Haiti.
Haiti was formed as the result of the only successful slave rebellion.
[jsuati] There is little culture created outside of those states and the economy depends upon them to send taxes to the red states.
Posted on 11/13/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by LouAvul
....snip......
Based on Margaret Mitchell's hugely popular novel, producer David O. Selznick's four-hour epic tale of the American South during slavery, the Civil War and Reconstruction is the all-time box-office champion.
.......snip........
Considering its financial success and critical acclaim, "Gone With the Wind" may be the most famous movie ever made.
It's also a lie.
......snip.........
Along with D.W. Griffith's technically innovative but ethically reprehensible "The Birth of a Nation" (from 1915), which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic, "GWTW" presents a picture of the pre-Civil War South in which slavery is a noble institution and slaves are content with their status.
Furthermore, it puts forth an image of Reconstruction as one in which freed blacks, the occupying Union army, Southern "scalawags" and Northern "carpetbaggers" inflict great harm on the defeated South, which is saved - along with the honor of Southern womanhood - by the bravery of KKK-like vigilantes.
To his credit, Selznick did eliminate some of the most egregious racism in Mitchell's novel, including the frequent use of the N-word, and downplayed the role of the KKK, compared with "Birth of a Nation," by showing no hooded vigilantes.
......snip.........
One can say that "GWTW" was a product of its times, when racial segregation was still the law of the South and a common practice in the North, and shouldn't be judged by today's political and moral standards. And it's true that most historical scholarship prior to the 1950s, like the movie, also portrayed slavery as a relatively benign institution and Reconstruction as unequivocally evil.
.....snip.........
Or as William L. Patterson of the Chicago Defender succinctly wrote: "('Gone With the Wind' is a) weapon of terror against black America."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacticket.com ...
Sovereignty covers many evils.
It is amusing to watch you folks think you have proven something.
I am pleased to see you admit your problem. That is the first step toward your cure. May your therapy and the others steps go well.
Apparently you have a very severe reading comprehension problem.
The stated concern is that RI "NOT BE ALTOGETHER CONSIDERED AS FOREIGNERS."
And of course, you pretend to be absolutely blind to the fact that the Governor of Rhode Island sent his letter to "To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:
The letter was written due to economic difficulties, and stave off threatened invasion and coercion.
Rhode Island was most definitely NOT part of the Union of the ELEVEN United States of America, but prayed not to be treated ALTOGETHER as foreigners.
Regardless of what mindless blathering tripe you choose to post, Rhode Island was most definitely NOT one of the ELEVEN United States of America to whom she wrote.
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS,
In General Assembly, September Session, 1789.To the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives of the eleven United States of America in Congress assembled:
"The critical situation in which the people of this State are placed engages us to make these assurances, on their behalf, of their attachment and friendship to their sister States, and of their disposition to cultivate mutual harmony and friendly intercourse. They know themselves to be a handful, comparatively viewed, and, although they now stand as it were alone, they have not separated themselves or departed from the principles of the Confederation, which was formed by the sister States in their struggle for freedom and in the hour of danger....
"Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of government formed and adopted by most of our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them. That we have not seen our way clear to it, consistently with our idea of the principles upon which we all embarked together, has also given pain to us. We have not doubted that we might thereby avoid present difficulties, but we have apprehended future mischief....
Can it be thought strange that, with these impressions, they [the people of this State] should wait to see the proposed system organized and in operation? -- to see what further checks and securities would be agreed to and established by way of amendments before they could adopt it as a Constitution of government for themselves and their posterity? ...
We are induced to hope that we shall not be altogether considered as foreigners having no particular affinity or connection with the United States; but that trade and commerce, upon which the properity of this State much depends, will be preserved as free and open between this State and the United States, as our different situations at present can possibly admit....
We feel ourselves attached by the strongest ties of friendship, kindred, and interest, to our sister States; and we can not, without the greatest reluctance, look to any other quarter for those advantages of commercial intercourse which we conceive to be more natural and reciprocal between them and us.
I am, at the request and in behalf of the General Assembly, your most obedient, humble servant.
(Signed) John Collins, Governor.
His Excellency, the President of the United States.
[American State Papers, Vol I, Miscellaneous.]
Haiti.
Haiti was formed as the result of the only successful slave rebellion.
