Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The South and the Northern Tariff
Congressional Globe | 1861 | Senator Thomas Clingman

Posted on 02/26/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist

The South and the Northern Tariff - Speech of Senator Thomas Clingman, North Carolina, March 19, 1861 (Congressional Globe 36-2 p. 1476-77)

CLINGMAN: Mr. President, I admire the closing rhetoric of the Senator form Rhode Island (Simmons); but I want to call his attention to one or two questions which I put to him, and which he does not apprehend, but which I think are practical. The Senator attaches very little weight to the imports that go into the seven States that have seceded. He thinks it a matter of very little moment whether those States remain out or in. I endeavored to show him the error; but perhaps too hurriedly for him to apprehend my meaning; and I beg leave to recapitulate, for I think if there is a practical mind on the floor of the Senate, the Senator?s is one, and I want to see how he will get this Government out of the difficulty. I say to him, that I am as yet a representative of the Government of the United States, and shall faithfully represent what I believe to be in its interests, while I stand here. But let us see how this will affect the revenue. There were made last year about four million six hundred thousand bales of cotton. About two hundred thousand bales of it were made in North Carolina, and I suppose about as much in Tennessee, and about the same amount in Arkansas. There were very nearly four million bales of cotton made in the seven States that have seceded, worth fully $200,000,000. Very little of it was consumed in those States ? not more, perhaps, than three or four millions? worth ? and the rice crop exported exceeded that, and Louisiana made, I believe, about twenty millions? worth of sugar. I do not know what the amount of the sugar crop was last year; it has fluctuated; but it must have been at least that; it has sometimes been more. I think it fair, therefore, to assume that those seven States sent out of their limits from two hundred to two hundred and twenty million dollars? worth of produce. They get back a return in some way. It is not to be supposed it was given away. My friend from Texas suggests to me that they got it in wood-screws. No doubt they did get some of them; and they may have been gotten up in the State of Rhode Island, for aught I know. I was about to say that they must have got back $220,000,000 worth of products in some form. A portion of the money ? not very much ? went for horses and mules; and grain and other agricultural products, but much the larger amount of it went for articles that were dutiable. All of them were not actually imported, as many of them came from New England and elsewhere; but they were dutiable articles, and, but for the duties would have been furnished at a lower rate from abroad. I take it, therefore, that off the dutiable articles there must be twenty or thirty million ? certainly twenty million ? of revenue that would, in the ordinary course, be collected off those States with the tariff which we had last year.

Now, it is idle for the honorable Senator to tell me that the importations at Charleston and Savannah were small. I know that the merchants have gone from those cities to New York, and bought goods there; that goods are imported into New York are bought there, and then are sent down and deposited at Charleston, New Orleans, and other places. But, in point of fact, here is an enormously large consumption of dutiable articles, from one hundred to one hundred and fifty million. These people make their own provisions mainly, and cotton to sell, and do very little in the way of manufactures. Their manufactured goods came from the United States, or from foreign countries. I put the question to the honorable Senator, how much duty does he think this Government is going to lose by the secession of those States, supposing, of course, that they do not pay us any duties; for if New England goods are to pay the same duty with those of Old England, and Belgium, and France, we all know that the New England goods will be excluded, unless they make up their minds to sell much cheaper than they have been heretofore doing? I was curious, the year before last, in going through Europe, to ascertain, as well as I could, the value of labor and the prices of articles, and I was astonished at the rate at which goods may be purchased all over the continent, compared with similar articles here. The reasons they are not furnished as cheap here, is partly due to the circuitous trade. For example: houses in England purchase up articles in Belgium, France, Germany, and even Italy, and make a handsome profit; they then send them to New York, and handsome profits are made there by the wholesale dealers and, finally, they get down south, and in this way they are very high; but the tariff has also operated very largely. That Senator knows, as well as I do, and everybody knows, that if there be direct trade with Europe by these States; if goods are not to go around through New York, and not to pay duties ? and you may be sure they will not go there under his tariff, for nobody will pay a duty of fifty or seventy-five per cent. on what he imports, when he can send the goods to another port for fifteen or nineteen per cent. ? the result will be, that these States certainly will pay this Government no duties at all.

