Posted on 05/29/2011 2:46:36 PM PDT by BigReb555
Yes, as I said it was a compromise that still gave the South too much representation for their actual voting population.
Kind of rings true today too, doesn't it?
Dixie bashing and Free Republic just doesn't mix.
You said: “Most tariffs were paid in NYC.”
That is not accurate for your purpose. It is only accurate to state that tariffs were either collected at the port of entry or the city of final destination.
Where the tariff is collected has nothing to do with who paid it.
“The south had only 25% of the population...”
That has nothing to do with relative consumption.
“...and the slaves didn’t get many luxury european goods.”
That has nothing to do with actual consumption.
“Rail was relatively more expensive...”
More expensive than what. Please give source data.
“...so by preference goods were consumed as close to the port as possible, meaning that tariff paid in the north was largely consumed in the north.”
That does not make any sense at all. Consumption occurred where demand occurred. If you think that makes sense, then give a source.
“Second, tariff was low at the time of the rebellion.”
Not true. The Morrill tariff passed the House in 1860 and the Senate early in 1861.
It doubled and in some cases tripled the tariff rates.
“Southerners had written the tariff schedule, and had nothing to complain about.”
Not so. The tariff rates were written by Northerners.
(From Wikipedia): The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was a protective tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861 during the administration of President James Buchanan.
Named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey, passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-adverse Southerners had left Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to protect and encourage industry and the high wages of industrial workers (in the North).”
“By not rebelling they could have blocked any oppressive changes in the Senate.”
No. With the election, the Senate vote would have been determined by the Vice-President, a tariff supporting Republican.
“But they wanted to rebel.”
NO again! They wanted to secede, not rebel. There was nothing to rebel against after secession.
“Raping their slaves was so important to them and they hated that northerners would look down their noses at them. They might even prosecute them if a southerner brought an underage girl north on vacation and raped her there. Well that kind of injustice would be offensive to southern honor, so rebellion was the only solution for it.”
That is vile, vulgar, and all contrived. That should not be published in these pages, and you should be ashamed.
“....southern rapists could feel good about themselves.”
Are you aware of the fact that Union troops raped Southern women and slaves?
You seem to have not only a moral superiority complex, but you also have a very contrived, limited, and biased “understanding” of the time.
False statement. What was requested, and Constitutionally required, from existing States, was compliance with Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, of the original U.S. Constitution.
America bashing and FreeRepublic don’t mix very well either....but don’t tell cva that ;-)
So you agree that the slave states wanted to force the north to admit slaves, to enforce southern slave laws.
Now that is clear, do you think that a good idea?
What are you talking about? Exactly how were the Southern states trying to force slavery on the Northern states?
The issue was "delivering up fugitives from labor." When the Southern states seceded, some of the Northern states began repealing their personal liberty laws. Could it have had something to do with the Constitution?
Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3, of the original U.S. Constitution:
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due. . . .
Morill tariff was passed only because the rebels had left the Senate. Without the rebellion, it wouldn’t have passed.
With the rebellion, added funds were needed to suppress treason.
It looks as if you already know the true facts on this subject, but like to bait to promote a little debate. Well, let's not disappoint you:
Here is a little known cause of the Secession.....Congressional Reapportionment Threatened the Union
On December 12, 1860 speaking before the Senate, before any state had seceded, Sen. Louis Wigfall revealed his opinion on future equal representation as provided by the US Constitution:
“Tell me not that we have got the legislative department of this Government, for I say we have not. As to this body, where do we stand?
“Why, sir, there are now eighteen non-slaveholding States. In a few weeks we shall have the nineteenth, for Kansas will be brought in. Then arithmetic which settles our position is simple and easy.
“Thirty-eight northern Senators you will have upon this floor. We shall have thirty to your thirty-eight. After the 4th of March, the Senator from California, the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from New Jersey, and the Senator from Minnesota will be here.