[jsuati] There is little culture created outside of those states and the economy depends upon them to send taxes to the red states.
The hemorrhoids have to be cut out before we all bleed to death. There isn't enough Prep-H in the world to ease the pain of those hemorrhoids.
[jsuati] Unfortunately their removal would collapse the economies of the rest of the nation thus neatly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Let the rest of the nation worry about that. You can join up with Canada and be cheerful that you do not have to support the rest of the nation any more.
You can have all the free social programs that you want.
And you can still post on FR as a socialist Canadian.
As soon as you are gone, the average of the IQ of the nation will spike upward.
It is amusing to watch you folks try to think.
Furthermore, the the Suspension Clause originated in draft Article XI of the Philadelphia Convention, which dealt with primarily judicial issues. Its final appearance in Article I was the result of work by the Style Committee and was made without comment. (See Farber, p 160-161)
The placement of the Clause is less important than the reason it is there in the first place. (See Jaffa, pg 364)
"Was there a Rebellion in Maryland?"
Insurrectionists were operating in secret and openly in Maryland in early 1861. Acts of sabotage and rioting against the legal authortiy of the government also occurred.
"What evidence is there that on May 28, 1861 the public safety of Baltimore required the suspension of habeas corpus?"
There exists abundant evidence of threats to the public safety by Merryman and fellow insurrectionists prior to May 28. John Merryman, as an officer in the insurgent Maryland militia, was a leader in the treasonable activities.
"What evidence is there that this legislative power was exercised by the Legislature?"
You proceed from a faulty premise.
What Farber wrote specifically about the concept of "necessity" is shown here in this section about Jefferson:
"Lincoln's invocation of necessity was not unprecedented. According to Jefferson, a 'strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest.' Rather, Jefferson claimed, the 'laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.' For to 'lose our country by a scupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying tham with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.'" (Faber, pg 192-193)
Another misrepresentation on your part. Or is it just a "goof"?
I provided the passage from the New York Times, as quoted by Rehnquist. To date, it stands unrefuted.
I know you keynesians and other interventionists like to pretend otherwise, but macroeconomics, as a "field" separated from fundamentally micro concepts, is bunk. It bastardizes Say's Law into a strawman the rejects that phony product, discarding micro principles (and all rationality) with it.
Put another way, if you don't like the micro devices that are being used to demonstrate the failure of of Hamiltonian interventionism, then by all means challenge them. Simply asserting "well, this is macro and micro doesn't apply" though and dismissing them out of hand won't cut it.
And many sources of economic growth are known while the growth is proceeding not only after.
That's concurrent knowledge, not ex ante.
Besides if your contention were true it only underlines my point and makes the choice of any policy a blind shot.
Garbage. The entire notion of economically-guided policy making is built upon relationships and observations derived from experience. We derived a theory of price, for example, after observing prices work in practice. Same holds for policy in that having seen what works and what does not work in the past, we can make highly educated predictions about what will work and what will not work now.
It is no inanity to point to the lack of replicatibility in economic history as a weakness in trying to make economics a science like chemistry.
Why does it have to be a science like chemistry in order to assert valid truthful relationships, fakeit? There is more to life than experimentation in a laboratory and to suggest otherwise while simultaneously rejecting all that falls outside of the laboratory is, by definition, an inanity.
To take the highly refined assumptions of an econometric study as productive of indisputable truth is inanity.
If the sources I referenced are as disputable as you content, then why can't you refute so much as a single word of any of them nor produce the names of anybody else who has credibly done so?
Communism, as theorized by Marx, was not what was seen in the USSR since his theory was to be applied in an advance capitalist society not a backward one.
Letting your true colors (pink) show again, eh fakeit? You are mistaken as well in that you ascribe Soviet communism's failure to the difference of its relative hegelian stage model along side the one predicted by Marx. The soviet failure had nothing to do with that and everything to do with the simple irrefutable fact that Marx himself screwed up big time on the core underlying assumption of his system: a labor theory of value which is, quite simply, impossible and unrealized in the existing world.
Tariff issues are NOT just economic but often primarily political.
Indeed. And as such they are subject to political pressures by rent seeking interests pursuing illicit personal gains through the power of the state and at the expense of everybody else.
Economists arguing that they don't work economically ignore the political aspects.
Garbage. An entire school of economic thought - public choice - is devoted to the economic comprehension of political factors and interactions. But being a Keynesian/marxian/interventionist of some sort, you probably have no interest in hearing what they have to say.
Also ignored is the fact that there was NO Free Market for the Americans to compete in.
That claim is of no consequence to my position as economists have long recognized and compensated for the fact that other countries engage in non-free forms of trade, finding that conventional attempts to counter it by equal and opposite intervention only exacerbates the problem. Read Friedman.
You used Taussig to support your argument that the tariffs were counterproductive wrt iron but why don't we see what he said about cotton manufacture?
Why don't we? Here's an interesting passage from his concluding remarks on cotton textiles:
It has appeared that the introduction of the cotton manufacture took place before the era of protection, and that—looking aside from the anomalous conditions of the period of restriction from 1808 to 1815—its early progress, though perhaps somewhat promoted by the minimum duty of 1816, would hardly have been much retarded in the absence of protective duties
Of course his study of the cotton textile industry has been augmented in modern times by Paul David who employed empirical evidence and concluded that no discernable gain was reached to the producers in terms of advancing the industry, all the gain having been in personal profits they reaped off the state policy.
Taussig did NOT conclude the tariff was counterproductive as you implied in your iron example but merely that it was of mixed result helping some protected industries but not others.
Are you blind, stupid, or both? 1812 was BEFORE the period of heavy protection. Look at Taussig's CONCLUSION about cotton:
It has appeared that the introduction of the cotton manufacture took place before the era of protection, and that—looking aside from the anomalous conditions of the period of restriction from 1808 to 1815—its early progress, though perhaps somewhat promoted by the minimum duty of 1816, would hardly have been much retarded in the absence of protective duties.
See that, fakeit? He makes two points: 1. Cotton textiles industrialed before the protectionist tariffs were put in place and 2. subsequent industrialization was NOT helped by protective duties. To suggest anything else is to lie.
Bullsh*t. Taussig's conclusion on Cotton textiles is this:
"It has appeared that the introduction of the cotton manufacture took place before the era of protection, and that—looking aside from the anomalous conditions of the period of restriction from 1808 to 1815—its early progress, though perhaps somewhat promoted by the minimum duty of 1816, would hardly have been much retarded in the absence of protective duties." (p. 38)
In summary, they industrialized BEFORE the protectionist tariffs and were NOT helped AFTER the protectionist tariffs.
Taussig's conclusion on Woolens is this:
"The manufacture of woollens received little direct assistance before it reached that stage at which it could maintain itself without help, if it were for the advantage of the country that it should be maintained."
Once again they industrialized BEFORE the protectionist tariffs and were not in need of help after them.
Taussig's summary for Iron:
In the iron manufacture twenty years of heavy protection did not materially alter the proportion of home and foreign supply, and brought about no change in methods of production.In all three cases protection is found to have achieved virtually nothing positive and certainly nothing anywhere near the level it was claimed it would achieve. No amount of quote mining or out of context excerpts will ever change that fact, which is stated in the plainest of English in his conclusion as quoted above.
That passage in your favorite newspaper is an unsourced, unspecified vitriolic rant on the editorial page. To date, it stands unsubstantiated.
...says the habitual affirmer of consequents.
Yankees you say??? Our friend will not hear of it!
Ahh, we're in for another culturing by the big-city sophisticants. Stuff your carpetbag full of gangsta rap CD's or hand-blown glass bongs and come show us how it's done.
Punting on second down? No wonder the Bears' defense is outscoring their offense this year!
You continue to neglect the fact that the shape of the American economy at independence was not the result of market forces but of Imperial policy. We were established to be a resource to be exploited and the policy of Hamilton was to re=shape that shape into a modern economy capable of achieving economic independence with regard to key industries. Most economic studies assume away this political background and that limits their applicability to real life.
Hamilton's policy was to use the tariff revenue from the British exports to foster the industry to compete with British manufacturers and help create a real nation rather than a collection of British dependencies whose economies were controlled by Britain. Creation and strengthening the Union was his magnificent goal, a political goal which made the economy secondary, and achievement earning his place among the Immortals.
An abuse of the American flag by criminals, how shocking and damning of the abused.
Who could dispute your intimate personal knowledge of insanity? Knowledge from the inside out is best though even that not infallible.
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.