What on earth are you smoking, non-seq? The Morrill Act was by definition protectionist. It was openly proclaimed as such by the newspapers of the time and, after they were outed, its own sponsors. The bill was openly justified on the plank of the 1860 GOP platform calling specifically for protectionism. Lincoln himself touted its importance in a highly publicized speech where he reiterated this call for protectionism.
Your entire line of argument on this issue would be laughable if I did not think you actually hoped to accomplish something with it! It's becoming more absurd by the day...absurd to the point that you are even denying what the bill's supporters in its own day knew, admitted, spoke of, and publicly proclaimed to have been their agenda by passing it.
I'm not sure what to expect next from you in this little charade, but I have no doubt it will be amusing. I wait in anticipation, Mr. Perot. Roll out that next chart.
But was it unconstitutional, that was the original question.
I'm not sure what to expect next from you in this little charade, but I have no doubt it will be amusing.
The amusement will all be on my side. You may continue to make an ass out of yourself, you need no further help from me.
What on earth are you smoking, non-seq? The Morrill Act was by definition protectionist.
Saw a program on the History Channel recently. They had one of their talking head scholars noting that the ACW really started with the Kansans-Nebraska Act of 1854. Over two hundred people were killed in "Bleeding Kansas" prior to 1860. And it wasn't over tariffs.
Now it's always dicey to trust what one hears on the HC. But this stands up pretty well. The cause of the war was slavery, not tariff agitation.
I was watching this program on the HC this week about the "Hunter-Heroes" Boone and Crocket. It was generally very entertaining but it did offer as unchallenged the account of the death of Crocket, citing the diary of a Mexican officer who said that Crocket was among the 5 or 6 Texans captured and then immediately executed on order of Santa Anna. This particular factoid I KNOW is hotly disputed. There is no definitive agreement on how or when Crocket died. So the HC is playing fast and loose wth the truth.
I mention this to say that the account that the HC gave in the "April 1865" show of Lee taking communion with the black man in Richmond. That is also not well or authoritatively documented.
Walt