Nonsense. Considering that the overwhelming majority of tariff income was collected in Northern ports, upwards of 95% of it, then it would seem that the opposite of your claim would be true. It would be Northerners who were impacted more by the tariff and not Southerners. But that is neither here nor there. Tariffs were uniform and that is all the Constituiton requires them to be. They impacted every consumer of imports, North and South, and every consumer of those goods protected by the tariff, North and South, equally.
I haven't been able to substantiate or refute your 95% figure, but I'll assume it's correct for this argument. If 95% of imports are going into northern ports, then the tariffs were effective in shutting the south out of the world's market. It also means that northern wholesalers are going to have an advantage over southern ones because they are one step higher in the supply chain. This is certainly disproportionate effect.
Of course it is. Vallandigham gets booted from the U.S.? Baaaad! Eeevil! Vallandigham gets booted from the confederacy? Irrelevant. Southron hypocrisy knows no bounds....No, the crux of the matter was that Vallandigham was deported by Lincoln to save him from a term in prison, which is what the military tribunal had sentenced him to. His expulsion from the confederacy came without trial or hearing.
Vallandigham was arrested for the "crime" of speaking out against the war. And the "law" he broke was an order by a Union General---not an act of the legislature. The first amendment, in the understanding of today as then, protects this sort of dissenting speech. Vallandigham was unconstitutionally deported. What good is a trial when the offense isn't a crime?
And just what the hell do you think the Southerners were? Paragons of racial brotherhood?
Firstly, nothing I've written in this thread was in support of the south, slavery or racism; nor are these the original topic of debate, which was Lincoln's defense/abuse of the Constitution. Yet I have been slandered as a racist and being in the KKK (not by you, however). Name-calling is what one does when one runs out of intelligent things to say. The insistence on equating Lincoln's critics with Confederates (or worse) is a disgraceful way of shutting down the other side of the argument without presenting a case of your own.
Nevertheless, I will address your off-topic remark. Inasmuch as we can monolithically label southerners as white supremacists, we condemn their beliefs. And we condemn the practice of keeping slaves. But pointing to southern ignorance as wicked while ignoring Lincoln's equal perception of white superiority is senseless. Granted, Lincoln's case is one of belief or thought as opposed to owning slaves or action. But he was no paragon of racial brotherhood either. He had a bunch of schemes to relocate slaves to Africa and just about anywhere else but American shores. He didn't want them around. Furthermore, what does the racist attitude of southern slaveholders have to do with Lincoln's official actions with respect to defending the Constitution?
The figure is from Congressional reports quoted in "Lifeline of the Confederacy: Blockade Running During the Civil War" by Stephen Wise. For the year prior to the rebellion, net tariff revenues for the three busiest Northern ports totaled about $42.5 million dollars. Net tariff revenue from the eleven busiest Southern ports for the same period totaled less than $3 million.
If 95% of imports are going into northern ports, then the tariffs were effective in shutting the south out of the world's market.
If 95% of all imports are going to Northern ports then wouldn't that indicate that the overwhelming majority of imports are destined for Northern consumers? It makes no sense otherwise. If they were destined for Southern consumers then they would have gone to the Southern ports. At the same time those goods were flooding into New York, Boston, and Philadelphia over 3.1 million bales of cotton were being exported, and over 2.8 million were leaving from Southern ports. So access to the world's markets wasn't the issue. Demand was.
Vallandigham was arrested for the "crime" of speaking out against the war. And the "law" he broke was an order by a Union General---not an act of the legislature. The first amendment, in the understanding of today as then, protects this sort of dissenting speech. Vallandigham was unconstitutionally deported. What good is a trial when the offense isn't a crime?
Vallandigham was arrested and tried by a military tribunal, a process that was legal under the laws in effect at the time. The Supreme Court would rule in 1864 that they didn't have the right to issue a writ of habeas corpus in military cases, though they would also rule the following year that courts shouldn't have been suspended in the first place since they could operate openly and freely. As for the unconstitutionality of the deportation I fail to see what clause was being violated by Lincoln's act of compassion that spared Vallandigham time in jail.
Firstly, nothing I've written in this thread was in support of the south, slavery or racism; nor are these the original topic of debate, which was Lincoln's defense/abuse of the Constitution.
And into which you interjected your opinion that Lincoln was also a white supremacist. If you want to judge him by today's standards then shouldn't you also admit that any Southern leader you would care to admit was worse?
But pointing to southern ignorance as wicked while ignoring Lincoln's equal perception of white superiority is senseless.
But slandering Lincoln while ignoring the South is OK, is that it?
He had a bunch of schemes to relocate slaves to Africa and just about anywhere else but American shores.
Lincoln was a supporter of voluntary emigration, key word being voluntary. And given what blacks in the U.S. faced in both the North and the South, just what was so evil about that? Considering Southern leaders like Lee and Davis considered them fit for slavery and nothing else and considering that the Supreme Court had ruled that blacks were not and could never be citizens and had no rights that the white man was bound to respect, where was Lincoln so God awful sinister by suggesting that they might do well to carve out their own life free from the bigotry they faced in this country at the time? Can you explain that?
Furthermore, what does the racist attitude of southern slaveholders have to do with Lincoln's official actions with respect to defending the Constitution?
You're the one who started down the racist path. Are you back tracking?