TEST

this is a test. switching over to the new blogger.

Raamin Mostaghimi
AFP Section 1
2/14/07

Summary of McPherson's "British Realpolitik Trumps 'King Cotton'"

McPherson's essay essentially lays out the power politics motives behind international during the civil war. This is a viewpoint not often visited in a standard US History class, and as such was very interesting to me, but there were a few points that I found of more interest than others, and these are the points I'll visit in more detail.
The main point I found interesting was the notion that most of Europe seemed to hold that the war was inevitably going to be won by the South. This runs contrary to everything I was taught in all of my history classes, that despite the superiority of the generals of the South, the North's material advantage was so strong that there was essentially no chance that they'd lose. The South most likely realized this (at least to some degree) and it was for this reason that they were so persistent in trying to gain official recognition of statehood and mediation from European powers. Without some sort of European support, there was no way that the South could even hope to stand a chance against the sheer material the North had, and they knew this, but Europe didn't seem to.
Whether this is a failure simply of European intelligence gathering (which I would assume is really not something too developed at this point in history) or if it was willful blindness on the part of idealistic individuals was not really explained in the article, but I'd guess it was a little of both. European sympathies would have lain squarely in the lap of the "revolutionaries" (especially in France) EXCEPT for the fact that the South supported slavery. As stated in this article, as long as the Union kept the scope of the war away from abolition, the Europeans would be neutral. As soon as Lincoln announced the Emancipation Proclamation, however, the tables turned dramatically in favor of the Union.
Another extremely interesting set of facts was the sheer number of times the European powers (notably Britain) came to within an inch of intervention. The seizure of the two CSA ambassadors is the particular instance that comes to mind as the most egregious of these occurrences, and also the most interesting. Seward's sheer testicular fortitude in standing up to the might of the British Naval Fleet in the face of possible blockade and invasion from Canada is without parallel, and really should have been exemplified in a general as well as a Secretary of State. The fact that the US had to return the ambassadors notwithstanding, the very fact that Seward and Lincoln sent the British back home eating crow is a major victory in and of itself.

AFP NOTES 2/13
midterm exam: march 5, 3-430PM
the foreign policy of civil war 1861-1865
A) DEFINING THE WAR
president abraham lincoln
key players in the war were lincoln and seward
-lincoln was determined to maintain the civil war as just that- the 'civil war'
-this was in part to keep other nations OUT of america or from taking sides
-never once referred to the CSA as confederates, but as 'rebels'
-threatened war against anybody who recognizes the confederacy as an independent nation
-recognition as an independent state was the key aspect of CSA foreign policy
-as early as feb 1861, Jefferson Davis (president of the CSA) tried to get recognition from outside
-they did this for a few reasons
-1) try to finesse slavery (so if slavery became kind of accepted around the world, favor would shift to their side)
-2) recognition would end war (if another nation intervened on their behalf, the north would just be outmatched)
-3) reliance of global economy on cotton (hopefully they could sway people economically)
-there was an uprising of popular support for the CSA in england, largely due to internal british politics
-limited government favored over big government
-decentralization favored over centralization
-self-government favored over empire
-low tariffs preferred over protectionism
-hedge against US expansion
-all of these factors came together to make the brits more likely to support the CSA, but they didnt really do anything just now

Lincoln decided to impose a blockade (april 16)
-did this without consulting congress, because he called the south an 'insurrection'
-called any confederate actions on the high seas 'piracy'
-the british, french recognized the CSA as belligerents
-would allow CSA ships into ports, refuel, etc
-allowed to do non-war actions
-US was PISSED OFF at this
-Charles Francis Adams was sent over to bitch out the brits
-said that if the brits recognized the CSA as an actual state, then the US would be forced to go to war
-it worked

Congress then retroactively empowered the president's blockade
-went one further
-empowered the President to CLOSE ports in the CSA
-allows US to seize any british or any other ships in CSA ports
-british got PISSED OFF at this, said that the US wasn't actually in control of the ports, threatened lincoln
-lincoln took this all into consideration, decided NOT to use congressional authorization to close southern ports

SoS william seward
seward was known to be aggressive in terms of asserting the monroe doctrine
-he was seen as a prime mover behind the civil war
prime minister palmerston

foreign minister russell

B) THE BACKLASH TO EXCEPTIONALISM: THE DECLARATION OF PARIS
commerce raiders
these were essentially privateers
-prior to the declaration of paris, governments could issue 'letters of marque' which allowed them to carry out naval action against enemy ships
-britain was really happy about this, agreed, along with lots of europe
-US refused to sign this (this happened before the war)
-came back to haunt the US, Jefferson Davis employed shitloads of privateers to attack US ships
-when the war starts, US decides it wants to jump on board
british did NOT accept US's claim that the rest of the signatories were forced to help police the seas and take out privateers
-britain still doesn't believe that the CSA are 'insurgents', but possibly something else
-Britain says that they will NOT help enforce the agreement
-US says that this destroys the reciprocity of the treaty, so they decided NOT to enter the declaration of paris
CSA starts building commerce raiders and privateers in english ports to attack US shipping
-britain then passed the 'Foreign Enlistment Act' which forbade the building of warships on british soil or seaports
-CSA gets around this by commissioning regular ships, commissioning big guns, then assembling them somewhere else
because of the blockade, blockade runners (really really fast ships) started getting commissioned to ship cotton out
-in response, lincoln decided to state that the US would start sending out their own privateers to attack the blockade runners
alabama claims
after the war, US claims reparations against the british for building CSA ships
-these claims were called the 'alabama claims'
-US demanded either $2 billion or Canada
-eventually got watered down to $15.5 million in reparations
-this is an incredible precedent of international arbitration, good thing!
-codified some international law (of sorts)

C) THE TRENT AFFAIR
john slidell
sent to europe by CSA after Jefferson Davis wanted to recall his european ambassadors
supposed to go to france
never got to europe
james mason
same situation, supposed to go to england
also never got to europe

both were captured by an American naval captain charles wilkes
charles wilkes
halted the CSA/British blockade runners
-retook the two ambassadors and their staffs

this really turned the tables on britain
-british were stopping american ships and impressing any british citizens, and even slaves, into british service
-'right of search'
-Wilkes turned the tables, retook 'american citizens'
-lincoln said that if the british demanded the ambassadors back, they would return them, but force the brits to admit that they were wrong
-brits would then give up the right to impressment, admit they had been wrong for 60 years
-brits took this as a huge affront to their honor
-sent 11,000 troops to canada with instructions to attack if the british ambassador was withdrawn
-sent much more naval power to enforce a blockade if necessary
-Seward's response- bring it on
-said that he would fight the whole world if necessary to assert american independence
-british embargoed saltpeter to the US in response
-lincoln eventually returns the ambassadors, the brits essentially get morally bitched

D) KING COTTON
south still DOMINATES the international cotton market
-Hammond (congressman from south carolina) said that there was no way any nation would declare war on cotton
-it was just such a necessary commodity
-south provides 75%-80% of cotton to british mills
-problem here was by the time the war began, most of the 1860 crop of cotton was already sent over
-huge surpluses of cotton in british factories
-the only way the south could induce cotton shortages was to deliberately withhold cotton from the rest of the world for a few years
-Jefferson Davis ended up burning a bunch of cotton crops, etc
-problems with this
-no cash flow
-didnt really have any effect
-the people directly affected (laid-off cotton workers) couldnt vote anyways
-other sectors of the economy boomed (shipbuilding, etc)
-british HATED slavery
-US agricultural exports boomed during the same time period (1860-1862)
-rise of 'King Corn'
-british started diversifying their suppliers
-by the time the south realized what was going on, they were screwed
-most of the crop got burned
-transportation infrastructure was shot
-south got BITCHED
E) THE STRUGGLE OVER RECOGNITION
while in the west the south was losing a bit, in the east, the US was just getting shanked by the CSA
-was getting closer to recognition by other nations
-if DC or Baltimore got taken by the CSA, british might have been prepared to step in and mediate peaceful separation, or even declaring war on the US
-this was UNACCEPTABLE to the US
September of 1862, Robert E Lee decided to push north into maryland on an offensive campaign
-Special Order 191 was sent out by Lee
-got INTERCEPTED by the Union, now the US has the war plans
-any better general than McClellan would have OWNED Lee, McClellan just sucks
antietam, September 17, 1862
bloodiest day in american history, basically evenly matched armies just slaughtered each other
the emancipation proclamation, september 22, 1862
announced after the 'victory' at antietam
-all slaves in the CSA were declared as free
-british werent too keen on this
-they thought that the US was just trying to incite slave rebellions and genocide in the south, just trying to destroy the south
-however, this was a HUGE success around the world

F) EUROPEAN INTERVENTION IN MEXICO
maximillian of hapsburg

July 17, 1861
-president of Mexico suspended payments on interest of loans to foreign countires
-this is 'defaulting'
-spain, france, UK in the Treaty of London of 1861
-went into Mexico to get their money back
-US gets pissed at this violation of the Monroe Doctrine
-Seward realizes that they can't actually fight off the europeans out of mexico, kind of whimpers
-spanish install maximillian of hapsburg as emperor of mexico
-revolts breaks out
-after the civil war, the US starts supplying mexican rebels with arms
-feb 12, 1866
-US demands removal of monarchy from mexico
-blockades mexico, etc
-french withdraw, June 1867, maximillian of hapsburg is lined up and shot
-last intervention in the western hemisphere until the cold war

OCC CIV JS MILL STUFF

Questions:

1) What is liberty according to Mill?

both civil and social liberty

-nature and limits of the power which can be legitimiately exercised by society over the individual

-HARM PRINCIPLE

-your rights extend until they violate the rights of others

Three types of liberty

-1) Liberty of Thought and Discussion

-free speech is really really really really important

-humanity is actually harmed by supressing free expression of speech

-2) Liberty of Individuality

-Mill thinks its a real problem that individuality is not recognized as a good in and of itself, rather than a means to an end

-individuality is necessary for Mill's society to function effectively

-individuality is useful because people can learn from nonconformists

-if individual thought is stifled, human thought and exploration stagnates

-3) Harms Principle

-Mill rejects the social contract, but believes that since society is providing certain protection for people, they should act a certain way in return

-example of the principle- a person spends lavishly and can't pay back his debts. he should be punished for not paying his debts, not for living lavishly

-a person's rights extend until they injure the rights of otehrs

2) How does Mill's notion of liberty differ from the range of ideas expressed during the French Revolution on the basis of Hunt's compendium?

Mill's notion of liberty is based on the Harm Principle

-your rights extend until they infringe on the rights of others

-government exists to SERVE THE PEOPLE

Hunt's notion of liberty is based on Human Rights

-your rights are all that is important

-government exists to PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS

-so apparently hunt is telling you what you want government to do for you

-just protect your rights

again:

Mill's notion of liberty is based on the HARM PRINCIPLE: your rights extend until they harm others

Hunt's notion of liberty is based on HUMAN RIGHTS: you have a defined set of natural rights you're born with, which can exclude things that may not harm others

3) What do Mill's ideas have to do with liberalism as described in lectures and in Rapport's text?

classical liberalism is broadly defined as a doctrine stressing the importance of the individual

-subtexts for this include property rights, stressing rationality, natural rights, constitutional limitations on government

Mill's liberalism follows this defnition very closely

-he essentially defines classical liberalism

-his ideas of constitutional limits on government are essentially the defining writings for classical liberalism

-the Tyranny of the Majority is a major concern

-rationality is also big, as is property rights, etc

AFP NOTES 2/12

Problems with expansion:
1) British Encroachment
-Maine, canada, etc
-first 'evil empire'
-biggest security threat to the borders
-american solution to the security threat- acquire as much territory as possible
2) northern encroachment
-southerners feared that the northerners would expand a whole lot, try to eliminate slavery
-the british emancipated slaves throughout the british empire, southerners feared that the north would do the same
-Texans really had this fear, they really really really wanted to keep their slaves
-it was pretty much the reason they seceded from mexico
-southerners feared that if the north emancipated the slaves, slaves from the south would drain straight north
-texas was a 'safety valve' for slavery

March 1, 1845, Tyler signed the annexation of texas
-mexico suspended diplomatic relations

July 1845-
-Zachary Taylor took 4000 troops positioned on the West Bank of the Nueces River across the border
-Nueces river was thought by the mexicans to be the boundary line between mexico and US
-Taylor sent the message that they were actually going to annex all of texas
-January 1846- troops received the order to advance 150 miles south
-May 1846- a few americans are killed in a minor skirmish, became reasoning behind the war
-once again a defensive war
-Congress voted on May 13 to declare war

Oregon's up next
-1818- britain and US vote for JOINT OCCUPATION (citizens of both countries can live inside)
-1827- the treaty is extended 'in perpetuity'
-webster ashburton treaty- 1842- puts border at 49th parallel all the way to the pacific
-luckily for americans, british didnt want war with america, not in their economic interests

Now time for California
-port of San Francisco was really really really important
-1835, 1842, two different presidents tried to buy california, mexico didnt sell
-mexicans really didnt have too much presence there, though
-most of mexican people were in modern-day mexico
-John Sudell (american negotiator) offered $25 million for California & new mexico
-at least $20 million for cali north of monterey
-main point was that money be no object to the purchase of cali
June 14, 1846
-a bunch of guys walked into california statehouse in sonoma and declared California an independent republic
-Zachary Taylor from the North, Winfield scott from the south-- two generals advancing on mexican territory
-mexicans eventually capitulated
-treaty of guadalupe hidalgo
-for $15 million, US takes cali, new mexico, arizona
-polk wasnt too happy with this, but he couldn't renounce the treaty because it got him what he 'officially came for
-a rider was attached to the treaty, preventing slavery from being expanded into those territories
-south really didnt like this, if they couldnt expand slavery, why did they even go to war?
pierce succeeded in buying another part of mexico
-gadsden purchase, part of arizona (i think?)
-why?
-south was still pushing for more slave states
-still pushing the 'diffusion argument
-slaves were draining into latin america, where slavery wasn't permitted
-hedge against disunion
-if the south couldnt reconcile their differences, they needed more territory and resources

real important part-
-CUBA
-seen as ESSENTIAL to american security
-1848- spanish were offered $100 million, no deal
-1854- spanish were offered $130 million, still no deal
-the Ostend Manifesto was then issued
-the problem with spanish control was that there might be a slave revolt, they're gonna set a bad example for the US
-also a big deal- pursuing expansion in latin america, nicaragua, etc
-north begins to realize that expansionary policies are benefiting ONLY the south, not the north
-demands by the south for acquisition aren't legit
-the north would have to keep acquiescing to southern expansionary demands to keep the union together, no deal
-woo civil war.

MICRO NOTES 2/12

Economic Efficiency: State of the world in which it is IMPOSSIBLE to make one consumer better off without making another consumer worse off.

Economic Efficiency is ensured by consumers trading with one another

The system isn't efficient unless both consumers are at points along their indifference curves with EQUAL SLOPES
if they have equal slopes, there's no reason for them to trade anymore
-two consumers can trade for their mutual benefit if, at their original endowment, the slopes of their indifference curves are different
-if their slopes are the same, there's no point in trading

Do equilibrium states deliver economic efficiency?
-sometimes yes, sometimes no

if consumers are in a state of economic efficiency-
-they're offered a chance to trade but dont take it for some reason
-we know at least TWO things about the consumers
-A) at points along the indifference curve of equal slope
-B) they're facing the same prices
if consumers are facing the same prices, they face the same slope of the budget constraint

why is price equilibrium a decent assumption to make?
-arbitrage
-the idea that if a good is offered at different prices in different places, there is the opportunity to make profit by buying low and selling high
-this tends to stabilize prices towards the middle
-arbitrage doesn't work sometimes: when transportation is a factor, for instance

Market Equalizers
-graph ppf vs indifference curve
-if we move along the ppf down and to the right, we can make big amounts of good 2 without sacrificing much 1
-this moves consumers to higher indifference curves (assuming certain slopes on the indifference curve and ppf)