Posted on 02/26/2003 1:10:37 PM PST by GOPcapitalist
Check out post 96. He said it again!
It looks to me as if the dialogue immediately preceding the speech is between Simmons and James Mason of Virginia.
and Senator Clingman is not complaining about the tariff, he is disputing Senator Simmons' claim that the new tariff will yield over $100 million in annual revenue
Which is a complaint about the tariff, or exactly what you said he was not doing. Senator Simmons maintains that since so little of the tariff is collected in southern ports that his estimates are correct. Senator Clingman says that the senator from Rhode Island is overlooking imports landed in Northern ports and destined to be shipped south, which he puts at $150 million per year. Since Senator Clingman provides no support for his claim it's impossible to take them seriously, any more than you can accept Senator Simmons' estimates.
You are free to dispute either senator's estimates all you like, but the point of the matter is their economic reasoning. As Clingman notes, exports don't magically happen for free. Something must be given in return for them, and if the south exported $220 million worth in goods, they had to get roughly that much somewhere as payment for those goods and the two sources are either monetary payment from abroad, or in the form of imports from abroad. The same would be true whether the export figures were $1 million or $500 million. As for what actually happened under the Morrill bill, trade with Europe died off almost entirely.
Regardless Senator Clingman is not threatening secession over the tariff
But he is saying that Lincoln will go to war over it.
he is not saying that secession was the reason why seven states seceded
But he is saying that Lincoln will go to war over it.
That's the question that the speaker didn't really answer very persuasively. Going all the way from Europe to Southern ports is a much longer haul (than just from Europe to Boston or New York City) and involves going through hurricane prone seas.
As to your contention that the tariff played no role, consider the following newspaper editorials from early April 1861:
That was after secession of most of the Southern stated, so I don't understand your point. The secessionists very clearly stated that they seceded to preserve slavery in light of the election of a "Black Republican" (Lincoln), so the stage for the Civil War was set when Lincoln was elected and nothing except Union capitulation to secession could have avoided war. Thus, tariffs had nothing to do with secession or the war.
That's the question that the speaker didn't really answer very persuasively. Going all the way from Europe to Southern ports is a much longer haul (than just from Europe to Boston or New York City) and involves going through hurricane prone seas.
As to your contention that the tariff played no role, consider the following newspaper editorials from early April 1861:
That was after secession of most of the Southern stated, so I don't understand your point. The secessionists very clearly stated that they seceded to preserve slavery in light of the election of a "Black Republican" (Lincoln), so the stage for the Civil War was set when Lincoln was elected and nothing except Union capitulation to secession could have avoided war. Thus, tariffs had nothing to do with secession or the war.
Yes it has. The Circuit Court ruled that in Ex Parte Merryman. The Lincoln illegally ignored that decision.
That's the question that the speaker didn't really answer very persuasively. Going all the way from Europe to Southern ports is a much longer haul (than just from Europe to Boston or New York City) and involves going through hurricane prone seas.
As to your contention that the tariff played no role, consider the following newspaper editorials from early April 1861:
That was after secession of most of the Southern stated, so I don't understand your point. The secessionists very clearly stated that they seceded to preserve slavery in light of the election of a "Black Republican" (Lincoln), so the stage for the Civil War was set when Lincoln was elected and nothing except Union capitulation to secession could have avoided war. Thus, tariffs had nothing to do with secession or the war.
Sure he did. It's a matter of economic law that, if goods can't get into New York due to a trade barrier but can get into Charleston where no barrier exists, the shippers will go to Charleston as a way to access the North American continent.
Yes he did.
