Posted on 01/23/2003 6:06:25 PM PST by one2many
A court decision is not incorrect just because you say it is. And it isn't law in the first place.
The Citizenship Acts each specifically limited US citizenship to whites.
Including the south? [what was so galling to many]
Why would the south be offended?
I'm not familiar with those. Can you point out a website that has more about them?
Why would the south be offended?
Since every southern state had laws on their books at one time or another prohibiting free blacks from entering the state, and a number had those same prohibitions in their constitution, it's not hard to imagine that they wouldn't want free blacks in areas where they wanted to expand their slavery. Unless you have some information to the contrary?
"South Carolina, Texas and Jeff Davis' own State of Mississippi failed to mention tariffs once in the official and closely-reasoned declarations of the causes of secession they published in association with their Acts of Secession. Georgia's declaration of the causes of secession did mention the tariff irritant in passing --- but briefly and only in the context of an ancient wrong that had ultimately been righted by political compromise acceptable to the South. Similarly, the speeches of Secessionist leaders made in late 1860 and early 1861 show almost total concentration on slavery issues, with little or no substantive discussion of current tariff issues. In any case, before the ACW, the rate of Federal taxation was tiny by today's standards. The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to a mere $56,054,000, and that included tariff revenue, proceeds from the sale of public lands, whiskey taxes and miscellaneous receipts."
From the AOL ACW forum
Here is a long bit of text from Jim Epperson's website on potential compromises. See how much about tariffs you see.
On December 18, 1860, a committee of the United States Senate was formed to investigate the possibility of a "plan of adjustment" that might solve the growing secession crisis. Called the Committee of Thirteen because of the number of its members, it failed to agree on any one proposal but did have a number of ideas presented to it. The most prominent one was John Crittenden's proposal, which is treated separately on this web site. Some of the others are given in this document, with text taken from the journal of the committee (Senate Report #288, 36th Congress, 2nd Session). I have also added a proposal by Rep. Thomas Hindman, made to a similar House committee. On motion of Jefferson Davis, it was decided that no proposal would be reported as adopted unless supported by a majority of the Republicans and a majority of the Democrats serving on the committee. Under this restriction, the committee was unable to agree upon a satisfactory "plan of adjustment" and reported so to the Senate, on December 31, 1860.
I would like to think Chuck Ten Brink for providing me with a photocopy of the committee report.
· Compromise Proposal by Robert Toombs of Georgia
· Compromise Proposal by Jefferson Davis of
Mississippi · Compromise Proposal by Stephen A. Douglas of
Illinois · Compromise Proposal by William H. Seward of New
York · Compromise Proposal by Thomas C. Hindman of Arkansas
==============================================================
Compromise Proposal by Robert Toombs of Georgia
Resolved, That declaratory clauses to the Constitution of the United States, amply securing the following propositions, be recommended for adoption:
1. That the people of the United States shall have an equal right to emigrate to and settle in the present or any future acquired territories, with whatever property they may possess, (including slaves,) and be securely protected in its peaceable enjoyment, until such Territory may be admitted as a State in the Union, with or without slavery, as she may determine, on an equality with all existing States.
2. That property in slaves shall be entitled to the same protection from the government of the United States in all of its departments, everywhere, which the Constitution confers the power upon it to extend to any other property; provided nothing herein contained shall be construed to limit or restrain the right now belonging to every State to prohibit, abolish, or establish and protect slavery within its limits
3. That persons committing crimes against slave property in one State and fleeing to another, shall be delivered up in the same manner as persons committing other crimes, and that the laws of the State from which such persons flee shall be the test of criminality.
4. That Congress shall pass efficient laws for the punishment of all persons in any of the States who shall in any manner aid and abet invasion or insurrection in any other State, or commit any other act against the laws of nations, tending to disturb the tranquility of the people or government of any other State.
5. That fugitive slaves shall be surrendered under the provisions of the fugitive slave act of 1850, without being entitled to either a writ of habeas corpus or trial by jury, or other similar obstructions of legislation by the States to which they may flee.
6. That no law shall ever be passed by Congress in relation to the institution of African slavery in the States or Territories, or elsewhere in the United States, without the consent of a majority of the senators and representatives of the slaveholding States.
7. That none of these provisions, nor any other provisions of the Constitution in relation to slavery, (except the African slave trade,) shall ever be altered except by the consent of each and all the of the States in which slavery exists.
==============================================================
Compromise Proposal by Jefferson Davis of Mississippi
Resolved, That it shall be declared, by amendment of the Constitution, that property in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof.
==============================================================
Compromise Proposal by Stephen A. Douglas
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both houses concurring,) That the following articles be, and are hereby, proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions of three fourths of the several States:
Article 13.
Section 1. Congress shall make no law in respect to slavery or servitude in any Territory of the United States, and the status of each Territory in respect to servitude, as the same now exists by law, shall remain unchanged until the Territory, with such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall have a population of fifty thousand white inhabitants, when the white male citizens thereof over the age of twenty-one years may proceed to form a constitution and government for themselves and exercise all the rights of self-government consistent with the Constitution of the United States; and when such new States shall acquire the requisite population for a member of Congress, according to the then federal ratio of representation, it shall be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new States shall provide at the time of admission; and in the meantime such new States shall be entitled to one delegate to the Senate, to be chosen by the legislature, and one delegate to the House of Representatives, to be chosed by the people having the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the legislature; and said delegates shall have all the rights and prvileges of senators and representatives respectively, except that of voting.
Section 2.
No more territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by treaty, or by the concurrent vote of two thirds of each house of Congress; and, when so acquired, the status thereof in respect to servitude, as it existed at the time of acquisition, shall remain unchanged until it shall contain the population aforesaid for the formation of new States, when it shall be subject to the terms, conditions, and privileges herein provided for the existing Territories.
Section 3.
The area of all new States shall be as nearly uniform in size as practicable, having due regard to convenient boundaries and natural capacities, and shall not be less than sixty nor more than eighty thousand square miles, except in case of islands, which may contain less than that amount.
Section 4.
The second and third clauses of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which provides for the delivering up fugitives from justice and fugitives from service or labor, shall have the same power in the Territories and new States as in the States of the Union; and the said clause, in respect, to fugitives from justice, shall be construed to include all crimes committed within and against the laws of the State from which the fugitive fled, whether the acts charged be criminal or not in the State where the fugitive was found.
Section 5.
The second section of the third article of the Constitution, in respect to the judicial power of the United States, shall be deemed applicable to the Territories and new States, as well as to the States of the Union.
Article 14.
Section 1.
The elective franchise and the right to hold office, whether federal, State, territorial, or municipal, shall not be exercised by persons of the African race, in whole or in part. Section 2.
The United States shall have power to acquire, from time to time, districts of country in Africa and South America, for the colonization, at expense of the federal Treasury, of such free negroes and mulattoes as the several States may wish to have removed from their limits, and from the District of Columbia, and such other places as may be under the jurisdication of Congress.
Section 3.
Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in the places under its jurisdiction and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves. Section 4.
Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the federal government, or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves and holding them as such during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District.
Section 5.
Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory in which slaves are permitted by law to be held, whether such transportation be by land, navigable rivers, or by sea; but the African slave trade shall be forever suppressed, and it shall be the duty of Congress to make such laws as shall be necessary and effectual to prevent the migration or importation of slaves or persons owing serivces or labor, into the United States from any foreign country, place, or jurisdiction whatever.
Section 6.
In addition to the provision of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave, in all cases when the marshall, or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation; or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave, under the said clause of the Constitution, and the laws made in pursuance thereof; and in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitives, they shall have the right, in their own name, to sue the county in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, and to recover from it, with interest and damages, the amount paid by them for said fugitive slave.
Section 7.
No future amendment of the Constitution shall effect this and the preceding article; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is or may be allowed or sanctioned.
==============================================================
Compromise Proposal by William H. Seward
Resolved, That the following article be, and the same is hereby proposed and submitted as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, to be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of said Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several States:
1st. No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
2nd. The fugitive slave act of 1850 shall be so amended as to give to the alleged fugitive a jury trial.
