Mark Levin on Tariffs and courts.

Hey dumbass, that was the while point of it being there, idiot.
To defend the port from outside attack.

Buchanan tried to use it to keep collecting Union tariffs
How would they do that? I guess they could threaten to sink the ships, but not collect money from the ships.

Well it suffices to say, the fort never fired or threatened any ships. You are stating nonsense.
 
Trump's tariffs are much more in line with those back then, before Lincoln, 10%-30% range, with a few punitive ones, which usually get negotiated back down as they lower their tariffs on our stuff. After 1870 they were back to that range but a little higher, some in the 50% range, but the land and railroad scams were still in effect and the 'Gilded Age' of SC corruption, judicial activism, and general warfare on small and medium businesses created a 'Left' in this country that didn't exist pre-civil war.
were aboltionists leftists?
 
That is one of the dumbest positions I have ever heard. Of course the people who have to pay a tax are allowed to challenge the tax. If they do not pay the tax, they will go to prison, are you arguing that they cannot challenge being sent to prison?

Obviously, the importers have a legal standing to challenge the law, because they have to pay the taxes.


The Framers of the Constitution definitely gave the right to redress in the courts when taxed.


The Constitution clearly says that duties(another name for tariffs) are under the sole authority of the Congress. It goes on to say Congress has sole authority over trade, and taxes in general.

The president has to consult with Senate, and get a two thirds support from the Senate over treaties. But, treaties would not generally raise tariffs. You end a war with a peace treaty, but it would be odd to start a war with a war treaty. When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, the USA unilaterally responded by declaring war. We did not negotiate with the Japanese to declare a war treaty. The same is true with a trade war.


So all foreign countries have to do is not agree, and your whole argument falls apart?



So when the Constitution says "foreign nations", you think it was just a joke?


Fort Sumter did not blockade the port, so you have no point.


That would be a bit extreme.
fuck your legal standing.
 
were aboltionists leftists?

Most of the abolitionists were of the 'Ship them all back to Africa' types, as was Lincoln himself, white nationalists. They didn't want any blacks at all moving north or in the new territories. I posted on the Black Codes in the Midwest passed in the 1850's, including Lincoln's home state and his own role in some of the legislation. The only real abolitionists in the Republican Party was Seward and a few of his faction, and he was opposed to the starting the war. The only one in Lincoln's entire Cabinet who was pro-war was his Post master General.

There wasn't much of Left in this country, until after the Civil War and the abused of the robber barons and their private armies took over the country. Republicans created it with their sociopaths attitudes towards small business and labor. They didn't like competition at all, and worked hard to crush it and stomp on its grave.
 
Most of the abolitionists were of the 'Ship them all back to Africa' types, as was Lincoln himself, white nationalists. They didn't want any blacks at all moving north or in the new territories. I posted on the Black Codes in the Midwest passed in the 1850's, including Lincoln's home state and his own role in some of the legislation. The only real abolitionists in the Republican Party was Seward and a few of his faction, and he was opposed to the starting the war. The only one in Lincoln's entire Cabinet who was pro-war was his Post master General.


no.

they were Christians opposed to slavery on a Christian basis.
 
no.

they were Christians opposed to slavery on a Christian basis.

No, they weren't. In fact Lincoln almost lost his control of the Party in the mid-terrms, because northern people thought he was going to turn it into a war over slavery, not just maintain the Union. He had his own private army embedded in the Union army, and had some 75,000 troops of his own, which he used to control the ballot boxes in the border states and some in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York City. They used bayonets and arrests to keep opponents from voting, along with stuffing the boxes with soldiers' votes.
 
No, they weren't. In fact Lincoln almost lost his control of the Party in the mid-terrms, because northern people thought he was going to turn it into a war over slavery, not just maintain the Union. He had his own private army embedded in the Union army, and had some 75,000 troops of his own, which he used to control the ballot boxes in the border states and some in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York City. They used bayonets and arrests to keep opponents from voting, along with stuffing the boxes with soldiers' votes.
I'm talking about abolitionists.

not lincoln.
 
the civil war was a little bit about slavery.

Only because Lincoln needed a the slim margin he needed to keep power.

If they cared about 'slavery n stuff' they would been voting on it Congress instead of passing all kinds of legislation on railroads, tariffs, and homestead scams for four years. The Quakers were the only major denomination that opposed slavery.
 
Only because Lincoln needed a the slim margin he needed to keep power.

If they cared about 'slavery n stuff' they would been voting on it Congress instead of passing all kinds of legislation on railroads, tariffs, and homestead scams for four years. The Quakers were the only major denomination that opposed slavery.
that's what I said. a little bit.


abolition is a moral and good thing.
 
Blacks sniveling about anti-racist white people.


As I've said before, real history isn't kind to most of humanity. Lying about it and making up fantasies to fit ideologies doesn't help anything an d only makes real reforms impossible in th elong run.

This guy sums it up pretty well:


And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today,people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us.History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive,selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play?

-Dave WIlliams, George mason Univ.

Obviously most people need the Prozac.
 
Blacks sniveling about anti-racist white people.


As I've said before, real history isn't kind to most of humanity. Lying about it and making up fantasies to fit ideologies doesn't help anything an d only makes real reforms impossible in th elong run.

This guy sums it up pretty well:


And here is what bothers me so much about modern "scholarship." At what point did history become ethics? Why should we subvert the elusive search for facts to moralist concerns? So what if they are on or off the hook? If you want to be a preacher, go preach. If you want to save the world, go into politics. If you want to invent a world free of evil, take prozac. It was said in Ecclesiastes and it still is true today,people suck. They did then, all of them. They do now, all of us.History is the history of self-interested, competing, aggressive,selfish, murderous humans. At what point did it become a morality play?

-Dave WIlliams, George mason Univ.

Obviously most people need the Prozac.
everythings a morality play.
 
the death of the democrat party has got Edwin all in a tizzy trying to besmirch the republicans party.

he's going way back.

it's true, parties are not the point.

but lincolns realpolitik made him side with the good people this time.

and that's a good thing.

and the good actually mattered.
 
Back
Top