But it does not stop there. Merchants from my own State go down to Charleston, and lay in their goods. This Government, as things now stand, is not going to get any revenue from them. If goods are imported at Charleston at ten, or fifteen, or nineteen per cent. duty, whatever is paid will go into the coffers of the confederate States, and merchants will go down from my State and buy their goods there; and thus you lose a great portion of the North Carolina trade. It will be the same with Tennessee; it will be the same with the Mississippi valley. Now, what revenue are we going to get to support our Government under th epresent condition of things? The honorable Senator is very adroit in parrying questions. I asked him, when he spoke of the free list, if the manufacturers were willing that their chemicals, their dye stuffs, and coarse wool, that has been admitted free, should be taxed; and he replied, ?They are willing to have tea and coffee taxed.?

SIMMONS: The Senator will pardon me. I said, if we wanted money I would tax them, whether they were willing or not.

CLINGMAN: Exactly; but when pressed on that point, he turns it off on the tea and coffee. But, sir, we are legislating here for the United States ? all of us who are here, except by friend from Texas, who is kind enough to stay with us and help us legislate, until he gets official notice of the ordinance of his State. I thank him for his kindness. I think he is doing us a favor to stay here and help the wheels along. It needs the help of Hercules and the wagoner both to get us out of the mud. I want to know of honorable Senators on the other side of the Chamber how this Government is going to support its revenue next year. I think, if you have no custom-house between Louisiana and the Upper Mississippi, merchants up there will come down and buy their goods at New Orleans. If they learn that at New York they can buy goods under a tariff of fifty or seventy-five per cent., and that they can biy them at New Orleans under a tariff of only one third that, they will go down to New Orleans; and the result will be that we shall get very little revenue under the existing system. We may bandy witticisms; we may show our adroitness in debate; but this is a question which we have to look at practically. One of two things must be done: either you must prevent imports into those States, which I do not think you can do ? and I do not suppose there is a Senator on this floor who believes that, under the existing laws, the President has authority to do it ? or you must call Congress together, and invest him with some authority. If you do not do that, you must establish a line of custom houses on the border.

Is it not better for us to meet this question frankly on its merits? My apprehension, as I have already expressed it, is that the Administration intend, (I hope I may be deceived) as soon as they can collect the force to have a war, to begin; and then call Congress suddenly together, and say, ?The honor of the country is concerned; the flag is insulted. You must come up and vote men and money.? That is, I suppose, to be its policy; not to call Congress together just now. There are two reasons, perhaps, for that. In the first place, it would be like a note of alarm down south; and, in the next place, if you call Congress together, and deliberately submit it to them whether they will go to war with the confederate States or not, I do not believe they would agree to do it. Of course, I do not know what is the temper of gentlemen on the other side; but, though they will have a large majority in the next Congress, I take it for granted from what little I have heard, that it will be difficult to get a bill through Congress for the war before the war begins; but it is a different thing after fighting begins at the forts.

The Senator himself says they are going to enforce the laws and carry them out everywhere. I cannot tell what he means. In one part of his speech, I understood him to say that he was willing to let the seceded States alone; but towards the close of it, he spoke of enforcing the laws, and collecting the revenue everywhere. There is a very wide difference between these lines of policy. If you intend to let the confederate States stand where they now do, and collect their own revenues, and possess the forts, we shall get nothing, or very little, under the existing system. If on the other hand, you intend to resort to coercive measures, and to oblige them to pay duties under our tariff, which they do not admit that they are liable to pay, and to take back the forts, we shall be precipitated into war; and then, I suppose, we shall have a proclamation calling Congress together, and demanding that the honor of the United States shall be maintained, and that men and money shall be voted. I would rather the country should ace into this matter.

