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.
As far as what happened to Vallandigham after he was deported, this is unimportant.
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.
The crux of the matter is that he was deported for his political views.
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.
Oh, and if you want proof that God has a sense of humor, look into how Vallandigham died.
And yes, I have read DiLorenzo and I plan on reading McPherson and other conflicting viewpoints in the future. But for right now, I'm focusing on economics.
Be sure to let us know how you do.
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?