This has been widely reported as:
Shall we accept it and deal with that too?
Posted on 04/01/2018 9:05:49 AM PDT by Simon Green
Over the decades, this quiet coastal hamlet has earned a reputation as one of the most liberal places in the nation. Arcata was the first U.S. city to ban the sale of genetically modified foods, the first to elect a majority Green Party city council and one of the first to tacitly allow marijuana farming before pot was legal.
Now it's on the verge of another first.
No other city has taken down a monument to a president for his misdeeds. But Arcata is poised to do just that. The target is an 8½-foot bronze likeness of William McKinley, who was president at the turn of the last century and stands accused of directing the slaughter of Native peoples in the U.S. and abroad.
"Put a rope around its neck and pull it down," Chris Peters shouted at a recent rally held at the statue, which has adorned the central square for more than a century.
Peters, who heads the Arcata-based Seventh Generation Fund for Indigenous People, called McKinley a proponent of "settler colonialism" that "savaged, raped and killed."
A presidential statue would be the most significant casualty in an emerging movement to remove monuments honoring people who helped lead what Native groups describe as a centuries-long war against their very existence.
The push follows the rapid fall of Confederate memorials across the South in a victory for activists who view them as celebrating slavery. In the nearly eight months since white supremacists marched in central Virginia to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue, cities across the country have yanked dozens of Confederate monuments. Black politicians and activists have been among the strongest supporters of the removals.
This time, it's tribal activists taking charge, and it's the West and California in particular leading the way.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Ah yes, the barter economy and all the rest.
Britain and France industrialized first. They already had economies of scale. Northern manufacturers could not compete on price or quality. That’s why they were screaming for protective tariffs.
A rare point of agreement. I doubt it will become a habit.
Sorry you are incapable of grasping basic economic reality.
Sorry you are incapable of grasping reality. In your world the cotton farmer raises his crop, bails it, rents a ship, sits on his crop all the way to Europe, and then swaps it bail by bail for manufactured goods. That is flat out crazy. Especially considering he could sell is crop to a broker, pocket the money, and not have to worry about what happens to the cotton next. But I guess in your world cotton producers were just stupid.
Adams has ample support. Try reading his books to see.
I have.
Sure it shows WHERE the ships landed and WHERE taxes were collected. It does not show WHO owned the goods and thus paid the tariff. As I already explained to you last time, the port does not pay the tariff. The owner of the goods does.
Tariff expenses are passed along, true. But my point is that 95% of the imported goods were landed in Northern ports when you claim 84 to 87 percent of the goods were destined for Southern consumers. So in your scenario the goods come to New York, are landed, taxed, then loaded back on ships, sent South to their ultimate owners, and then those ships load up with cotton and sail off to Europe. And that makes sense to you? Why not just send the goods to Southern ports is that's where the overwhelming majority of consumers were? Why add the time, expense, and trouble of the stop in New York?
I never said that percent of goods was destined for Southern Consumers. They sold the goods to anybody obviously...after paying the tariffs.
Ah, so Bubba the Cotton farmer, after sitting on his bales all the way to England and swapping them for manufactured goods, then took those manufactured goods to New York and sold them to the gullible Yankees, is that it? That still doesn't explain how the South generated 87% of the tariffs if the costs were passed on to the gullible Yankees?
OK then if semantics are what's bothering you then quote from the international laws you said forbade it.
This has been widely reported as:
Shall we accept it and deal with that too?
What was the civil war fought over?
The north lost reconstruction btw just saying
You try living in a majority black jurisdiction and handing over power to them instantly
Do you think the Radicals did that for noble causes?
Hardly
Pure power just like their leftists Democrat cousins today
But the lost when the public up north tired of their excess
Now we’re still fighting it but parties have switched
Kind of
The GOPe is still not trustworthy
This will not end well
Two Americas still
The catalyst in these upheavals has always been immigration legal or illegal
I don’t have an answer
Oregon is controlled by basically 3-5 urban or academic counties
It’s a mirror of the nation
The south is like eastern Oregon
And non whites are streaming in to finish us
That’s the facts
I’ve been preaching it here forever
Look at South Africa
What should Southerners have done in 1866
Look at angry urban blacks or Latinos today
You want them running you?
“We should have picked our own damn cotton”
Another haiku from wardaddy I see.
So...do you condemn Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe et alia for their slaveholding? Or did it become evil in 1860? I’m always curious why New England deigned to unite with the slaveholders only to slaughter them as moral reprobates 90 years later.
No
Remember FDR renamed Hoover Dam, Bolder Dam, Truman named it back. FDR Blamed Hoover for the Depression and used hoover to win four terms of office. Naming is all political.
No mine were literate God fearing people who had skills. Not ignorant racists who felt it proper to own human being.
Probably for the best. By 1932 "Hoover" and "damn" were being used together in to many ways as it was. By 1947 memories had faded.
What an historically ignorant statement, it's so mind-bogglingly off kilter as far as US history that you have got to be of recent immigrant stock to be so clueless. Research the origin of the term "racist" as well as the history of human bondage, your "people" owned slaves if you go back far enough, and your "people" were owned as slaves if you go back far enough.
