What was the worst time in American history?

[philly rabbit]

Woodstock.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes.....reps don't want decrease federal spending....they just want it allocated towards the wealthy at the expensenof needed.programs for.middle to.low income.people.

Taxes aren't that high...in fact that are at modern historic.lows.

Vouchers are just.education for profit....which just like health care and the prison system...shouldn't be for profit.

You know my stance.on abortion....let the sinner choice their.path

Reps want to.milk out every.last drop of oil...making it more and.more expensive while disavowing any renewable source because they are so in bed with the status quo(big oil) that they can't find their way out.

Dems question the validity of your claims of "massive voter fraud" as the reason that Dems are getting elected. It's not there and you know it.

Lastly...it was supposed to be Looney toons, but my kindle autocorrected....sue me.

/shakes head in wonder.....I guess this shows one more......Dems want to remain daft and never change.....

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Dems today desire to keep the status quo on many things.......

Wouldn't that be....gasp....conservative?

 

[Minister of Truth]

That may have been true at the time....but back then, dems were the conservatives. They wanted status quo.

Besides, I think what Desh was talking about is the call for armed rebellion coming from the right....once again....desiring to keep the status quo.

It may not be the party that it is today, but the Dems have never been conservative. Not by any of their class and economic rhetoric from Jefferson to the present day. It's also no accident that Federalists accused Dems such as Jefferson of being atheists. The conservatives were always found in the Federalist, Whig, and Republican parties. What has changed is that traditional conservatism has died, and the parties now reflect different schools of Left-Right liberalism.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

King Abraham was supposed to abandon the tax collectors agency like he said he would before the shooting began but he needed an excuse to launch his invasion of the south so he didn't and tried to reinforce the tax collectors agency instead with an invasion fleet.

What? Where do get this revisionist BS from?

The South was offered compromise after compromise after compromise about the slavery issue. The only compromise off the table was permitting slavery to expand outside of the States where it was currently legal.

It was the South that started the civil war and was solely responsible for it's occurance when they attacked United States facilities. The Civil War never had to happen but the South started it with a raging purple hard on despite all the evidence in the world that #1. They were wrong on the issue of expanding slavery, #2. That they were grossly outmanned, supplied and out gunned by the North and couldn't possibly win and #3 that the North wouldn't fight to preserve the Union in which the Southern States had entered a binding covenant which they heinously betrayed.

So spare me the revisionist History. The Civil war never had to happen and it was entirely the fault of the South that it did.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

What? Where do get this revisionist BS from?

The South was offered compromise after compromise after compromise about the slavery issue. The only compromise off the table was permitting slavery to expand outside of the States where it was currently legal.

It was the South that started the civil war and was solely responsible for it's occurance when they attacked United States facilities. The Civil War never had to happen but the South started it with a raging purple hard on despite all the evidence in the world that #1. They were wrong on the issue of expanding slavery, #2. That they were grossly outmanned, supplied and out gunned by the North and couldn't possibly win and #3 that the North wouldn't fight to preserve the Union in which the Southern States had entered a binding covenant which they heinously betrayed.

So spare me the revisionist History. The Civil war never had to happen and it was entirely the fault of the South that it did.

Where does he get it from? Read his posts! This guy has been eating paint chips, huffing glue, and downing turpentine chasers since he was 2.

Bug shagging nuts!

 

[cancel2 2022]

What? Where do get this revisionist BS from?

The South was offered compromise after compromise after compromise about the slavery issue. The only compromise off the table was permitting slavery to expand outside of the States where it was currently legal.

It was the South that started the civil war and was solely responsible for it's occurance when they attacked United States facilities. The Civil War never had to happen but the South started it with a raging purple hard on despite all the evidence in the world that #1. They were wrong on the issue of expanding slavery, #2. That they were grossly outmanned, supplied and out gunned by the North and couldn't possibly win and #3 that the North wouldn't fight to preserve the Union in which the Southern States had entered a binding covenant which they heinously betrayed.

So spare me the revisionist History. The Civil war never had to happen and it was entirely the fault of the South that it did.

What would have been so terrible if they had just been allowed to secede?

 

[cancel2 2022]

What? Where do get this revisionist BS from?

The South was offered compromise after compromise after compromise about the slavery issue. The only compromise off the table was permitting slavery to expand outside of the States where it was currently legal.

It was the South that started the civil war and was solely responsible for it's occurance when they attacked United States facilities. The Civil War never had to happen but the South started it with a raging purple hard on despite all the evidence in the world that #1. They were wrong on the issue of expanding slavery, #2. That they were grossly outmanned, supplied and out gunned by the North and couldn't possibly win and #3 that the North wouldn't fight to preserve the Union in which the Southern States had entered a binding covenant which they heinously betrayed.

So spare me the revisionist History. The Civil war never had to happen and it was entirely the fault of the South that it did.

I think this covers it pretty well. Needless to say the British saw it as a protectionist tax

Question: Was the Morrill Tariff the Real Cause of the American Civil War? Some people claim the real cause of the American Civil War was a forgotten law passed in early 1861, the Morrill Tariff. This law, which taxed imports to the United States, was said to be so unfair to southern states that they seceded from the Union. Could this be true? What is the real story?

Answer: This simple answer is no, the Morrill Tariff was not the cause of the Civil War. And people who claim it was seem to be trying to obscure the fact that slavery was the central issue of the secession crisis in late 1860 and early 1861. Indeed, slavery had been the issue tearing the nation apart throughout the 1850s.

However, the Morrill Tariff was a controversial law. And it did outrage people in the American South, as well as businesspeople in Britain who traded with the southern states. And it is true that the tariff was mentioned at times in secession debates held in the south just prior to the Civil War.

What Was the Morrill Tariff?

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Buchanan left office and Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The new law made some significant changes in how duties were assessed on goods entering the country, and it also raised rates.

The new tariff had been written and sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill, a Congressman from Vermont. And it was widely believed that the new law favored industries based in the northeast and would penalize the southern states, which were more dependent on goods imported from Europe.
In general, southern states were opposed to the new tariff. And the Morrill Tariff was particularly unpopular in England, which imported cotton from the American South, and in turn exported goods to the U.S.

The idea of a tariff was actually nothing new. The United States government had first enacted a tariff in 1789, and a series of tariffs had been the law of the land throughout the early 19th century.

Was Abraham Lincoln Responsible for the Morrill Tariff?

The idea of a new protectionist tariff came up during the election campaign of 1860, and Abraham Lincoln, as the Republican candidate, did support the idea of a new tariff. And while the tariff was an important issue in some states, most notably Pennsylvania, it was not a major issue during the election. Lincoln did not even hold public office when the Morrill Tariff was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Buchanan. It is true that the law went into effect early in Lincoln's term, but claims that Lincoln created the law to penalize the South are quite a stretch.

Was Fort Sumter a "Tax Collection Fort" Somehow Connected With the Morrill Tariff?

There is a historical myth circulating on the internet that Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor was a "tax collection fort" and thus the first shots of the Civil War fired in April 1861 were somehow connected to the newly enacted Morrill Tariff. First of all, Fort Sumter had nothing to do with "tax collection." The fort had been constructed for coastal defense following the War of 1812, a conflict which saw the city of Washington burned and Baltimore shelled by a British fleet. The conflict over Fort Sumter which culminated in April 1861 actually began the previous December, months before the Morrill Tariff became law. The commander of the federal garrison in Charleston, feeling threatened by the secessionist fever overtaking the city, moved his troops to Fort Sumter on the day after Christmas 1860. Up to that point the fort was essentially deserted. It was certainly not a "tax collection fort."

Was the Morrill Tariff the Reason Southern States Seceded?

No, the secession crisis really began in late 1860, and was sparked by the election of Abraham Lincoln. It is true that mentions of the "Morrill bill," as the tariff was known before it became law, appeared during the secession convention in Georgia in November 1860. But mentions of the proposed tariff law were a peripheral issue to the much larger issue of slavery and the election of Lincoln.