"The privileges and benefit of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall be enjoyed in this Government, in the most expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the Legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding months." - Proposal of Charles Pickney on habeas corpus, Constitutional Convention of 1787, submitted to committee for consideration and later adopted in its current language as Article I, Section 9, Clause 2, pertaining to the legislature
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States...The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." - United States Constitution, Article I
"In the same section it is provided, that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion and invasion, the public safety may require it." This clause limits the power of the legislature to deprive a citizen of the right of habeas corpus, to particular cases viz. those of rebellion and invasion; the reason is plain, because in no other cases can this power be exercised for the general good." - Robert Yates, delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Anti-Federalist #9 "Brutus"
"The people by adopting the federal constitution, give congress general powers to institute a distinct and new judiciary, new courts, and to regulate all proceedings in them, under the eight limitations mentioned in a former letter; and the further one, that the benefits of the habeas corpus act shall be enjoyed by individuals." - Federal Farmer (believed to be Richard Henry Lee), Anti-Federalist #16
"The safest and best restriction, therefore, arises from the nature of the cases in which Congress are authorized to exercise that power [of suspending habeas corpus] at all, namely, in those of rebellion or invasion. These are clear and certain terms, facts of public notoriety, and whenever these shall cease to exist, the suspension of the writ must necessarily cease also." - Francis Dana, presenter of the Constitution to the Massachussetts ratification convention
"The decision that the individual shall be imprisoned must always precede the application for a writ of habeas corpus, and this writ must always be for the purpose of revising that decision, and therefore appellate in its nature. But this point also is decided in Hamilton's case and in Burford's case. If at any time the public safety should require the suspension of the powers vested by this act in the courts of the United States, it is for the legislature to say so. That question depends on political considerations, on which the legislature is to decide." - United States Supreme Court, Ex Parte Bollman & Swartwout, authored by Justice John Marshall, 1807
"Those respecting the press, religion, & juries, with several others, of great value, were accordingly made; but the Habeas corpus was left to the discretion of Congress, and the amendment against the reeligibility of the President was not proposed by that body." - Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821
"The Constitution seems to have secured this benefit [habeas corpus] to the citizen by the description of the writ, and in an unqualified manner admitting its efficacy, while it declares that it shall not he suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety shall require it. This writ is believed to be known only in countries governed by the common law, as it is established in England; but in that country the benefit of it may at any time be withheld by the authority of parliament, whereas we see that in this country it cannot be suspended even in cases of rebellion or invasion, unless the public safety shall require it. Of this necessity the Constitution probably intends, that the legislature of the United States shall be the judges. Charged as they are with the preservation of the United States from both those evils, and superseding the powers of the several states in the prosecution of the measures they may find it expedient to adopt, it seems not unreasonable that this control over the writ of habeas corpus, which ought only to be exercised on extraordinary occasions, should rest with them. It is at any rate certain, that congress, which has authorized the courts and judges of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases within their jurisdiction, can alone suspend their power" - William Rawl, A View of the Constitution of the United States, Chapter 10, 1826
"It would seem, as the power is given to congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in cases of rebellion or invasion, that the right to judge, whether exigency had arisen, must exclusively belong to that body." - Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Book 3, Chapter XXXII, § 1336, 1833
"With such provisions in the constitution, expressed in language too clear to be misunderstood by any one, I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the president, in any emergency, or in any state of things, can authorize the suspension of the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus, or the arrest of a citizen, except in aid of the judicial power. He certainly does not faithfully execute the laws, if he takes upon himself legislative power, by suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and the judicial power also, by arresting and imprisoning a person without due process of law." - Chief Justice Roger Taney, Ex Parte Merryman, United States Circuit Court, 1861
"There has been much discussion concerning the question whether the power to suspend the "privilege of the writ of habeas corpus," is conferred by the Constitution on Congress, or on the President. The only judicial decisions which have been made upon this question have been adverse to the power of the President." - Justice Benjamin R. Curtis, Executive Power, 1862
When we left Morehead City, N.C. in the U.S.S. Raleigh heading for England, we went north along the coast to the vicinity of New York City and followed the great circle route. Running down to Charleston or Savannah would have been not that much more of a big deal than landing in NYC. In some seasons, it might have paid to offload in NYC because of potential bad weather, but it was surely more expensive to offload onto wagons or trains for transshipment to southern states. You'd even be better served off-loading in Charleston if you were shipping to New Orleans than off loading in NYC for the same destination.
Don't forget this was a time when you could sail around South America by Clipper faster than you could travel to California overland.
Bruce Catton also states in "The Coming Fury" that southern rail systems were feeder systems from the cotton producing areas --outward--. Bringing -in- cargo was not planned for -- and I don't believe it was done on any large scale.
>"To buy at home or abroad the the goods the army needed was one thing; to move them to the places where the army wanted them was quite another. Lacking a financial and industrial system equal to the demands of a large war, the South lacked also a proper transportation system. It had many railroads but no real railroad network, because hardly any of its railroads had been built with through traffic in mind.
