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.
Or it means that tariffs were effective in shielding northern firms from foreign competition, forcing southerners to buy goods at artificially high prices from northern firms (but still cheaper than foreign goods). The south had the choice of either paying tariffs for imports or paying interests in the north. And since federal spending was northern-weighted (even if only by population), it meant the money went there no matter what.
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.
As chief executive, Lincoln is accountable for the acts of his officers. His officer was subverting the Constitution with General Order 38. It should never have gotten to deportation. The Fifth Amendment provides that No person shall be... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. It's hard to call the tribunal a due process of law, seeing as how it convicted him of violating an unconstitutional decree. You also own your citizenship and Vallandigham was deprived of it.
But slandering Lincoln while ignoring the South is OK, is that it?... 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?
It's not slander when it's a fact. And I haven't defended the south, and I never said that what they did was right. You keep forgetting that and are trying to tie me to the Confederacy---to which I don't belong.
You're the one who started down the racist path. Are you back tracking?
No, actually I didn't start that. See iowamark's posts 30 and 76 where he accused me of being racist and a KKK-member. You interjected in that debate (I'll euphemistically call it a debate).
...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?
You presuppose that it these refugees would be accepted at their destinations. But no, it wasn't sinister for him to want to help slaves. But it also doesn't change the fact that he was a white supremacist and white separatist.
Are you suggesting that those protected Northern firms sold each and every product they produced to Southerners? Nonsense. Tariffs protected U.S. producers, but Northerners paid the exact same artificially high price as Southerners did. Your suggestion that they paid a disproportionate share is simply incorrect.
The south had the choice of either paying tariffs for imports or paying interests in the north. And since federal spending was northern-weighted (even if only by population), it meant the money went there no matter what.
And let's say for the sake of arguement your claim is true, that federal spending was weighted by population then so what? What are you suggesting? That the South, which paid a disproportionately low percentage of the tariff and therefore provided a disproportionately low share of the federal income, should receive a disproportionately high level of federal spending? You sound like the Southern politicians of today.
As chief executive, Lincoln is accountable for the acts of his officers. His officer was subverting the Constitution with General Order 38.
Subverting it because you say so? The U.S. was in the midst of a rebellion. Martial law had been declared over large sections of the country, an act which the Supreme Court would later strike down. At the time there was nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the actions, according to established precedent at the time. Vallandigham's case is unfortunate and fortunately not likely to be repeated, but it was no different than what happened to many others in both North and South.
The Fifth Amendment provides that No person shall be... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. It's hard to call the tribunal a due process of law, seeing as how it convicted him of violating an unconstitutional decree. You also own your citizenship and Vallandigham was deprived of it.
And Article I, Section 9 gives the circumstances under which those rights can be modified or restricted.
It's not slander when it's a fact.
You offer opinion masquerading as fact.
You presuppose that it these refugees would be accepted at their destinations. But no, it wasn't sinister for him to want to help slaves.
And what kind of warm welcome or acceptance did the first Europeans get when they landed on these shores 400 years ago or more? What kind of acceptance did settlers get when they headed west past the Mississippi and Missouri into wild and unknown territory to carve out a future for themselves? Did they have 7-11s and ATMs waiting for them? No. The hardships that those former slaves who chose emigration would meet was no different than the hardships pioneers have faced throughout our history. But apparently you don't think they would have made it. Obviously you think they were much better in the safety and security of slavery. Cared for by the white man.
And it should be pointed out that the colony in Liberia had been going on for decades prior to the outbreak of the rebellion. It had towns and schools, churches and businesses. Robert Lee paid passages for some of his former slaves to Liberia, and one went to seminary there and became an ordained Presbyterian minister. An opportunity he would never have gotten in Virginia. But Robert Lee is obviously a white supremecist and white separatist for doing that. Using your standards of measurement, of course.
But it also doesn't change the fact that he was a white supremacist and white separatist.
Well you have your racist, bigoted, white supremecist, white separatist heroes and I have mine. But it also doesn't change the fact that he was a white supremacist and white separatist.