Seven of the states that would form the Confederacy seceded from the Union between December 1860 and February 1861, before the passage of the Morrill Tariff. Four more states would secede following the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. While mentions of tariffs and taxation can be found within the various declarations of secession, it would be quite a stretch to say that the issue of tariffs, and specifically the Morrill Tariff, was the "real cause" of the Civil War.

http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/f/morill-tariff-civil-war.htm

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wow! So many strawmen.....where to begin.

Reps want to decrease federal spending, Dems want it to remain high. No, Dems want to spend on domestic programs and Repubs want to spend money like drunken sailors on the millitary.
Reps want to decrease taxes, Dems want them to remain high. No, Reps want to avoid civic responsibility and pay no taxes, redistribute money upward to those who don't need the money and haven't earned it while Dems want taxes to be progressive, fair and high enough to make needed civic investments vital to a prosperous future for all Americans like education and infrastructure that Repubs adamantly oppose.
Reps want to change federal support for schools by permitting vouchers, Dems want things to stay the same. No, Repubs want to undermine public education, one of this nations greatest accomplishments, so that bigots can segregate schools along social and racial lines. Democrats believe strongly that sound public education is not only the great social equializer but one of the soundest investment that can be made for a prosperous citizenry and future. Republicans believe education is personal, private and optional.
Reps want to stop abortion, Dems want it to continue. No, Dems believe that it's a private matter and that Republicans should get out of womens vaginas.
Reps want to open up domestic production of oil, Dems want to keep it shut down. No, Dems want to see responsible and sustainable energy productions. They don't want to give a handfull of oil businesses the carte blanche right to destroy other peoples property with out just reason and compensation.
Reps want to require photo ID to vote, Dems want to prevent change. no loony "rooms" there....No, Dems want to encourage participation in the political process. Republicans, by trying to fix a non existant problem, are trying to repress public participation in the political process because they know that their ideas are unpopular with the majority of the people.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

What would have been so terrible if they had just been allowed to secede?

Well that's a 20:20 hindsight kind of question Tom.

Probably not. Our country has struggled desperately with the South to force them into modernity. Several times we've had to drag them into modernity kicking and screaming and at the point of a gun and have largely failed. Then we tried investing trillions of dollars into the creating the economic development to end the backward aristocrat/serf economic model they rely upon but even that has largely failed. The South remains the region of a privelaged few and the land of the minimum wage job.

With 20:20 hindsight you could argue that the North lost the civil war. We got to keep the south.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

I think this covers it pretty well. Needless to say the British saw it as a protectionist tax

Question: Was the Morrill Tariff the Real Cause of the American Civil War? Some people claim the real cause of the American Civil War was a forgotten law passed in early 1861, the Morrill Tariff. This law, which taxed imports to the United States, was said to be so unfair to southern states that they seceded from the Union. Could this be true? What is the real story?

Answer: This simple answer is no, the Morrill Tariff was not the cause of the Civil War. And people who claim it was seem to be trying to obscure the fact that slavery was the central issue of the secession crisis in late 1860 and early 1861. Indeed, slavery had been the issue tearing the nation apart throughout the 1850s.

However, the Morrill Tariff was a controversial law. And it did outrage people in the American South, as well as businesspeople in Britain who traded with the southern states. And it is true that the tariff was mentioned at times in secession debates held in the south just prior to the Civil War.

What Was the Morrill Tariff?

The Morrill Tariff was passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President James Buchanan on March 2, 1861, two days before Buchanan left office and Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated. The new law made some significant changes in how duties were assessed on goods entering the country, and it also raised rates.

The new tariff had been written and sponsored by Justin Smith Morrill, a Congressman from Vermont. And it was widely believed that the new law favored industries based in the northeast and would penalize the southern states, which were more dependent on goods imported from Europe.
In general, southern states were opposed to the new tariff. And the Morrill Tariff was particularly unpopular in England, which imported cotton from the American South, and in turn exported goods to the U.S.