3rd. The legislatures of the several States shall be respectfully requested to review all of their legislation affecting the right of persons recently resident in other States, and to repeal or modify all such acts as may contravene the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, or any laws made in pursuance thereof.
==============================================================
Compromise Proposal by Thomas C. Hindman
The House of Representatives also appointed a committee to investigate compromise plans. This committee was designated as the Committee of Thirty-Three, and the following proposal by Representative Thomas C. Hindman of Arkansas, later a Confederate general, was among the many submitted for consideration. The text is taken from Chapter 1 of Edward McPherson's Political History of the United States During the Great Rebellion. Hindman proposed that the Constitution be amended to provide as follows:
1st. An express recognition of slavery in the States where it exists, and prohibition of right of Congress to interfere therewith or with the inter-State slave trade. 2nd. Expressly requiring Congress to protect slavery in the territories, and in all places under its jurisdiction. 3rd. For admission of new States, with or without slavery, as their Constitutions should provide.
4th. Right of transit for persons with slaves through the free States.
5th. To prohibit a right of representation in Congress to any States passing laws to impair the obligations of the fugitive slave law until such acts shall have been repealed. 6th. Giving the slave States a negative upon all acts of Congress relating to slavery.
7th. Making the above amendments, and all provisions of the Constitution relative to slavery un amendable. 8th. Granting to the several States authority to appoint all Federal officers within their respective limits.
[end]
This isn't "how many clowns can you find in the bowl of fruit".
Tariffs were not a compelling issue.
Walt
You mean like he did at Atlanta when innocent civilians pled before his general Bill Sherman not to loot and burn their city?
Surely you know the history better than you let on.
It was at this juncture that members of the Atlanta clergy and others approached Sherman about these issues. He wrote his "you cannot qualify war in any harsher terms than I will," letter in response to their entreaties. He asked them to stop their resistance to the national government.
They declined. And the war continued.
There were men -and women- who were not willing to see the American experiment fail. They were willing to apply the pressure needed to keep it going. At rock bottom, that is the issue that galls you.
You would try and deny the Union any right to defend itself. Sorry, it didn't, and doesn't work that way.
It's all boo hoo hoo from the neo-rebs. "Mean old Sherman kicked our butts!"
I can't help but chuckle when I hear Studs Terkel's narration of Sherman's words on Ken Burns' "The Civil War" (paraphrasing):
"War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I am in favor of giving them all they want."
Poor little rebels, spanked like children when compared to the atrocities visited on loyal Union men and Union POW's by the traitorous slave power.
Walt
They appear to have been opaque to Alexander Stephens:
."...Alone of the southern apologists, [Alexander] Stephens held Lincoln in high regard. "The Union with him in sentiment," said the Georgian, "rose to the sublimnity of religious mysticism...in 1873 "Little Elick" Stephens, who again represented his Georgia district in Congress, praised Lincoln for his wisdom, kindness and generosity in a well-publicized speech seconding the acceptance of the gift of Francis B. Carpenter's famous painting of Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation."
--From "Lincoln in American Memory" by Merrill D. Peterson P. 46-48
Lincoln had a very powerful intellect. He also had a full does of common sense -- Lose the Union, and you lose everything else.
Walt
That's completely illogical.
No it's not. In fact, it is law. See the Judiciary Act of 1789:
section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789:
"And be it further enacted, That the Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens; and except also between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter case it shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction."
Now unless the actions of the secessionists in ACW were in fact a criminal act (got my vote), it was a civil controversy.
You don't know the history.
Walt
That is interesting speculation on your part, but unfortunately for you it is little more.
Not according to Jefferson Davis -- and this has been posted to you many times.
"As soon, however, as the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in the Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves. . . . Emboldened by success' the theatre of agitation and aggression against the clearly expressed constitutional rights of the Southern States was transferred to the Congress. . . .
Finally a great party was organized for the purpose of obtaining the administration of the Government' with the avowed object of using its power for the total exclusion of the slave States from all participation in the benefits of the public domain acquired by al1 the States in common' whether by conquest or purchase; of surrounding them entirely by States in which slavery should be prohibited; of those rendering the property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless' and thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars. This party' thus organized' succeeded in the month of November last in the election of its candidate for the Presidency of the United States... the productions in the South of cotton' rice' sugar' and tobacco' for the full development and continuance of which the labor of African slaves was and is indispensable.'
--Jefferson Davis
I don't think you are ignorant of these facts.
I think you are just a big southern heritage liar.
Walt
There was a thread posted by some columnist posted on FR about ten days ago that said as much. I started to ping you, but the facts are plain enough.
Our problem with Iraq stems directly from the incompetence of the first Bush administration. Thanks for keeping that ball in the air.
Walt
The constitutional meeting was called to consider questions of revision to that document, but in the end they replaced the articles with the U.S. Constitution. Its asserted perpetual nature was therefore not perpetual. It ceased and was replaced by the current Constitution.
Nope.
What, as Chief Justice Chase said, could be more perpetual than a perpetual union made more perfect?
But the framers covered the bases:
That point is covered in AoC Article XIII:
"...And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State."
The Union is as perpetual as men can make it.
Walt
I'm not aware of a particular website that lists each act, but INS lists the titles of the naturalization acts themselves @ http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/aboutins/statistics/legishist/index.htm
The Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104), (An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization), stated that
"any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof ..."
Followed by the Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat 414), which continued the practice,
"[A]ny alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States..."
Then continued with the Naturalization Act of 1798 (1 Stat 570) , the Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat 153), the Act of May 26, 1824 (4 Stat 36). Even the Militia Act of 1792 limited service to "every free, able-bodied, white male citizen."
It wasn't until the Naturalization Act of July 14, 1870 (16 Stat 254) that officially legalized US citizenship for blacks.
Unless you have some information to the contrary? [that the South wouldn't want free blacks in areas where they wanted to expand slavery]
Do you have documentation where the South specifically requested that free blacks be excluded from the territories? The North also had free blacks, yet the Free Soil policy was one that advocated the territories being free of ALL blacks, not just slaves.
Good point. There are some interesting arguments in Congressional testimony.
You've reminded me of something I found in the Congressional records. While it does not address secession, it does comment about the moral-scold and holier-than-thou attitude of New Englanders that Southerners had to face. These comments were made to the Senate by Texas Senator Wigfall on the day Texas officially withdrew from the Union (March 2, 1861):
"...then Cromwell had to run them [the Puritans] out of England; and then they went over to Holland, and the Dutch let them alone, but would not let them persecute anybody else; and then they got on that ill-fated ship called the Mayflower and landed on Plymouth Rock. And from that time to this, they have been kicking up a dust generally, and making a mess whenever they could put their fingers in the pie. They confederated with the other states to save themselves from the power of old King George III; and no sooner than they had gotten rid of him than they turned to persecuting their neighbors. Having got rid of the Indians, and witches, and Baptists, and Quakers in their country; after selling us our negroes for the love of gold, they began stealing them back for the love of God. That is the history as well as I understand it.
Your source is fibbing, Walt. First, the Texas declaration DID mention the issue briefly among its many points. It is the issue they spoke of when they stated "They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance." Second, your source's claim that these 3 declarations were the official acts of their respective states is nonsense. They were non-binding legislative resolutions of absolutely zero statutory consequence. The official acts were the ordinances of secession, not one of which stated slavery to be a cause.
Georgia's declaration of the causes of secession did mention the tariff irritant in passing --- but briefly
Your source is fibbing again. The tariff section was anything but breif, consisting of several sentences and paragraphs. The passage your source dishonestly describes as "in passing" is reproduced here for the record:
"The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States. Wielding these great States it held great power and influence, and its demands were in full proportion to its power. The manufacturers and miners wisely based their demands upon special facts and reasons rather than upon general principles, and thereby mollified much of the opposition of the opposing interest. They pleaded in their favor the infancy of their business in this country, the scarcity of labor and capital, the hostile legislation of other countries toward them, the great necessity of their fabrics in the time of war, and the necessity of high duties to pay the debt incurred in our war for independence. These reasons prevailed, and they received for many years enormous bounties by the general acquiescence of the whole country. But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all. All these classes saw this and felt it and cast about for new allies. The anti-slavery sentiment of the North offered the best chance for success."
