Posted on 02/04/2009 2:35:40 AM PST by America2012
My own expectation is low, given that NH is the state where that homosexual bishop continues to corrode Christianity from within. Were it to pass, that would itself be a landmark worth noticing. I wouldn’t mind it coming into force here in NC, but then again, it was our next-door neighbor which enacted a similar provision back in the 1820’s that sparked a rather considerable unpleasantness, much brunt of which we had to endure.
Still, the current prospects are for seriously more dire damage to the national polity than was true of Andrew Jackson (he just wanted to establish a national bank, ahh, the simplicity of old days, yes?) Having to enact decress of nullification must definitely be taken as evidence of tyranny run wild. It would be a great prudential act to try to lock the barn door before the horse gets to run.
Actually Jackson killed off the 2nd Bank of the United States (2BUS). The issue that sparked the nullification crisis was the tariff of abominations.
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html
Check again. and read the link I originally sent you.
This has been coming for some time.
Hope all states join New Hampshire in this! Congrats to the brave, loyal men who proposed this resolution.
just a test for a frustrated attempt at participating in discussions, as they are all up for review. (whatever that means...)
Thank you, my memory was fuzzy. Interesting that SC foresaw that tariffs were death on prosperity better than a century before Smoot-Hawley.
Jefferson, the Democratic-Republican Party, and the Virginia School of political thinkers saw it a generation before that. The tariff provision in the constitution was only intended to fund the government, not to protect favored industries.
I believe New Hampshire went straight Dem in the last election and that it is a Blue state.
I think that if they were to succeed in seceding, they would just turn the resulting independent state into a socialist “paradise” that would be used as a base to undermine the remaining United States. They would get help from other socialist “paradises” in the world.
Also one of the causes of the Revolutionary War was the British Empire told the colonies that they to send their stuff only to Britain and buy stuff from Britain only..
I like the idea of a “tripwire” law being used as justification to leave the union. People have the right to say “No Further!”.
> Does New Hampshire have an initiative process?
No.
A little off-topic...or a thread within a thread -
Your exchange has prompted me to ask a question. In the latest issue of History magazine, the front page article squarely places the blame for the current financial crisis (and bank failures throughout US history) on Thomas Jefferson.
Entitled “Who got us into this mess, how Thomas Jefferson’s hatred of banks led to the panic of 2008,” the article states that his distrust of govt and loathing of the English central banking system not only quashed the development of a central bank here in the US, but it also laid the groundwork for 200 years of a viciously cyclic economy and perpetually unstable banks.
Now, it seems to me that Jefferson had the right idea and the author’s interpretation is a bit far-reaching, but I’m no economist, and I only pretend to be an historian when the topic better suits me, so I’m wondering if either of you has any thoughts on the subject.
I appreciate you sharing that. It’s a detail of which I wasn’t aware and which I am glad to know. It really does emphasize that what we were taught was likely at best substandard. What our children are being taught....oh, my, words fail me.
And each time I think in this way, a scene from ‘I, Claudius’ pops into my head: Antonia, the (authentically) patrician mother of Claudius is reproving her daughter for dallying with Sejanus, pointing out that (1) he’s married and (2) the only reason he’s interested in the girl is that she is in line to succeed Tiberius. The girl ignores the first, intending to supplant the woman whatever her protests and dismisses the second, airily saying, “Oh, mother, modern people don’t bother about that Republican stuff anymore. No one but Claudius pays any attention to that.”
I don’t know about you, but when I see our current political masters and mistresses airily sweep aside centuries of dearly preserved freedoms for personal profit, that thought and their actions send a chill down my spine. I’m so glad I moved out of Blue America and into the Red (just barely: NC, after all, still votes Democratic because Daddy did).
The author simply doesn’t understand that it is the central bank that is causing the problem in the first place. The public were told in 1913 that the purpose of the central bank was to eliminate recessions. Most historians don’t know very much economics and just take that claim at face value. It was just a bit of political sloganeering though. The real reason for the central bank was to establish a banking cartel which could enforce a uniform rate of bank credit expansion such that consumers wouldn’t be able to judge one bank against another. In return for creating this crooked institution the government got a guaranteed taker for all its debt.
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=FinalWarn02-1
A lot of our history would be different if people had listen to Jefferson back then. Why the unconstitutionality of the Fed, SEC, and other domestic and international groups hasn't been of much concern, isn't all that perplexing. The people who have the power to manipulate the currencies of this country and others, refuse to release their grip. Look at the guy who was testifying against Madoff today. He knew the truth but, feared for his and his family's life because of Madoff's connections with SEC higher ups. Perfect example.
That quote from Jefferson always reminds me of the biblical story of Joseph and his grain tax.
Thanks for the responses. I was confident of your perspective before asking the question, but wanted feedback nonetheless because I don’t speak econom-ese. But I do speak common sense and the more I read, the more irritated I got.
Among other things, the author (John Steele Gordon) attached every bank failure in US history to Jefferson’s opposition (he included a banking timeline), which started some big ball rolling, like free enterprise has nothing to do with business success. He criticized private individual banks regulated on the state level and considered them doomed to fail because they were outside a federal umbrella. His general implication was that if Jefferson had listened to Alexander Hamilton in the first place, the US would never have had a bank failure. He dismissed Jefferson’s quotes that indicate his concern for the average farmer, saying in effect that he was a hypocrite because he himself was a rich elitist.
The main gist of the article seemed to be government control = stability, and let’s just ignore the fact that we operate under a capitalist system that has as its very foundation the potential for both success and failure.
The problem with that argument though is that it doesn’t explain why we have had bank failures and recessions *after* the central bank was created. If recessions were caused by the absence of a central bank the we shouldn’t have had any recessions after 1913.
Looks like it means your short life on FR has ended at 2 days.
How so?
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.