Most of them had been conceived of as feeder lines, to move cotton to the wharves at river towns or at seaports...this handicap, to be sure, existed also in the north, but there it was not so serious. It had been recognized earlier, and it was being removed; and the significant point was that in the North it -could- be removed, and in the South, it could not.
--The Coming Fury, p. 438-439, by Bruce Catton
"....under the crushing Civil War tasks of moving gigantic quantities of food, troops and military equipment, Confederate railroads succumbed faster than Confederate troops. By midwar, an aid to the Confederacy's western commander lamented that, "locomotives had not been repaired for six months, and many of them lay disabled." The colonel knew "not one place in the South where a driving-wheel can be made, and not one where a whole locomotive can be constructed."
--The South vs. The South, p. 63-64 by William W. Freehling
"By an index that combines population and square miles of territory, the South's railroad capacity was not only less than half the North's, but also less than that of several European countries in 1860. Combining the two measures of industrial capacity [textiles and pig iron]...the South produced only one-nineteenth as much per capita as Britain, one-seventh as much as Belgium, one-fifth as much as the North and one-fourth as much as Sweden..."
-- BCF, p 91.
The south simply was not consuming a lot of goods from overseas prior to the war.
Walt
Chief Justice Rehnquist has said the question has not been --authoritatively-- decided even now.
And nothing you've posted negates his opinion.
Walt
Additional states seceded after the Morrill tax was enacted. As the editorials I posted pointed out, passing the Morrill tax played right into the hands of the secessionists and worked against the North in the border states.
As the New Orleans paper also said about the new tariff, "The South was to be fleeced that the North might be enriched." The tariff can't have helped the Union cause.
Going all the way from Europe to Southern ports is a much longer haul (than just from Europe to Boston or New York City) and involves going through hurricane prone seas.
I'm not sure how the goods ultimately got to the South. Perhaps the trans-Atlantic ships carried goods bound for both North and South, and it made more sense to pay the tariff at the intial port of call rather than going through the tariff hassle in both ports.
So does that mean that Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Roger Taney, Benjamin Curtis, Joseph Story, William Rawl, Robert Yates, and Richard Henry Lee are not authorities on the Constitution? All of them have answered that question in agreement with the Constitution, which does not permit The Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus.
So unless Bill Rehnquist is claiming that John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest lack authority in the area of the Constitution, he is simply wrong. So tough, both for him and for you if either of you don't like that.
You are overlooking a third source, payments from domestic sources who then sold that cotton abroad. Which would allow the southern planter to spend his money domestically. Assuming, as you seem to be doing, that the planter spent all his money on imports leaves nothing to sustain the domestic economy with or to buy more slaves with.
But he is saying that Lincoln will go to war over it.
Which is nonsense since, as Senator Simmons pointed out, we're only talking about $3 million in revenue. That's less than 3% of the total revenue estimated by Senator Simmons. Nobody would go to war over a minor issue like that. President Lincoln must have been motivated by something else, like preserving the Union.
It would seem to be a matter of economic law that you serve your best customer in the most cost effective manner possible. So if your best customer is the southern consumer then it makes no sense to send them their goods via New York or Boston where all you are doing is adding to their costs. It would seem that economic law would mandate that those goods would go to Charleston or Mobile or New Orleans. Yet that wasn't done. Didn't they understand economic law in those days?
And if you send those goods to Charleston to avoid the tariff in New York then what do you do with them? What good will those goods to the customers up North sitting in Charleston? How will Charleston be a way of accessing the North American continent? Seems to me that the stuff will just sit there and rot, which seems to me to be a violation of economic law, too. Because if you're suggesting that those goods will be sent to Northern states then that makes no sense at all. Why ship goods to Charleston, pay the confederate tariff, tranship them to the North, and pay the Northern tariff as well plus all those additional shipping costs? That makes no sense at all.
So does that mean that Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, Roger Taney, Benjamin Curtis, Joseph Story, William Rawl, Robert Yates, and Richard Henry Lee are not authorities on the Constitution? All of them have answered that question in agreement with the Constitution, which does not permit The Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus.
So unless Bill Rehnquist is claiming that John Marshall, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest lack authority in the area of the Constitution, he is simply wrong. So tough, both for him and for you if either of you don't like that.
That sounds -so- grown up.
What it means is that Chief Justice Rehnquist has done something that none of your sources take into account; he considers the context of what Lincoln faced. Lincoln faced a situation scarely considered by any of them.
The Chief Justice considers the circumstances; all you want to do is smear President Lincoln unfairly.
Those who can see, will see.
Walt
Your economic ignorance is showing again. Such persons are intermediaries in the market. They act at levels in between a good's production and its reciept by the ultimate buyer. The tariff costs etc. are ultimately transfered through their presence though by way of price.
Assuming, as you seem to be doing, that the planter spent all his money on imports
Not at all. You are again missing a key economic concept of trade. Trade does not occur out of the goodness of a seller's heart, non-seq. If I give my cotton to a buyer in Britain, I do so only because he is giving me something in return for that cotton. It may be a payment in money that he gives me. It may be manufactured goods of his own. It may be another foreign product sent to America by a roundabout way through what I use that cash on. But in the end, the only reason I will give him my cotton is because I get something in return for it. When the south as a whole trades out $220 million worth of products, they expect to get payment in return - either return products or money. And if the government puts a tariff in the way that blocks those return products from getting here, the whole circle of trade halts because the south isn't going to simply give away its cotton without something in return.
Which is nonsense since, as Senator Simmons pointed out, we're only talking about $3 million in revenue.
Not at all. As Clingman pointed out, goods can come in anywhere by sea on the North American continent. If New York has a tariff blocking goods from entering and Charleston does not have such a tariff, the foreign shippers will go to Charleston to avoid paying that tariff and the good is delivered. As a result, nothing will come in through New York and if nothing comes in through New York, no taxes are paid. The confederacy created exactly that kind of a situation for New York, and in doing so threatened to undermine the entire northern government's redistributionary government intervention-based economy. And if you still doubt Senator Clingman's arguments, answer me this - why were these exact same arguments used by the New York Times, an indisputably pro-north newspaper, only two weeks later in an effort to pursuade Lincoln to go to war?
Some of my ancestors immigrated directly to Texas from Europe, but their ship stopped in New Orleans where they were processed before going to Galveston. Do they count as immigrants to Louisiana since that is where they were processed?
A further thought on the shipment of goods. As I mentioned before trans-Atlantic ships may have carried goods bound for both North and South. Once goods bound for the South arrived at a Northern port, they could be offloaded and consolidated onto domestic ships headed for Charleston, Savannah, New Orleans. That way shippers could take advantage of the lower cost of shipping by sea versus shipping overland.
The Southern railroad network, designed to move cotton to market, just as easily functions in reverse to distribute goods inland from the Southern ports.
Then welcome to the grown up world, Walt! In this world, things don't always happen the way you like them to happen. Reality does not always mirror what you desire it to be in your mind. In this particular case, it means your false god committed a wrong, an imperfection - he violated the Constitution. You obviously do not like that fact, likely because of the fallability it demonstrates in a person you have attempted to deify, but it is never the less a fact. Whining about it will not make it go away, so you would be better off accepting it as it is and moving on. That you do not like to do so is not of my concern, so tough if you do not like it.
What it means is that Chief Justice Rehnquist has done something that none of your sources take into account; he considers the context of what Lincoln faced.
So Roger Taney, who actually witnessed the event and actually ruled upon it himself as it happened before his courtroom, did not take the context of that same event into consideration? Or how about Curtis, who wrote his commentary in direct response to that same event after witnessing it play out. Did he not consider the context either, Walt? I ask because it is a simple matter of reality that both of those men had greater proximity to the context of the event that, barring the invention of a time machine, Bill Rehnquist could ever dream of achieving. Surely that reality is known to you. Yet you insist upon trusting the guy from a college speech 130 years after the case rather than two equally credentialed eyewitnesses including one who actually participated in the events and ruled on them at the time they happened. The only possible explanation for your misplaced appeal to authority, Walt, is that you are unable to handle the reality of that case and its implication of fallability for the man you have falsely chosen to worship.
Lincoln faced a situation scarely considered by any of them.
Curtis, who witnessed the event, did not consider the situation before him? Taney, who wrote a decision on the event and whose court was a participant in the event, did not consider the situation before him? Please.
Those who can see, will see.
...and those who can see but choose not to do so, will not. You clearly fall into that latter category.
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.