Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Old Teufel Hunden
It was not a tarrif (sic)but an outright trade embargo with England and France.

Very good. And if you look at the constitution, tariffs and embargoes are two VERY different things. Tariffs fall under the Revenue Clause and therefore (according to the theory Jefferson applied, at least) must serve a primary revenue function as a domestic fiscal policy. Embargoes fall within the jurisdiction of foreign policy under the Commerce Clause, and serve a military/diplomatic purpose as was the case with the Napoleonic War embargoes of the late Jefferson administration.

Put another way, an embargo by its very definition has clear constitutional sanction as an uncontested power of the federal government. A tariff may or may not, depending on its use for revenue. And according to the Jeffersonians, only tariffs that were designed to produce revenue met constitutional muster whereas those that were designed to protect domestic industry did not.

477 posted on 08/10/2010 11:34:24 AM PDT by conimbricenses (Red means run son, numbers add up to nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies ]


To: conimbricenses
And I agree with his position on Tarriffs!!! How many times do I have to say that????? It's not the frickin' point of the debate. The point of the debate is to show that Jefferson would not have thought that the South's weak excuses rose to the level of secession!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you frickin tone deaf!!!!!!!!!!

No, you're just an anti bellum south apologist no matter what evidence is brought forth. As I said to you many posts ago. You choose to believe what you want to because great great grandaddy fought for dixie or some grandma told you about hating Yankees or some other stupid reason. I have shown you all kinds of evidence that you ignore. All you want to hang onto was that Jefferson didn't like tarriffs. I guess with the amount of tarriffs we have on industry today means that Jefferson would think we should just completely dissolve the union now, right?
479 posted on 08/10/2010 11:41:08 AM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson