You are showing that you hear whatever it is that you want to hear at the time and not what is actually being said. It's a shame that you appear to want to hear Stormfront so often.
No, I didn't need to do anything at all. However, in the interest of truth, I did go past that and your truncation of my statement doesn't change its original poignance.
Your references to "deplorable tactics" were implicit references to my quotation of Stormfront posts,
I know. It was reciprocation aimed at your own usage of that tactic.
Well...DUH!
Imitation is a high form of flattery, so I suppose I should cut you some slack given your admited adoration on that front.
Then...you're interested in my references to Stormfront, since you care enough to continue replying, which contradicts your statements to the contrary.
If I was interested in "admiting" such a thing, I mite staart typen leik dis, you know? :shrug:
If I have the opportunity to do that in many threads, that should be a bad omen for the social conservatives as to the number of ways that they line up with Stormfront, from immigration to welfare and affirmative action to Confederate iconography and "states' rights" as opposed to bigoted segregation, etc.
I'm just trying to warn people to be mindful of the authoritarian and liberty-destroying facets of some white populist beliefs, since in their extreme form, they lead to things such as Japanese internment, waves of attacks on Middle Easterners, etc.
Hey!....I watch NASCAR and I am not even close to being a redneck......
Zyphlin said nothing to my most recent attempt to refute him, since he's not here at the moment. I'm just pointing out that your "blunt condemnation" is pretty worthless, since it's a low-ranking form on the disagreement hierarchy.
It's a contradiction, and a response to tone. You should try to refute the central point instead, if you think you're up for it.
I try to take the subway as much as possible.You don't see enough traffic in Los Angeles?
Actually, they had been fluctuating between 1816 and 1860. The real spike in the tariffs came in 1828 with the tariff of abominations which actually caused a rift between Jackson and Calhoun because of just how targeted the tariff was toward the south. In effect, it made export of cotton to Brittain so costly that the south had only one option: sell their resources at a markedly reduced rate to the north who then manufactured goods and sold them at exorbitant prices to the south. It was a truly abominable act on the part of congress to pass that tariff and that is where the rift between the north and the south pretty much became irreparable without bloodshed.
That tariff led to a series of heated arguments between the north and the south which culminated in the Nullification Crisis...pretty much a situation where the Southern states convened popular conventions and drafted their own legal philosophies regarding the Constitution as a contract between states and not a supreme law of the land, giving South Carolina, in particular, the right to nullify the tariff (which by this point had been redrafted as the Tariff of Abominations of 1832, reduced by 10%, leaving it still at a staggering 35%). In response, Jackson had Congress draw up the Force Bill which granted the PotUS the power to call up state militias and use the army and navy to put down insurrection. At this point, Calhoun left his post as VP and ran for senate. The conventions reconvened and passed rulings that nullified the Force Act. This is basically the stage that was set for Lincoln upon his inauguration. If he had really wanted to keep the peace and unity of the nation, he would have done something about the tariffs, but instead, he reaffirmed the tariffs, pleasing his northern industrial supporters but alienating the agrarian south. In fact, when South Carolina did secede, he was quoted as having said "But what will become of MY tariff"? No, Lincoln was not interested in peace and unity at all, but rather keeping his industrial northern supporters happy. Even in the 1800's, politicians were whores to their business interests.
The issue of slavery didn't even come into the picture in force until British Abolitionists, bereft of any reason to support the south now that the Tariff made trade with the south unprofitable, began to kick up a storm about slavery. The pressure to end slavery in the south came from abroad more than anywhere else and it was used to leverage other diplomatic issues, which Lincoln ultimately capitulated to because he couldn't handle a civil war at home without giving it some meaning. The slavery issue was the perfect excuse for prosecuting a war to keep the union intact but he didn't go freeing slaves out of his humanitarian interest in the plight of the displaced African at all.
What I have found is that it was about a 70% increase, from 17% overall to 26% overall and 21% to 36% on dutiable items. I can see how that was a major issue.
It wasn't even so much that it was a tariff but that it was aimed only at agricultural exports from the south. Manufactured goods, which basically meant the whole economy of the North, were exempt from the Tariff.
True, but it was a very high rate also.
Absolutely. And the 1828 tariff was 45%. It was set high to stop the south from trading with Brittain, in particular. Protectionist tariffs aimed at one region to prop up another region of the same country would naturally progress to war in almost any case, I would think.
This is a groos misinterpretation. Captain Anderson could not have "invaded" South Carolina by moving his troops to Fort Sumter. Fort Sumter was a US military installation, and therefore US military property. He has every right to move his troops there.
Also, for those who are interested. secession is illegal (though revolution may not be). Madison himself, considered "The Father of the Constitution" agreed that secession was not a constitutional right in a letter to Daniel Webster, and the fact that the language of the Constitution differed from the language of the Articled of Confederation in the US NOT being a "confederation" "a league" or "a contract". with phrases like "in perpetuity" added. The Supreme Court agreed, and validated that secession was unconstitutional in Texas v. White.
WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.
Texas v. White was the ruling. It is wise to cite it. It doesn't matter what Chase's opinions were previously in another job.
It's not wise to cite stare decisis especially from Chase since he only got the Chief Justice position because he served as Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury and had an axe to grind. How could else could he rule since if he ruled the opposite way would have made the Union victory null and void?
He ruled how he ruled. Until the USSC revisits the issue, that's all that matters. Four other Justices ruled that way too.
Like I said it's not a good cite since the justices were anything but impartial.
Good luck getting the USSC to revisit it.
You don't need SCOTUS to revisit it. The states can determine that for themselves.
The states can determine whether it is Constitutional to secede?
Now that is a conflict of interest.
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Is it a conflict of interest for the United States to secede from the United Nations? Is it a conflict of interest when one spouse divorces another? That's what secession is. It's a separation of a bond between two different parties. The states are all signatories (married to the other states forming the US) and they can leave the compact at any time they wish.
Obviously, they can't. Texas v. White is the law. A state can't disagree and render the Constitution meaningless.
It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports. Mr. Greenleaf has made a collection of such cases, to which the reader is referred. Vide 1 Kent, Com. 477; Livingst. Syst. of Pen. Law, 104, 5.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?