I shall not detain the Senate with a discussion about the tariff. I take it that we understand it, and I presume that the intelligent minds of the country understand its situation, and how much we shall get under it. The Senator form Rhode Island alluded to a remark which the Senator from New Hampshire made, that Rome lasted seven hundred years, and that, therefore, this Government must last seven hundred years; and he gave us some witty remarks about the sun not going down before breakfast. Mr. President, it is unfortunate that these analogies do not always run out; they will not hold good. I have read that Methuselah lived until he was more than nine hundred years of age. If a man who was something above ninety were told by his physicians that he was in very great danger of dying, that his constitution was worn out, and disease was preying on him, if he were to refer to the case of Methuselah, and say, ?I have not lived one tenth as long as he did; and, according to his life, I am now just before the breakfast of life,? it might be a very satisfactory argument, perhaps, to the man who used it, but I doubt whether anybody else would be consoled by it; I doubt very much whether his physicians would leave him under the idea that he had certainly eight hundred years to live. I am very much afraid that my friend from Rhode Island, when he rests on this declaration of the Senator from New Hampshire is resting on an unsubstantial basis, when he assumed that this Government must, of necessity, live as long as the Roman republic, and that the comparison of the sun does not hold good. However, I see the Senator from New Hampshire near me, and as he understands these things so much better than I do, I yield the floor.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: civilwar; lincoln; tariff
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351 next last
...and some say the tariff wasn't an issue.
1 posted on 02/26/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices; rustbucket; billbears; shuckmaster; stainlessbanner; PeaRidge; ...
Dixie ping! Transcribed for the conveniecne of all, here is another one of those many tariff speeches that the Wlat brigade purports to have never been made.
2 posted on 02/26/2003 1:12:39 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
But a tax is not a tariff.....< sarcasm >
3 posted on 02/26/2003 1:15:08 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Please forgive my ignorance, but..."Wlat Brigade"?
4 posted on 02/26/2003 1:15:36 PM PST by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Please forgive my ignorance, but..."Wlat Brigade"?

The "Wlat Brigade" is a small group of freepers associated with a liberal democrat and admitted Clinton-Gore voter named Walt who posts as "WhiskeyPapa." They show up on any thread that has even the slightest connection to the southern region of the country, where they post heavily cut n' pasted PC tirades attacking the south and deifying the likes of William Sherman for burning his way across it.

5 posted on 02/26/2003 1:22:24 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
...and some say the tariff wasn't an issue.

What is up with this constant Civil War rant?

Who cares? Give it a rest.

Walt

6 posted on 02/26/2003 1:23:13 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; Ditto; Non-Sequitur; mac_truck
Wlat brigade ping! Read it and weep...
7 posted on 02/26/2003 1:23:36 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
...and some say the tariff wasn't an issue.

Slavery was the issue according to the statements of secession. Treason was the southern strategy as they attacked and seized federal fortifications. Secessionsts violated the US Constitution by forming a confederacy which is strictly prohibited by the US Constitution.

The highlight of southern gentlemanly tactics was to shoot Abe Lincoln in the back.

8 posted on 02/26/2003 1:25:35 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
What is up with this constant Civil War rant?

Why not ask yourself that one. Not a thread goes by with even the slightest relevance to the south that you do not show up on to trash it and sing of your deification of the likes of Lincoln and Sherman.

As for this thread, it lists in full one of those many, many speeches on the tariff issue as a cause of the war that you purport not to exist

9 posted on 02/26/2003 1:26:31 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
many speeches on the tariff issue

Ha ha ha. There are a million speeches on every issue. The cause of the war, however, was the unconstitutional rebellion and confederation of slave holding states, who then made war upon federal fortifications -- in the attempt to maintain the institution of slavery.

10 posted on 02/26/2003 1:28:46 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Slavery was the issue according to the statements of secession.

Not really. There were 11 secession ordinances, and not one of them listed slavery as a cause. There were also four legislative declarations from four states, each of which listed slavery as a cause at length and one of which listed the tariff at length. As for there being an official statement of secession for the confederacy itself, there simply isn't one. Instead what you have are those documents I listed, dozens of newspaper editorials, and hundreds of speeches by prominent southerners in the government at the time such as the one found above.

11 posted on 02/26/2003 1:29:54 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Ahhh. I'm glad I missed that. Having spent enough time in the Yankee Capital myself, I'm happy to be back down here. People are a lot more sane, and they know what "Sweetea" is.
12 posted on 02/26/2003 1:31:59 PM PST by Cacophonous (I Corinthians 16:13-14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Treason was the southern strategy as they attacked and seized federal fortifications.

Yawn.

"The Constitution says: "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

This is the only definition of treason given by the Constitution, and it is to be interpreted, like all other criminal laws, in the sense most favorable to liberty and justice. Consequently the treason here spoken of, must be held to be treason in fact, and not merely something that may have been falsely called by that name. To determine, then, what is treason in fact, we are not to look to the codes of Kings, and Czars, and Kaisers, who maintain their power by force and fraud; who contemptuously call mankind their "subjects;" who claim to have a special license from heaven to rule on earth; who teach that it is a religious duty of mankind to obey them; who bribe a servile and corrupt priest-hood to impress these ideas upon the ignorant and superstitious; who spurn the idea that their authority is derived from, or dependent at all upon, the consent of their people; and who attempt to defame, by the false epithet of traitors, all who assert their own rights, and the rights of their fellow men, against such usurpations.

