|View single post by ThomasWashington|
|Posted: Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 06:24 am||
Excise taxes are agnostic; they apply to any purchaser, regardless of place of purchase.
They also apply to the EXPORTER by increasing the price of the goods, thereby lowering sales-volume, and therefore PROFIT. This shifts instead to Northern beneficiaries of the tax through subsidies, protectionism, and simply paying less than their fair share of the federal tax-burden.
Tariffs also don't apply to all goods equally-- and the South wanted to purchase more imports overall than the North did.
The items most taxed via the excise were railroad iron and clothing. Do you claim that the South consumed more of these than the rest of the country?
1) the North manufactured most of the clothing they purchased, while the South didn't;
2) railroad iron was also largely produced domestically in the North, with tariffs being mainly protectionist for the benefit of northern iron and steel-industries, and
3) these items-- particularly pig-iron-- amounted to a fairly low percentage of total import-dollars.
So this claim makes the error of confusing numbers and percentages, as well as omitting special-interest beneficiaries.
Any imbalance in 'wealth-redistribution' was in old northwest where none of these commodities could be produced...
False. The South produced few or none of its purchased items, since it was far more cost-effective for them to invest in cash-crops. Therefore it imported most of its purchases from out-of-state, from either foreign or domestic manufacturers.
By taxing imports to finance subsidies and prevent competition-- as well as taxing southern-purchased goods disprportionately in order to shift the legal tax-burden unevenly onto the South-- the North deliberately and unconscionably used its superior numbers in order to constructively violate the express and implied terms of the Constitutional agreement-- and then tried to bureacratically stonewall the South from legal remedy, with Lincoln claiming that "Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case."
In other words, Lincoln was clearly playing a no-lose "catch-22" card-game with the Constitution against the Southern states, whereby he claimed that he could violate the spirit of the Constituiton, by cleverly maneuvering around the letter-- in addition to "stacking the deck" by changing the letter, to claim that the federal government was not limited to what the Constitution delegated that it could do, but on the contrary was only prohibited from doing what the Constitution expressly stated that it couldn't do... and finally, that the Federal Government was the final judge of what these "vital rights" were and weren't-- while likewise adding in his Address, that this judge wasn't the Supreme Court, other than in instant-cases before it.
Rather, Lincoln clearly held that the Congress and president were the final judge of their own powers-- and with the Congress conveniently absent, this defaulted to King Kong Lincoln himself.. or as he concluded regarding whether he was in the wrong: "But such is not our case."
So it's quite clear that under Lincoln's view of the Constitution, the South was damned if they did or didn't pay the taxes imposed by the federal majority-- no matter how illegally this majority was obtained.
Again, this also shows that Hitler later copied Lincoln, by illegally using the Brownshirts to gain a majority vote for the Nazi party-- and then using that majority in order to illegaly seize complete power via federal coup.
Last edited on Sun Nov 22nd, 2009 06:45 am by ThomasWashington