Posted on 11/18/2008 7:46:57 PM PST by DBCJR
It is now about one year since the first Tariff Act of 1861 was passed; it is almost one year since the Rebellion became a settled fact, and war was rendered inevitable by the bombardment of Fort Sumter. The time is a fitting one for a review of the effects of the passage of the former and the influence of the latter on the commerce and foreign trade of our country.
(Excerpt) Read more at query.nytimes.com ...
I apologize. Technically you said “More idiocy...” you did not actually call me an idiot. That is still flaming and violates the rules of “NO personal attacks”.
Taxing exported cotton was to colonize Southern aggriculture and its cotton product for Northern textile mills. It was, in fact, a confiscation of property rights without due process. The “public interest” was maintaining the industrial growth and development of the Northern factories at the expense of Southern agriculture. But Northern industry was served well by cheap slave labor in the South.
Abolitionists had very little political power comparatively. They were more the wealthy educated elites from Boston, etc.
By taxing exports, the North had artificially lower prices on cotton by eliminating European markets. These interests actually had a vested interest in the status quo of the slave production of cotton. They were interested in cheap cotton, and cheap cotton was produced by cheap labor.
Wow you really are clueless on this matter as is to be expected given your main source.
Taxes on exports are EXPLICITLY forbidden in the Constitution in Article I, section 9, paragraph 5.
“No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.”
Please read the archive article I posted. I have asked you to do this now three times. It is an article from the NY Times from March 1862. It clearly identifies these tariffs on exports. You could not be any more wrong.
Precisely! That is the point. These tariffs were unconstitutional. By our very Declaration of Independence the South had the right, even the duty, to secede. The Second Amendment provides the means by which that right and duty are carried out.
As I told you earlier NY was a major ally to the Southern Democrats and was not in favor of defending the Union. This was why you cannot use a NY paper as a truthful statement about the War’s causes or the justice thereof.
The views you are trying to push have been rounded shot down for years around here and if you do not understand their weaknesses you are in for a rough time from anyone who cares enough about these dead issues to correct you.
It gets even worse when you are unaware of fundamental historical facts and concepts such as those I have already informed you about.
Look a “tariff” has only one meaning and that meaning has nothing to do with exports and they are not unconstitutional.
And I do not care about any confusion the NY Times had about it.
There is not ONE word in that article about taxing exports. IT DID NOT HAPPEN. Even the NY Times is not so stupid as to make such claim. What the hell are you reading?
I have provided a slew of other references. It is the “inconvenient truth” that revisionists have all but eliminated from the educational system. The winning of the Civil War by the Union was the consummation of the battle between Hamilton and Jefferson. Jefferson lost, and centralized federal power, paving the way for Marxism, won.
This section is from the “Commerce and Finance” book, by O. M. Powers.
“The first tariff law, passed in 1789, imposed a duty of about five per cent. In 1812, to meet the demands of war, the rate of duty was increased to about fifteen per cent. A new law was passed in 1816 imposing different rates of duty upon different classes of products, but the average was about twenty-five per cent. In 1824 the manufacturers found it still difficult to maintain successful competition against English products, and clamored for further protection. The English had brought fresh skill and new inventions to bear upon their goods and were selling at very small profits. Notwithstanding the vigorous opposition of the planters of the South and consumers generally, Congress passed a new tariff law, raising the duties to thirty-three and one-third per cent. Again in 1828 the law was amended, increasing the duties to an average of forty-five per cent. The South was indignant, since it was not a sharer in the benefits of the tariff, but on the contrary suffered in consequence. The cotton, rice and tobacco of the South were shipped largely to Europe, and in European markets these commodities brought no higher prices on account of American tariffs, while the price of all manufactured articles which the agricultural states might consume was considerably increased. Carolina went so far as to threaten secession, but trouble was averted, and in 1832 the law was modified by taking off most of the merely revenue duties, and reducing the protective duties. In 1833 Henry Clay’s Compromise Tariff Bill was passed, by which a gradual reduction in duties was provided for, down to a uniform level of twenty per cent, by the year 1842. In that year, however, the manufacturing interests in Congress violated their pledge and reimposed the old rates of duties. Thus the struggle over tariff and slavery went on, the latter becoming more acute until merged in the great Civil War of 1861.”
You just won’t stop digging yourself into that hole. I read the article you asked me to read. You completely misrepresent what it says. It says NOTHING about taxing exports as you claim. NOTHING. If you keep claiming it does then you are lying.