Instead of regarding this false and calumnious meaning of the word treason, we are to look at its true and legitimate meaning in our mother tongue; at its use in common life; and at what would necessarily be its true meaning in any other contracts, or articles of association, which men might voluntarily enter into with each other. The true and legitimate meaning of the word treason, then, necessarily implies treachery, deceit, breach of faith. Without these, there can be no treason. A traitor is a betrayer --- one who practices injury, while professing friendship. Benedict Arnold was a traitor, solely because, while professing friendship for the American cause, he attempted to injure it. An open enemy, however criminal in other respects, is no traitor.

Neither does a man, who has once been my friend, become a traitor by becoming an enemy, if before doing me an injury, he gives me fair warning that he has become an enemy; and if he makes no unfair use of any advantage which my confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in his power. For example, our fathers --- even if we were to admit them to have been wrong in other respects --- certainly were not traitors in fact, after the fourth of July, 1776; since on that day they gave notice to the King of Great Britain that they repudiated his authority, and should wage war against him. And they made no unfair use of any advantages which his confidence had previously placed in their power. It cannot be denied that, in the late war, the Southern people proved themselves to be open and avowed enemies, and not treacherous friends. It cannot be denied that they gave us fair warning that they would no longer be our political associates, but would, if need were, fight for a separation. It cannot be alleged that they made any unfair use of advantages which our confidence, in the time of our friendship, had placed in their power. Therefore they were not traitors in fact: and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution.

Furthermore, men are not traitors in fact, who take up arms against the government, without having disavowed allegiance to it, provided they do it, either to resist the usurpations of the government, or to resist what they sincerely believe to be such usurpations. [*9] It is a maxim of law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And this maxim is as applicable to treason as to any other crime. For example, our fathers were not traitors in fact, for resisting the British Crown, before the fourth of July, 1776 --- that is, before they had thrown off allegiance to him --- provided they honestly believed that they were simply defending their rights against his usurpations. Even if they were mistaken in their law, that mistake, if an innocent one, could not make them traitors in fact.

For the same reason, the Southern people, if they sincerely believed --- as it has been extensively, if not generally, conceded, at the North, that they did --- in the so-called constitutional theory of "State Rights," did not become traitors in fact, by acting upon it; and consequently not traitors within the meaning of the Constitution." - Lysander Spooner, 1870

13 posted on 02/26/2003 1:33:22 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"What is up with this constant Civil War rant?"

That's just opion. Document it.

Constant? Define constant.

The name "Civil War" has lots of meanings to many people, in which context are you using it? What does it have to do with the War of Northern Agression?

"Rant" is perjurative -- why did you attack this poster?

(OK, that was my Walt immitation.)

14 posted on 02/26/2003 1:33:47 PM PST by Lee'sGhost (Peace is good. Freedom is better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
ROTFL! You hit that one with dead on accuracy.
15 posted on 02/26/2003 1:35:51 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
I would recommend you read "The Real Lincoln", by Thomas J DiLorenzo. He describes many previous secessionist movements that never got as far. One very prominent one was a movement for the New England states to secede, basically for the same economic reasons (albeit from a different perspective) as the South seceded.

Also, I'm not sure I agree that secession is un-Constitutional.

16 posted on 02/26/2003 1:35:57 PM PST by Cacophonous (I Corinthians 16:13-14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Unfair tariffs were the only reason my GG grandfathers fought. When Charleston was laid seige the South was prevented from importing via cheaper tariffs which further fueled the hostilities. Southerners who have taken the time to understand their ancestory (read "those ancestors who had no issues for slavery nor owned any") know the influence the states' sought in controlling the percentum of the tariffs was directly linked to none other than "STATES' RIGHTS" to tax and govern their people.
17 posted on 02/26/2003 1:36:52 PM PST by azhenfud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
In 1832, when South Carolina threatened to secede over tariffs (which were the law of the land, BTW), though he sympathized with their complaints about the tariff, South Carolina-born President Andrew Jackson declared: "If one drop of blood be shed in defiance of the laws of the United States, I will hang the first man of them I can get my hands on to the first tree I can find."
18 posted on 02/26/2003 1:41:58 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
...and some say the tariff wasn't an issue.