My family visited Boulder Dam when I was ten years old. I was given permission to say "Hoover" and "Dam" together as long as I said "Dam" first.
The right of secession has been argued since the Declaration of Independence. Agreed, secession should be allowed, but extremely limited.
The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the “self-determination” of “peoples,” but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
See Jefferson Davis, “Farewell Address to the Senate”:
http://www.constitutionreader.com/reader.engz?doc=constitution&chapter=OEBPS/Text/ch98.xhtml
What individual rights did Davis say were being taken away?
https://www.nps.gov/bost/the-anti-secessionist-jefferson-davis.htm
“The Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition.” Jefferson Davis states “It was not the right of any other person, despite political party, to take away someone’s personal property.”
Davis’ key argument for secession was the potential loss of the right to own slaves, not the issue of states’ rights or tariffs or sovereignty.
The mention of secession in the Federalist Papers is in Madison’s No. 58 which says:
“the baneful practice of secessions; a practice subversive of all the principles of order and regular government; a practice which leads more directly to public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than any other which has yet been displayed among us.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed58.asp
The bottom line is that the issue was decided when the CSA lost and it is time for all to realize that fact and stop trying to justify a lost cause.
The right of secession has been argued since the Declaration of Independence. Agreed, secession should be allowed, but extremely limited.
The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the “self-determination” of “peoples,” but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
See Jefferson Davis, “Farewell Address to the Senate”:
http://www.constitutionreader.com/reader.engz?doc=constitution&chapter=OEBPS/Text/ch98.xhtml
What individual rights did Davis say were being taken away?
https://www.nps.gov/bost/the-anti-secessionist-jefferson-davis.htm
“The Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition.” Jefferson Davis states “It was not the right of any other person, despite political party, to take away someone’s personal property.”
Davis’ key argument for secession was the potential loss of the right to own slaves, not the issue of states’ rights or tariffs or sovereignty.
The complaints about unfair taxation and federal government expenditures were bitter and longstanding. Remember that the Tariff of Abominations sparked the nullification crisis in 1831. Still, no matter how unfair it was, no matter how much Southerners hated it, they could not argue it was unconstitutional. It plainly was constitutional. There was no limit set on the general welfare. There was no limit on the rate of tariff the federal government could impose.
What was unconstitutional however was failure to enforce the fugitive slave act of the US constitution. There, Southerners who saw their economic interest in Independence really could say the acts of the Northern states had violated the compact and provided them just grounds for secession. Notice that in Davis’ inaugural address as president of the CSA he said the objective of the Confederacy was to have as low a tariff as possible. Notice the Confederate Constitution set a maximum 10% tariff (a “revenue tariff” as opposed to a protective tariff). Notice the Confederate Constitution set strict limits on the General Welfare so as to prevent the kind of economic exploitation they had been subject to in the US. Notice the original 7 seceding states refused to accept the North’s “slavery forever” constitutional amendment when offered it as inducement to come back in. The vast majority of wars are about money. This one was no different.
No, the bottom line is that the States are sovereign and never agreed to surrender their sovereignty when they ratified the constitution. Government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Might does not make right.
Shall we accept it and deal with that too?
Grant said it and acted on it. It makes sense. Its brutal but his understanding of basic math was correct. As a strategy, its difficult to fault him for it. Let’s not pretend however it was anything other than a calculation based on military advantage.
OK then if semantics are what’s bothering you then quote from the international laws you said forbade it.
I didn’t say “laws”. There weren’t formal agreements between countries a la the Geneva Conventions forbidding it at the time. There was instead custom which had arisen among western nations to not deliberately target civilians. That was later codified in the Geneva Conventions.
Ah yes, the barter economy and all the rest.
Correct
Sorry but it is you who is incapable of grasping reality. The larger cotton producers chartered ships to deliver their goods to market in Europe. They needed something to fill the holds to defray cost on the return journey. Sailing back empty would have been a huge waste. Naturally, they filled the holds with manufactured goods. It need not have been formal barter as you are suggesting. They delivered and sold cotton and other cash crops. They bought and filled the holds with manufactured goods. There was nothing else they could have filled the holds with that would have been nearly as profitable and thus which would have kept their transport costs lower.
Then you failed to understand what you were reading.
Once again, NO, I did NOT SAY “destined for Southern consumers”. How many times do I have to correct you on this? The goods were destined for all consumers.
You have a vivid imagination and very poor reading comprehension skills. I simply have not said the various things you are claiming I’ve said here. Go back and READ what I’ve written instead of trying to use strawman arguments.
Note: I did not say formal barter. I never said they accompanied their goods. I did not say end consumers were exclusively Southerners.
Well yeah - what you claim is probably “PC Revisionist Lies” - but I didn’t expect you to admit to it ;’}
The PC Revisionists are entirely on your side....the side of big government, centralized power and Empire.
Here’s a quarter - go buy yourself a clue...
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.