 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Tue Sep 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 513 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
That's quite a stretch. Where did you divine this Republican strategy?
Start with the Georgia Articles of Secession
similar to asking a fox to design a hen houseBut I'll let you do your own research and present your own evidence.
What taxes were levied on a only state or sectional basis?
Tariffs on imports that were purchased almost exclusively by the South, as well as protectionist tariffs on commercial goods manufactured exclusively in the North. Both of these types of taxes clearly exceeded the federal powers delegated by the Constitution, and deliberately strove to take advantage of superior numbers-- and to GAIN superior numbers-- in order to tax the South dry in a clear scheme of wealth-redistribution from southern to northern states via trade-restrictions and subsidies.
That's far worse than the "taxation without reprsentation" scenario which caused the states to leave England in the first place.
Excise taxes are agnostic; they apply to any purchaser, regardless of place of purchase.
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?
Any imbalance in 'wealth-redistribution' was in old northwest where none of these commodities could be produced...
HankC