As with today's Income Tax, equitable application of tariffs was widely abused by congressional special interests. Excessively high tariffs were levied on some items, while tariff exemptions were issued for others. This micromanagement of tax and trade policies through "targeted tariffs" severely distorted the use of the "revenue tariff" which was preferred by our Founders as the least intrusive mode of taxation.

A true "revenue tariff" is a relatively low, flat-rate tax placed on ALL imported goods, regardless of industry or nation of origin. It has the advantage of raising federal revenue while also encouraging domestic commerce and industry. IMHO, it is the mode of taxation that merits serious consideration today. The revenues generated could be used to offset reductions in other forms of domestic taxation without increasing the National Debt. This would produce a real, domestic economic stimulus.

19 posted on 02/26/2003 1:43:28 PM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Not really. There were 11 secession ordinances, and not one of them listed slavery as a cause.

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery --- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of of the commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin."

-- Mississippi secession document.

Well, you tipped my BS-O-meter.

Walt

20 posted on 02/26/2003 1:43:41 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
Unfair tariffs were the only reason my GG grandfathers fought.

Pretty goofy, as the vast majority of the tariff was collected in northern ports.

Walt

21 posted on 02/26/2003 1:45:15 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
When Charleston was laid seige the South was prevented from importing via cheaper tariffs which further fueled the hostilities. Southerners who have taken the time to understand their ancestory (read "those ancestors who had no issues for slavery nor owned any") know the influence the states' sought in controlling the percentum of the tariffs was directly linked to none other than "STATES' RIGHTS" to tax and govern their people.

The Constitution requires that any tariff be uniform in all the states. Did the delegates from southern states who helped write the Constitution just forget that?

And are you saying that Major Anderson and his 65 men laid seige to the 7,000 rebel troops in Charleston?

Walt

22 posted on 02/26/2003 1:47:50 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Slavery or taxes, it's all property, money. Excessive confiscation of same by politicians is leading to the inevitable destruction of the present system. This time, Southerners won't have to take up arms; the "Republic" is coming down on its own, and no amount of bot bowing to Bush photos is going to alter this course. Deo Vindice.
23 posted on 02/26/2003 1:48:14 PM PST by warchild9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Also, I'm not sure I agree that secession is un-Constitutional.

But the president's use of force to ensure that United States law operate in all the states -is- constitutional.

Walt

24 posted on 02/26/2003 1:49:41 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Well, you tipped my BS-O-meter.

It wouldn't have if you were literate. That is not a secession ordinance, Walt. It is the legislative resolution adopted by the Mississippi convention known as a declaration of causes. As I noted, there are four of these and all four state slavery. But as I also noted, these are not the only statements of causes and far from it.

25 posted on 02/26/2003 1:51:02 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
The Constitution requires that any tariff be uniform in all the states.

Yes Walt, and that is precisely the grievance with the Morrill tariff - it violated the spirit of the Constitution by excessively burdening the south to the north's advantage.

26 posted on 02/26/2003 1:53:39 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
Pretty goofy, as the vast majority of the tariff was collected in northern ports.

If you would take a moment to read the speech, you would note that Senator Clingman addressed that fallacy at length.

27 posted on 02/26/2003 1:54:32 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Well, you tipped my BS-O-meter.

It wouldn't have if you were literate. That is not a secession ordinance, Walt. It is the legislative resolution adopted by the Mississippi convention known as a declaration of causes. As I noted, there are four of these and all four state slavery. But as I also noted, these are not the only statements of causes and far from it.

You tried to BS people again, and you got caught again.

Walt

28 posted on 02/26/2003 1:54:51 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
But the president's use of force to ensure that United States law operate in all the states -is- constitutional.

But only if the President himself acts within the framework of thr Constitution, which Lincoln did not.

29 posted on 02/26/2003 1:54:56 PM PST by Cacophonous (I Corinthians 16:13-14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
On a similar note, the stamp taxes, tea taxes, and the sort were all the law of the land for Britain in the 1760's and 70's. The colonies defied those laws by tarring the tax collectors, refusing to pay for the stamps, and dumping the tea into the harbor. Does that make them in the wrong?
30 posted on 02/26/2003 1:56:58 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Ha ha ha. You neo-Confederates are so funny. There you go quoting anarchists again.

