Posted on 02/26/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
Pretty goofy, as the vast majority of the tariff was collected in northern ports.
Walt
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
But the president's use of force to ensure that United States law operate in all the states -is- constitutional.
Walt
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.
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.
If you would take a moment to read the speech, you would note that Senator Clingman addressed that fallacy at length.
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
But only if the President himself acts within the framework of thr Constitution, which Lincoln did not.
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
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
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.
" 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.
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
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.
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?
Book, Chapter, and Verse Walt. Please show how your northern compatriots faithfully complied with the sentiment you hold as truth.
A state that is no longer in the union and no longer operating under that constitution is not bound by it. Try again.
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.