Jane Flaherty on our book
In this H-net review, our book Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War, is both attacked (no surprising) and recommended (all to the good):
In short, Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation lacks historical perspective. However, I do not believe this comment will offend the authors. They show repeated contempt for historians and the process of historical research, an unfortunate trend amongst economists who write about the past. Recently, Peter Coclanis lamented that the field of economic history had deteriorated because of the "internal sniping and skirmishing" between historians and economists.[8] This book perpetuates this disagreeable trend. However, you may want to add it to your course list. Short books appeal to students, and the authors' pugnacious tone will invigorate your seminar discussions. Thornton and Ekelund also provide a straightforward introduction to the Beard school of economic determinism. Few contemporary scholars present such a forthright Beard approach, so this gives instructors a great historiographical opportunity. Just be prepared to answer the questions your better students will ask.
Comments (3)
Note that in the reviewers comments she refers to Peter Coclanis who has lamented all the "internal sniping and skirmishing." Well Professor Coclanis was a referee of a paper of mine and was such a sniper and skirmisher that I suggested to the editor that he be given a chance to comment on our paper after it was published. His sniping and skirmishing was full of holes--at least after we fired back in our reply to his complaints. Very amusing.
“Railroad Construction and Antebellum Slave Prices,� with Mark Yanochik and Brad Ewing, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 84 No. 3 (September 2003) pp. 723-37.
"Railroad Construction and Antebellum Slave Prices, Rejoinder and Extension," with Mark Yanochik and Brad Ewing, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 84 No. 3 (September 2003) pp. 723-37.
Published: July 27, 2005 9:25 AM
From the review:
"Few libertarian historians actually studied history. Accordingly, both Thornton and Ekelund earned doctorates in economics."
Translation: Thornton and Ekelund were not inundated with cultural Marxism in graduate school and thus cannot be trusted.
"They show repeated contempt for historians and the process of historical research, an unfortunate trend amongst economists who write about the past."
No more unfortunate than the contempt for economic theory displayed by most historians who write about economics.
Published: July 27, 2005 2:55 PM
"They show repeated contempt for historians and the process of historical research, an unfortunate trend amongst economists who write about the past. Recently, Peter Coclanis lamented that the field of economic history had deteriorated because of the 'internal sniping and skirmishing' between historians and economists. This book perpetuates this disagreeable trend."
Along the lines of Mr. Jewell's comment, I believe Ms. Flaherty needs to reexamine her concept of the proper methodology of historical research. Leaving aside the important issue of bias among historians and economists, if one is writing history concerning economic topics and one is attempting to understand and evaluate the historical events, the writer must have an understanding of theoretical economics. The data of economic history cannot be interpreted and explained without a theoretical economic framework. I believe this is a point that Mises and Rothbard stressed many times.
Published: July 28, 2005 7:09 AM