Interspersed throughout the document in addition to the clause on tariffs were references to things such as "condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government"
and only in the context of an ancient wrong that had ultimately been righted by political compromise acceptable to the South.
The Georgia declaration concluded that the Republicans "offered the best chance for success" of reversing the condition free trade. That's not exactly a passing reference to an "ancient wrong" by any standard, Walt. Your source is fibbing again.
Similarly, the speeches of Secessionist leaders made in late 1860 and early 1861 show almost total concentration on slavery issues, with little or no substantive discussion of current tariff issues.
History indicates otherwise. Here is what leading secessionist Robert Toombs had to say on the tariff:
"Even the fishermen of Massachusetts and New England demand and receive from the public treasury about half a million of dollars per annum as a pure bounty on their business of catching codfish. The North, at the very first Congress, demanded and received bounties under the name of protection, for every trade, craft, and calling which they pursue, and there is not an artisan in brass, or iron, or wood, or weaver, or spinner in wool or cotton, or a calicomaker, or iron-master, or a coal-owner, in all of the Northern or Middle States, who has not received what he calls the protection of his government on his industry to the extent of from fifteen to two hundred per cent from the year 1791 to this day. They will not strike a blow, or stretch a muscle, without bounties from the government. No wonder they cry aloud for the glorious Union; they have the same reason for praising it, that craftsmen of Ephesus had for shouting, "Great is Diana of the Ephesians," whom all Asia and the world worshipped. By it they got their wealth; by it they levy tribute on honest labor. It is true that this policy has been largely sustained by the South; it is true that the present tariff was sustained by an almost unanimous vote of the South; but it was a reduction - a reduction necessary from the plethora of the revenue; but the policy of the North soon made it inadequate to meet the public expenditure, by an enormous and profligate increase of the public expenditure; and at the last session of Congress they brought in and passed through the House the most atrocious tariff bill that ever was enacted, raising the present duties from twenty to two hundred and fifty per cent above the existing rates of duty. That bill now lies on the table of the Senate. It was a master stroke of abolition policy; it united cupidity to fanaticism, and thereby made a combination which has swept the country. There were thousands of protectionists in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New-York, and in New-England, who were not abolitionists. There were thousands of abolitionists who were free traders. The mongers brought them together upon a mutual surrender of their principles. The free-trade abolitionists became protectionists; the non-abolition protectionists became abolitionists. The result of this coalition was the infamous Morrill bill - the robber and the incendiary struck hands, and united in joint raid against the South. Thus stands the account between the North and the South. Under its ordinary and most favorable action, bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands." - Robert Toombs, Nov 13, 1860
In any case, before the ACW, the rate of Federal taxation was tiny by today's standards. The total revenues of the Federal government in 1860 amounted to a mere $56,054,000, and that included tariff revenue, proceeds from the sale of public lands, whiskey taxes and miscellaneous receipts."
Not only is your source dishonest, Walt. It is also ignorant of basic economics. First off, the tariff that caused so much opposition in the south was enacted in 1861. The much lower 1860 tariff had been repealed and is therefore not even a relevant source of tax statistics. Second, any revenue stats would have to be adjusted for inflation to relatively current values in order for any modern comparison to be valid. Third, protective tariffs are not measured by the revenue they collect but by their impact on the consumer surplus and on prices.
In short, Walt. Practically everything you have offered to date on the tariff issue is steeped in ignorance, dishonesty, and outright fraud. Perhaps it is your knowledge of that situation that makes you hesitant to discuss it further.
You may think what you may, Walt. By contrast I know what I see, and in you I see a fraud who rationalizes away sin and murder in order to elevate and preserve the tarnished image of his false god.
As Aleck Stephens noted in November, 1860, Toombs voted for the tariff as it then stood, along with every other "southern man."
The tariff was simply not an important or compelling issue.
Walt
He's entitled to his opinion, so what?
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.