Here's what famously anarchistic Lysander Spooner had to say in the same document you just quoted:

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the Constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves."

So you've thrown yourself in with an anti-Constitutionalist anarchist. ha ha ha

31 posted on 02/26/2003 1:58:38 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Pretty goofy, as the vast majority of the tariff was collected in northern ports.

If you would take a moment to read the speech, you would note that Senator Clingman addressed that fallacy at length.

Here are the tariffs collected for the period June 1858 to June 1859 for the three largest Northern and the nine largest southern ports. The source is from "statement Showing the Amount of Revenue Collected Annually", Executive Document No.33, 36th Congress, 1st Session, 1860":

New York $35,155,452.75
Philadelphia $2,262,349.57
New Orleans $2,120,058.76
Charleston $299,399.43
Mobile $118,027.99
Galveston $92,417.72
Savannah $89,157.18
Norfolk $70,897.73
Richmond $47,763.63
Wilmington, NC $33,104.67
Pensacola $3,577.60

Looks like NYC and Philly @ $37 million with the nine southern ports at less than $3 million.

Walt

32 posted on 02/26/2003 1:58:52 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
You tried to BS people again, and you got caught again.

Caught at what, Walt? Care to give me the luxury that The Lincoln did not afford his prisoners and specify your charges?

Until then, I need only note the obvious that has just occured: you did not read what I posted, proceded to shoot your mouth off by misidentifying the mississippi declaration with the mississippi ordinance of secession, and made a fool of yourself in the process. That leaves us where we are right now, and you are obviously attempting to recover from your blunder by making false and unspecified accusations against me.

33 posted on 02/26/2003 2:00:06 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
And here is what Senator Clingman said in response to that exact same fallacious use of statistical data:

" Now, it is idle for the honorable Senator to tell me that the importations at Charleston and Savannah were small. I know that the merchants have gone from those cities to New York, and bought goods there; that goods are imported into New York are bought there, and then are sent down and deposited at Charleston, New Orleans, and other places. But, in point of fact, here is an enormously large consumption of dutiable articles, from one hundred to one hundred and fifty million. These people make their own provisions mainly, and cotton to sell, and do very little in the way of manufactures. Their manufactured goods came from the United States, or from foreign countries. I put the question to the honorable Senator, how much duty does he think this Government is going to lose by the secession of those States, supposing, of course, that they do not pay us any duties; for if New England goods are to pay the same duty with those of Old England, and Belgium, and France, we all know that the New England goods will be excluded, unless they make up their minds to sell much cheaper than they have been heretofore doing? I was curious, the year before last, in going through Europe, to ascertain, as well as I could, the value of labor and the prices of articles, and I was astonished at the rate at which goods may be purchased all over the continent, compared with similar articles here. The reasons they are not furnished as cheap here, is partly due to the circuitous trade. For example: houses in England purchase up articles in Belgium, France, Germany, and even Italy, and make a handsome profit; they then send them to New York, and handsome profits are made there by the wholesale dealers and, finally, they get down south, and in this way they are very high; but the tariff has also operated very largely. That Senator knows, as well as I do, and everybody knows, that if there be direct trade with Europe by these States; if goods are not to go around through New York, and not to pay duties ? and you may be sure they will not go there under his tariff, for nobody will pay a duty of fifty or seventy-five per cent. on what he imports, when he can send the goods to another port for fifteen or nineteen per cent. ? the result will be, that these States certainly will pay this Government no duties at all."

The Morrill tariff was designed to hurt the south. Live with it.

34 posted on 02/26/2003 2:02:19 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
But the president's use of force to ensure that United States law operate in all the states -is- constitutional.

But only if the President himself acts within the framework of thr Constitution, which Lincoln did not.

The Supreme Court said otherwise.

"By the Constitution, Congress alone has the power to declare a national or foreign war. It cannot declare was against a State, or any number of States, by virtue of any clause in the Constitution. The Constitution confers on the President the whole Executive power. He is bound to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He is Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States. He has no power to initiate or declare a war either against a foreign nation or a domestic State. But by the Acts of Congress of February 28th, 1795, and 3d of March, 1807, he is authorized to called out the militia and use the military and naval forces of the United States in case of invasion by foreign nations, and to suppress insurrection against the government of a State or of the United States...

All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used to increase the revenues of the hostile power are, in this contest, liable to be treated as enemies, though not foreigners. They have cast off their allegiance and made war on their Government, and are none the less enemies because they are traitors."