We are not talking about things not covered by the “educational system” but about deliberate misrepresentations you are making. That system does not ignorantly claim we taxed Exports in 1861.
You know just as little about the battle between Jefferson and Hamilton nor its long run effect as you do about the financial system prior to the RAT Rebellion of 1861. Had Hamilton’s program not been put into effect the nation would not have lasted two decades much less too centuries. Jefferson was oblivious to the dangers surrounding the nation. He was a fanatic and willingly blind supporter of the French Revolution and blind to its threat to liberty here and elsewhere. His presidency was a miserable failure but for a couple of events: Lewis and Clark and blindly lucking into the Lousiana Purchase which, due to his absurd interpretation of the Constitution, he did not even believe the federal government had the authority to do.
The real genius of the Founding was Alexander Hamilton one of the three greatest men this nation ever saw. Lincoln and Washington were the others and the latter loved and admired Hamilton who had been his right hand for almost twenty years. On the other hand Washington so despised the threacherous Jefferson that he refused to allow his name to be mentioned in his presence the last years of his life.
Had federalism not been overthrown by the dirty tricks squad of Jefferson and Burr in 1800 the nation would have been even stronger and the Civil War would not have occurred. Only the strengthening of the “States Rights” philosophy thanks to Jefferson would have led to that.
What are you doing on the FreeRepublic anyway with views like that? If you are a strong Federalist, you really do not belong here.
I have given you plenty of evidence. You adamantly refuse to read it. This conversation is over.
By Wisconsin state law, blacks had the right to habeas corpus & trial by jury. The Federal officers failed to follow the laws of the state they were in.
I have no idea why you posted that quote or if you even read it. Nothing has been said by me suggesting that there was not a history of the tariff or that it had not changed over the years.
As I informed you earlier there are two aspects of a tariff:
a revenue aspect and a protectionist aspect. Any time it is raised to a higher rate than necessary for revenue needs it becomes protectionist.
Manufacturers wanted it to be as high as possible in order to protect their factories. Consumers throughout the nation were in favor of it being as low as possible.
It is a mystery why you posted it.
I am a defender of federalism which is the system of the CONSTITUTION. You know that constitution which the slavers tried to subvert and destroy.
You have LIED about what the Times article said and refused to acknowledge it. You have given me nothing but fringe, crackpot theories which ignore any real evidence.
You are pushing positions which have NO validity and are laughed at by anyone who actually bothers to study that period.
Claiming there was a tax on exports is a new height of ignorance though I must admit. Claiming something so easily refuted is something even the most vociferous defenders of the RAT Rebellion don’t do.
States were not truly “sovereign” after the Constitution was ratified. In fact, they never had truly been sovereign.
Since federal law was the “Law of the Land” it superceded state law if not declared unconstitutional by the SC.
Any claim that the main reason by far for the insurrection was not slavers’ fear of abolition has nothing behind it.
Enforcement of the Act was akin to the Fed forcing state actors to enforce our nation's immigration laws. The Fed has tried to do it via employment requirements of private business, but it hasn't gone as far as forcing the same or similar on any state's government.
Any claim that the main reason by far for the insurrection was not slavers’ fear of abolition has nothing behind it.
Your wording here isn't clear to me, but I think that I agree. LOL The South was quite content to remain in the Union as long as they had the numbers to control the action of the Fed, but that control was weakening with heavy immigration in the North & reached its tipping point with California statehood & the election of Lincoln.
I get the most agreement when the other person is not clear as to what I said.
From what I know of the FSA most of the enforcement was through the feds. I know there were tremendous disturbances when slaves were held in local jails awaiting their transfer back South.
You are correct. The act required action by Federal Marshals.
I know there were tremendous disturbances when slaves were held in local jails awaiting their transfer back South.
Also correct. That was one of the issues of the case that I posted. Some citizens of Milwaukee & Racine broke the guy out of jail. One man (named Booth) who'd tried to call a town meeting about the use of Milwaukee's jail was charged for interfering in the case.
You have a problem. Take your medication and see a professional.
Typical idiotic comment from one who has had his argument utterly destroyed and has been shown to be intentionally deceitful.
There is NOTHING in your posted article supporting the ridiculous claim that exports were taxed. NOTHING and you refusal to admit shows you are not having a Good Faith discussion.
But that’s ok since everyone reading it can see how foreign the truth is to you. Thus, your absurd cause is shown in all its absurdity.
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.