The idea of a tariff was actually nothing new. The United States government had first enacted a tariff in 1789, and a series of tariffs had been the law of the land throughout the early 19th century.

Was Abraham Lincoln Responsible for the Morrill Tariff?

The idea of a new protectionist tariff came up during the election campaign of 1860, and Abraham Lincoln, as the Republican candidate, did support the idea of a new tariff. And while the tariff was an important issue in some states, most notably Pennsylvania, it was not a major issue during the election. Lincoln did not even hold public office when the Morrill Tariff was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Buchanan. It is true that the law went into effect early in Lincoln's term, but claims that Lincoln created the law to penalize the South are quite a stretch.

Was Fort Sumter a "Tax Collection Fort" Somehow Connected With the Morrill Tariff?

There is a historical myth circulating on the internet that Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor was a "tax collection fort" and thus the first shots of the Civil War fired in April 1861 were somehow connected to the newly enacted Morrill Tariff. First of all, Fort Sumter had nothing to do with "tax collection." The fort had been constructed for coastal defense following the War of 1812, a conflict which saw the city of Washington burned and Baltimore shelled by a British fleet. The conflict over Fort Sumter which culminated in April 1861 actually began the previous December, months before the Morrill Tariff became law. The commander of the federal garrison in Charleston, feeling threatened by the secessionist fever overtaking the city, moved his troops to Fort Sumter on the day after Christmas 1860. Up to that point the fort was essentially deserted. It was certainly not a "tax collection fort."

Was the Morrill Tariff the Reason Southern States Seceded?

No, the secession crisis really began in late 1860, and was sparked by the election of Abraham Lincoln. It is true that mentions of the "Morrill bill," as the tariff was known before it became law, appeared during the secession convention in Georgia in November 1860. But mentions of the proposed tariff law were a peripheral issue to the much larger issue of slavery and the election of Lincoln.

Seven of the states that would form the Confederacy seceded from the Union between December 1860 and February 1861, before the passage of the Morrill Tariff. Four more states would secede following the attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861. While mentions of tariffs and taxation can be found within the various declarations of secession, it would be quite a stretch to say that the issue of tariffs, and specifically the Morrill Tariff, was the "real cause" of the Civil War.

http://history1800s.about.com/od/civilwar/f/morill-tariff-civil-war.htm

The Republican Party of 1860 had four primary issues in their platform. #1. A homestead Act. #2. Internal improvements, #3. Advocate free labor and #4. Implement protective tarriffs.

The South opposed these platforms in that a Homestead act was predicated on territories being "free labor" states, free labor was a direct threat to the institution of slavery, and while a protective tarriff would have protected the emerging Industrialization of the USA it was an economic threat to the Southern plantation class who was almost solely depended on agricultural exports and had virtually no developing industries.

 

[Minister of Truth]

You forgot defense of marriage.

 

[iolo]

The McCarthy terror, obviously. It made so many Americans afraid to think.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Wouldn't that be....gasp....conservative?

oh gosh....does that mean you actually understood my argument?......is this a first?.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Wow! So many strawmen.....where to begin.

so basically, instead of disproving my theory, you just provided evidence I was right....

 

[philly rabbit]

These federal forts in southern harbors were maintained for one sole purpose, to collect tariffs. They existed for no other reason and were obsolete being constructed during the war of 1812 to fend off any potential British invasion. The southerners symbolically hated them for that reason being the south supported free trade. When South Carolina seceded, the federal fort was on confederate territory and had to go one way or the other.

The firing on Fort Sumter did not in any way justify the suffering of millions of people being killed, raped, starved, denied medicine and forced marched into other states as King Abraham and his federal minions launched a total war of attrition against the southern people.

No justification whatsoever.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1988 when Kirk Gibson hit the home run off Eckersley

2006 when Vince Young scored on 4th and 6 to win the National Title.

Last year's Super Bowl.

All three are easily among the worst moments in U.S. history.

wow, I would have thought that Reggie Bush the liar and cheater getting USC's title revoked and the USC professor banging away would have been on your list as well. Not to mention the abject failure of USC quarterbacks in the NFL of late.