--The Prize Cases from the December, 1862 term

Walt

35 posted on 02/26/2003 2:02:28 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa (Be copy now to men of grosser blood and teach them how to war!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Ha ha ha. You neo-Confederates are so funny. There you go quoting anarchists again.

Call Spooner what you like, Laughing Boy, but in the end all you've done is evaded his argument by labelling him then dismissing that label. In short, you have not even addressed the issue before you.

36 posted on 02/26/2003 2:04:09 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
only if the President himself acts within the framework of thr Constitution, which Lincoln did not.

Sorry Charlie, but six states had already seceded before Lincoln was even sworn in. Here are they violations of the Constitution by the secessionist states:

Article I. Section. 10. Clause 1:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;

Article I. Section. 10. Clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State ... or engage in War

Article III. Section. 3. Clause 1:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Article VI. Clause 3:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

Clearly the state governments faild to support the US Constitution. They engaged in treason by making war against the US. They entered into an agreement/compact with other states and made war. They entered into a confederation.

Do you neo-Confederates really have that much trouble reading the plain language of the Constitution -- or are you all really Lysander Spooner anarchists?

37 posted on 02/26/2003 2:06:11 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
I see nothing in there that allows the President to ignore the Constitution in suppressing the insurrections. What about Lincoln's suspending the writ of habeus corpus, suppression of free speech through shutting down newspapers, and replacing en masse the Maryland legislature (a non-seccessionist state, I should note)?
38 posted on 02/26/2003 2:06:55 PM PST by Cacophonous (I Corinthians 16:13-14)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"The Constitution requires that any tariff be uniform in all the states. Did the delegates from southern states who helped write the Constitution just forget that?"

Book, Chapter, and Verse Walt. Please show how your northern compatriots faithfully complied with the sentiment you hold as truth.

39 posted on 02/26/2003 2:06:58 PM PST by azhenfud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Here are they violations of the Constitution by the secessionist states:

A state that is no longer in the union and no longer operating under that constitution is not bound by it. Try again.

40 posted on 02/26/2003 2:16:23 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Call Spooner what you like, Laughing Boy, but in the end all you've done is evaded his argument by labelling him then dismissing that label. In short, you have not even addressed the issue before you.

No you nincompoop, I'm a Libertarian and therefore a big fan of the anarchist Lysander Spooner. He was a famous abolitionist, as would be consistent with his individualist anarchist leanings. I think it is hilarious that neo-Confederates are using individualist anarchistic arguments to support their slavemaster ideology. It is the height of irony and hypocrisy.

41 posted on 02/26/2003 2:16:43 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Now as then, every American must decide whether to defend our nation against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."
42 posted on 02/26/2003 2:18:57 PM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
A few passages from Richard Taylor's "Destruction and Reconstruction";

Chapter I. Secession

The history of the United States, as yet unwritten, will show the causes of the "Civil War' to have been in existence during the Colonial era, and to have cropped out into full view in the debates of the several Sate Assemblies on the adoption of the Federal Constitution, in which instrument Luther Martin, Patrick Henry, and others insisted that they were implanted, African slavery at the time was universal, and its extinction in the North, as well as its extension in the South, was due to economic reasons alone.

The first serious difficulty of the Federal Government arose from the attempt to lay an excise on distilled spirits. The second arose from the hostility of New England traders to the policy of the Government in the war of 1812, by which their special interests were menaced; and there is now evidence to prove that, but for the unexpected peace, an attempt to disrupt the Union would then have been made.

The "Missouri Compromise" of 1820 was in reality a truce between antagonistic revenue systems, each seeking to gain the balance of power. For many years subsequently, slaves--as domestic servants--were taken to the Territories without exciting remark, and the "Nullification" movement in South Carolina was entirely directed against the tariff.

Anti-slavery was agitated from an early period, but failed to attract public attention for many years. At length, by unwearied industry, by ingeniously attaching itself to exciting questions of the day, with which it had no natural connection, it succeeded in making a lodgment in public mind, which, like a subject exhausted by long effort, is exposed to the attack of some malignant fever, that in a normal condition of vigor would have been resisted. The common belief that slavery was the cause of civil war is incorrect, and Abolitionists are not justified in claiming the glory and spoils of the conflict and in pluming themselves as "choosers of the slain."

