Non-martial legislation passed during The Civil War

The Homestead Act of 1862, providing (nearly) free land for settlers in designated parts of the West

The Morrill Land Grant College Act of 1862

The National Banking Act of 1863, creating a national banking system and currency

Several transcontinental railroad bills

The first federal income tax

Created the National Academy of Sciences

Establishment of the Department of Agriculture (which had a significant R&D component), the Bureau of Printing and Engraving, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Office of Immigration.

Love it or hate it or both, that’s a lot.  Not only do the pressures of war lead to “things getting done,” but of course the Southern states and their representatives had dropped out of Congress.

That is all from Walter Licht, Industrializing America: The Nineteenth Century.


Now that we have an ongoing war on Civility, time to get a lot done.

The 2nd Commissioner for Agriculture (not Cabinet-level until 1889), Horace Capron, ended up serving as the special advisor to the Hokkaido Development Commission, introducing modern American agricultural practices to that island at a time when Japanese practices were both technologically backward and not suited for the northern climate. This was immediately following the Meiji Restoration and served as an important part of Japan's modernization efforts at that time. Unsurprisingly, his influence also led to lasting commercial ties between Hokkaido and American companies.

Capron's statue stands in Odori Park in downtown Sapporo today.

One-party rule isn't all bad...if the president is Abraham Lincoln.

Ah the perennial "[non-democratic regime type] is superior to democracy as long as [X]" where X is some variation on guaranteeing the quality of the ruler.

The Homestead Act is the ultimate "gimme dat" piece of legislation. Use the government to redistribute land from the red man to give to the white man.

Gimme back those southern ports and their tax revenue.

Senator, use of "gimme dat" could get you in trouble. You need a better pseudonym.

It was either us, or the British, French or Spanish. If there's empty land, people will move there. The US adds a million people a year. Eventually our national parks will be sold.

The Indians lost a long war. Losers of wars loose land.

Always has been, always will be.

The Cuban exiles in Miami have an opinion on this.

The US adds a million people a year. Eventually our national parks will be sold.

You could pile the entire population into settlements with a mean density typical of a surburban township (about 2,300 persons per sq. mile) and you'd occupy about 4% of the land area of the United States. About 3% of the working population has f/t or p/t employment in agriculture, fishing, or forestry. The number of people employed in that sector has declined since the Homestead Act was passed.

Yes, I'm well aware that theoretically the entire Earf could fit in Duval County, or neatly arrayed in Kansas, or wherever. That's never how it works, and it won't be how it works.

That's never how it works, and it won't be how it works.

It's actually how it's been working since 1890. You're positing they're going to do what, sell off wilderness so people can buy country residences? You put the entire rural population of the country on 5.5 acre country residences, you still consume 8% of the available land area. The population who live in the countryside to engage in productive enterprise is hardly increasing.

That aside, you have huge inventories of public grazing land and public timberland. Why would they be selling off parks? (The Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Surface own about 11% of the land area of the United States).

Solar/wind farms, resource extraction, and cheap housing all have much more vibrant and potent constituencies than national parks. The US--the world--isn't a well-ordered Benedictine priory, as you seem never to understand.

Who would win in the next civil war: the North or the South? Alternate take: Red states or Blue states?

The side with President Trump would declare victory before the first shot, declare "let them take what they want, I don't care", promise that his tax cuts to the troops will ensure victory at no cost, declare is plan to offer States funding for 20% of the cost will allow them to privatize their guard units to for-profits who will use private funds for the other 80%, he will blame the general who died leading the charge : "I haate losers, I like soldiers who don't die".

Its clear that conservatives only support free lunch war, wars that provide only profits, but require zero sacrifice, zero cost, and deliver tax cuts.

Democrats always become unpopular and lose elections when stating the costs in budgets and seek tax hikes.

Probably the one that controls both coasts

I'd go with the one that controls the money which is probably NYC. You can control a coast if you have an army and to have an army you need to pay an army.

The ones that fight like North Vietnamese nationalists. Mercenary armies are pretty fickle.

Blue States are largely just Blue Cities with the exception of New England

People in Eastern California, Southern Illinois and Upstate NY will choose to align with the Red States.

Control the countryside, the cities fall eventually.

You need to control the sealanes too when it comes to coastal cities. Constantinople held out for centuries with rather little land, just a string of port cities. And if the economic centers are severed from the rest of a nation the countryside will suffer financial collapse. The relationship is a true symbiotic one.

Houston to Charleston is a substantial Red State coast.

NYC is so important because it is the financial center of the world's largest economy. As the financial center of Greater New England, not so much.

The West Coast will use SF as their financial center. You don't think Greater New England and The West Coast Republic will be one country, do you? 2500 miles separate them.

Agreed. The idea that NYC (or Constantinople) is the only place to raise capital is pretty ridiculous.

The maps of the Roman/Byzantine empires are pretty revealing. Miles wide and inches deep. They punched above their weight for the longest time. In retrospect it's shocking they lasted as long as they did.

Exactly why London stopped being a financial center after the end of the british empire...

"Who would win in the next civil war: the North or the South? Alternate take: Red states or Blue states?"


"Red states or Blue states?"

Red States and the breakaway portions of Blue States [upstate NY and Southern Illinois for example]

All the food and most of the energy comes from there.

We grow food up here too, hoser. And I hear they make energy in other places besides the rural US.

Before Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, he was a Whig. And much of his non Civil War stuff was part of the old Whig agenda, which Democrats had been blocking for literally decades before 1861.

If accidentally read "non-marital" this is confusing...

Then, of course, there were Lincoln's numerous executive fiats:

--enlarging the regular army, without Congressional authorization,
--dispersing government funds without Congressional approval,
--setting up military tribunals in which to try civilians,
--unilateral suspension of habeas corpus to combat (Northern) draft riots,
--imprisonment of over 14,000 civilians whose "loyalty" was deemed questionable,
--monitoring and censoring of mail and telegraphy,
--monitoring and closing borders to thwart draft evaders,
--suppression of hundreds of newspapers.

Tyrannical actions such as these (not the deeds of a civil libertarian at work) helped Lincoln earn a reputation he seems to have cultivated all by himself.

The Constitution allows the suspension of habeas corpus during times of rebellion.

--although Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 specifically treats LEGISLATIVE powers that Lincoln was usurping.

Lincoln was a total amateur.

--but an enduring role-model, 'twould seem, for any opportunistic and self-justifying someone (Democrats are hardly immune) deeming himself (or herself) sufficiently ruthless in action and amply judicious in temperament, regardless of most other considerations.

If you're interested in this topic, there is an excellent book called "Look Away" that recounts a history of the non-military aspects of the Confederacy -- the economy, the legal system, education, etc.

Some of these were definitely for the war (tax) and much of the rest is a classic effect of any radical change in government party ideology after a long time (all the "internal improvements" of land) which would have passed had the south left without war.

Comments for this post are closed