“That reduces the northern phalanx to thirty-four...There are four of the northern Senators upon whom we can rely, whom we know to be friends, whom we have trusted in our days of trial heretofore, and in whom, as Constitution-loving men, we will trust.
“Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote.
“Mr. Lincoln can make his own nominations with perfect security that they will be confirmed by this body, even if every slave holding State should remain in the Union, which, thank God, they will not do.”
There was no doubt that the election of the Republicans meant that Congressional reapportionment would cause the South to lose itself to the North.
The Morrill tariff was but one major change that was about to be forced on the South.
So the southerners committed treason because they were afraid? What a shameful thing with which to charge those brave men.
Shame on you.
Further, Senate rules at that time required more than half to defeat a filibuster.
“Further, Senate rules at that time required more than half to defeat a filibuster”
Actually you are in error (intentionally, thus being a canard?) with that statement since the rules were changed in 1842 to disallow a filibuster.
Otherwise why would the Senator have said what he did:
“Then we stand thirty-four to thirty-four, and your Black Republican Vice President to give the casting vote.
Have you given up on your contention that the Morrill tariff did not exist?
the Morill tariff did not exist at the time the south started their rebellion.
It was passed only because of the absence of their Senators, and the need seen for more income to put down the rebellion.
The 1842 antifilibuster rule change only affected the House. Thus the canard offered was yours.
The Senate still today requires 3/5th vote for cloture under Senate rule 22. Until 1917 there was no procedure for cloture. Though the rule for cloture could be changed by simple majority, the rule change could itself be filibustered unless cloture was enacted by two thirds of those present.
And the reason why the Senator said what he said, is he lied. If he was ready to commit treason and murder for slavery, why not a lie or two?
Yes, and there was no firing at Ft. Sumter until Lincoln sent the ships to Charleston and Pensacola.
Maybe you will respond to repetition of the truth.
“5/1860 Strictly on a sectional vote, the US House of Representatives passed their version of the Morrill Tariff. The bill passed the House with the representatives of the eleven confederate states voting 39-1 against it.”
Excerpts from Republican Party Platform of 1860, resolution 12.
“That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of the
imposts...”
So, evidence that the Morrill Tariff had passed the house, was in the Republican platform and supported by President elect Lincoln, all before December 20, 1860.
“It was passed only because of the absence of their Senators, and the need seen for more income to put down the rebellion.”
Wrong again!
"The ad valorem features of the law of 1857 were to a large extent substituted by specific duties, and not only was the questio of revenue fully considered, but it was intended to give a considerable, if not ample protection to american labor and industry. There was no thought, whatever, of providing for war in the Morrill Tariff. There was no thought of doing anything except to correct the existing Tariff...”
The Republican Party: A History of its Fifty years’s Existence and a Record of its Measures and Leaders by Francis Curtis
Page 333
And it was not passed until the rebellion had begun...The idea that the southern states rebelled, so a law they disliked could be passed is unusually idiotic, even for you.
Actually, it does, since we all live in a country where several states improperly attempted secession, for which the country paid heavily.
Secession would be legal, if accomplished by constitutional amendment, by successful federal court case, or perhaps even by successful federal legislation. It is not legal when attempted by state temper tantrum.
Sometimes its like King George III is channeling his spirit through you.
PS: Care to quote the Constitution where it says secession is unconstitutional? Since it isn't in there it's gonna take a while...
Back then, a filibuster was rare and used to change, enter, or remove an amendment. If any of that occurred, then the bill went back to the house, where as I pointed out a filibuster could not be mustered.
Without an amendment option, the chair would not recognize a Southern Senator, the vote would be tied, and the Vice-President would cast the approving vote.
That is why Senator Wigfall correctly pointed out that the balance of power was lost, regardless of your misrepresentations.
But if you want to continue to engage in revolving door speculation, go ahead
I will rely on the commentary of the time by the people involved.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.