The vast immigration that poured into the country between the years 1840 and 1860 had a very important influence in directing the events of the latter year. The numbers were too great to be absorbed and assimilated by the native population. States in the West were controlled by German and Scandinavian voters, while the Irish took possession of the seaboard towns. Although the balance of party strength was not much affected by these naturalized voters, the modes of political thought were seriously disturbed, and a tendency was manifested to transfer exciting topics from the domain of argument to that of violence.

Chapter XIV. Criticisms and Reflections

Aggrieved by the action and tendencies of the Federal Government, and apprehending worse in the future, a majority of the people of the South approved secession as the only remedy suggested by their leaders. So travelers enter railway carriages, and are dragged up grades and through tunnels with utter loss of volition, the motive power, generated by fierce heat, being far in advance and beyond their control.

We set up a monarch, too, King Cotton, and hedged him with divinity surpassing that of earthly potentates. To doubt his royalty and power was confession of ignorance or cowardice. This potent spirit, at the nod of our Prosperos, the cotton-planters, would arrest every loom and spindle in New England, destroy her wealth, and reduce her population to beggary.

Extinction of slavery was expected by all and regretted by none, although loss of slaves destroyed the value of land. Existing since the earliest colonization of the Southern States, the institution was interwoven with the thoughts, habits, and daily lives of both races and both suffered by the sudden disruption of the accustomed tie. Blockaded during the war, an without journals to guide opinion and correct error, we were unceasingly slandered by our enemies, who held possession of every avenue to the world's ear.

During all these years the conduct of the Southern people has been admirable. Submitting to the inevitable, they have shown fortitude and dignity, and rarely has one been found base enough to take wages of shame from the oppressor and malinger of his brethren. Accepting the harshest conditions and faithfully observing them, they have struggled in all honorable ways, and for what? For their slaves? Regret for their loss has neither been felt nor expressed. But they have striven for that which brought our forefathers to Runnymede, the privilege of exercising some influence in their own government. Yet we fought for nothing but slavery, says the world, and the late Vice-President of the Confederacy, M. Alexander Stephens, reechoes the cry, declaring that it was the corner-stone of his Government.
43 posted on 02/26/2003 2:19:33 PM PST by FireTrack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
No you nincompoop, I'm a Libertarian and therefore a big fan of the anarchist Lysander Spooner. He was a famous abolitionist, as would be consistent with his individualist anarchist leanings.

If that is so, why do you have such a problem with his legal arguments when they are supportive of the south?

44 posted on 02/26/2003 2:19:46 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
A state that is no longer in the union and no longer operating under that constitution is not bound by it.

Since you are now quoting anarchists who reject the Constitution in its totality, I guess you are just picking at nits. Welcome to the fold of anarchists.

However, for Lincoln, who was not an anarchist, he could view it two ways. Either the secessionist states were now foreign governments making war on the US, or corrupt state governments violation the terms of the Constitution -- in either case he could defend the US and whip the slave holder's arses. Which he succeeded in doing.

45 posted on 02/26/2003 2:22:04 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Now as then, every American must decide whether to defend our nation against "all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Though that does not answer my question, I need only note that your point here raises the question in itself of who those enemies are. Some have, and with good reason, identified Abe Lincoln's participation in that role.

46 posted on 02/26/2003 2:22:10 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jlogajan
Either the secessionist states were now foreign governments making war on the US

What war were they making on that government that Lincoln himself was not already a participant in by his own right?

47 posted on 02/26/2003 2:24:56 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa
"But the president's use of force to ensure that United States law operate in all the states -is- constitutional."

Yes indeed, in all of the states in the Union.

48 posted on 02/26/2003 2:24:57 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
his legal arguments when they are supportive of the south?

You seem to have overlooked the fact that he was an abolitionist. He was not justifying slavery, he was condemning the Constitution, which he soured on because it did NOT abolish slavery.

A word of warning ... don't try to portray Spooner as a defender of southern slavery on any forum where Spooner's positions are more well known -- you will be seen as a laughable baffoon.

49 posted on 02/26/2003 2:26:08 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
What war were they making on that government that Lincoln himself was not already a participant in by his own right?

The secessionist states were attacking federal fortifications before Lincoln was even swarn into office. Just a month after being sworn in the Confederates attacked Fort Sumter.

50 posted on 02/26/2003 2:28:08 PM PST by jlogajan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson