civil War. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, M., & Ekelund, R. B. (2004). Tariffs, blockade and inflation: economics and the Civil War. Wilmington: Scholarly Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Senate (58th Congress, Document No. 234). (1905). Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States of America, 1861–1865, Vols. 6 and 7, Washington: Government Printing Office.

  • Vandiver, F. E. (Ed.) (1947). Confederate blockade running through Bermuda, 1861–1865. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weidenmier, M. D. (2005). Gunboats, reputation, and sovereign repayment: lessons from the southern confederacy. Journal of International Economics, 66, 407–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert B. Ekelund Jr..

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ekelund, R.B., Jackson, J.D. & Thornton, M. Desperation votes and private interests: an analysis of Confederate trade legislation. Public Choice 144, 199–214 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9511-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9511-2

Keywords

Navigation