Yes, nothing in that paragraph contradicts what I said. But it very starkly contradicts what you said at #106. There, you said that the power over interstate commerce could be used for the positive purposes of the country.
The commerce clause was to be used to prevent or correct injustice among the States themselves.
And I'm sure you understand that in the context of his letter, that means injustice committed by state governments against other states.
Yes, and I stand by that as an allowable condition based on what Madison said, as long as the federal government is treating all states equally.
In other words, the commerce clause does not give the federal government the power to regulate the trade of a certain state for the positive purposes of the country. If Georgia is flooding the states with cheap cotton thereby harming the cotton industries in the other states, the federal government could not add a tax, or tariff, or fee, or surcharge, (if you get the point I'm trying to make) for the positive purposes of the cotton industry as a whole.
The federal government could do this to cotton imports from another country, as Madison declared. Based on that, I believe Congress could also ban the foreign or interstate commerce of a product which has a negative purpose on the country.
I think Madison was concerned about the use of the word "regulate". If the word allowed Congress to tax imports for the positive purposes of the country, then read literally, Congress could tax/tariff the products of a state for the positive purposes of the country. He writes,
"Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it."
"And I'm sure you understand that in the context of his letter, that means injustice committed by state governments against other states."
Yes. And he did not want the federal government to do that either.