Smoote-Hawley Tarriff

[romacox]

. But for tariffs to work, implementation goes hand in hand with eliminating the Fed and the income tax and untangling ourselves from our Empire. My view is what the globalists and warmongers call "isolationism" and "protectionism." Mention this view to conservatives and liberals alike and then out comes the old line about Smoot-Hawley causing for the Great Depression. This kind of arguing is the result of a public school education.

You said a lot of valuable information, but I wanted to emphasize this in particular.

 

[Danke]

Here's what Ron Paul says about the issue in "Liberty Defined" in the chapter titled "Taxes."



So Ron sees tariffs as a regrettable form of indirect taxation that doesn't attack the property rights of citizens directly. I wish all the free trade zealots who attack tariffs would attack the income tax with as much zeal. Obviously, the income tax is way more of a threat to liberty than the tariff. Today, the progressive income tax is a reality while the tariff is nearly non-existent and universally opposed by the establishment. Yet so much energy is put into disinformation about tariffs and about the history of the tariff in our country. Remember that the Progressives under Woodrow Wilson eliminated the tariff and replaced it with the progressive income tax. Opposition to tariffs is rooted in the progressive movement, which gave us the Fed and the income tax.

I am not an anarchist. I want the limited government that the Founding Fathers envisioned--not the no-government borderless utopia that anarchists are selling. I see the tariff as the best means to achieve a limited Constitutional government. Reading about Thomas Jefferson brought me to this conclusion. In his day, he ended direct taxation of citizens and funded the government through tariffs. This increased American economic production and provided enough revenue to fund a limited government. The economy boomed because productive capacity expanded at home and more Americans had money in their pockets. Americans purchased plenty of foreign goods with their extra income and this provided the revenue to fund a Constitutional government. This is the American solution to our trade deficit and to our loss of productive capacity and our unemployment problems. But for tariffs to work, implementation goes hand in hand with eliminating the Fed and the income tax and untangling ourselves from our Empire. My view is what the globalists and warmongers call "isolationism" and "protectionism." Mention this view to conservatives and liberals alike and then out comes the old line about Smoot-Hawley causing for the Great Depression. This kind of arguing is the result of a public school education.

Remember, the tariff that gets blamed for being a cause of the Civil War was violently opposed by slave owners, who are the antithesis of libertarians. Slave owners didn't like tariffs. Go figure.

Today, we are surrendering our productive economy to protectionist countries that have centrally planned economies and strong socialist and collectivist tendencies (Japan, Korea, China, Germany). We are replacing our productive economy with a service economy (lawyers, civil servants, real estate agents, insurance agents, financiers) that does not produce wealth, only siphons it. And even our service economy is being outsourced to foreigners now.

Wealth is created through production. Trade does not produce wealth, only swaps it, usually with a middleman taking a cut of profits. Countries that trade productive capacity for empire fall into economic decline (Spain and Great Britain, notably). The Founding Fathers understood this. Today the Asians understand this. They understand history--our history in particular and the way we developed the greatest productive capacity and the highest living standards in history. The Asian countries are protectionist and are building their means of production while protecting themselves from foreign competition. Meanwhile, we lose our productive capacity to them in exchange for miltary bases and a short term drop in prices at Wal-Mart.

Productive capacity at home leads to political independence. If you are economically dependent on foreigners, you are politically vulnerable to them. Trade embargos become devastating. Americans produce rice much more cheaply than Japan, but the Japanese have trade barriers against American rice because they fear a rice embargo could cut off supply and leave them vulnerable to American political pressure. So they pay a little more for rice in exchange for political independence. Today, America is dependent on foreign oil which leaves our livelihoods vulnerable to decisions made by autocrats in the Middle East. It appears our leaders like this dependency because they do everything in their power to restrict oil production here at home.

In America, political power has fallen away from the producers and into the hands of the financiers. The financiers don't produce and don't care who produces, as long as they can get their cut of the profits through usury. They have seized control of our currency, which they have put to use internationally to skim profits off producers everywhere. They were able to make the American dollar the international reserve currency because of our military dominance. These financiers get the best return on their fiat money where labor costs are lowest and where workers are subservient to the foreign governments that take out the loans. Once the workers demand higher wages, the financiers take their dollars to the next poor nation with a labor surplus (lots of poor people).

The Federal Reserve uses American military power to keep everyone in line with this system. Fall out of line and the bombs start falling, usually under humanitarian pretenses.

The open borders/free trade world that anarcho-capitalists and some libertarians want is utopian. The Chinese will never go along with that vision. The Chinese will continue to use government intervention to capture American productive capacity and market share as long as we let them. They are targeting us sector by sector and moving right up the value chain as they build their knowledge and skills base. Meanwhile, the same free trade utopian rhetoric used by libertarians and anarcho-capitalists is used by progressives to sell us on NAFTA and these other free trade agreements that have hollowed out our economy.

Understanding free trade theory is one thing. But understanding how the world actually works is another. Free trade is great in theory, but like Marxism, putting the theory into practice never works out the way the theory predicts. The results of free trade are seen time after time through history, and the reality of free trade is all around you in America today.

It took a while for the Russians to wake up to the reality of Marxism. Russian Marxists could win every argument with their infallible logic and their zeal. They always had rational reasons when things went wrong. There was always something else to blame. It took nearly 100 years before they finally gave up on the theory. It's interesting that some of the biggest backers of free trade today are the Neoconservatives who are direct descendents of Marxists.

The great thing about the Founding Fathers is that they understood reality. They had to because their lives depended on it. They were keenly aware of human nature and how power corrupts and steals liberty. You don't need Hayek or Mises or other foreign economists from banker financed think tanks to tell you about liberty. We have our own American tradition and we need to return to our roots. I suppose what we really need in our country right now is a fiery guy like Andrew Jackson who can take a bullet and take on the bank and root out the den of vipers that is leading us to ruin.

Exactly.

 

[romacox]

P.S. I wanted to add that Woodrow Wilson was opposed as much or more than Obama. The people hated him. After Woodrow Wilson left office, everything appeared to return to normal. But the mistake the people of that time made was not repealing everything that president had done. Those things remained on the books to be implement by every President there after...just more slowly.

 

[The Grinning Maniac]

Truck driving is hardly a great wage, and this will free up American labor to do something else, driving down prices in whatever market they enter. This is how society advances.

This is always the excuse. They'll find something else. As if someone who is a truck driver has tons of marketable skills. They're driving a truck. Like they're just going to start writing apps for the iPhone. Even if, at 45, they decided to retrain...that costs money. Bye, bye retirement. But even apart from that, how can you make that argument for EVERY industry that leaves? Textiles, automotive, tool and die, truck driving, telemarketing, tech support, etc...and on up the value chain.

How do you not see things as a game of musical chairs?

"Those jobs pay far more and have better working conditions than manufacturing."

Not for long when you flood the market with applicants who are desperate for work. Law school grads are having trouble finding jobs now. Glut of lawyers.

Manufacturing is at the highest levels ever!

Really? Then please go through your house, or the local store and find me some products made in this country post-1980. I really want to know how these numbers are right when so little is produced here. Even if the numbers are right, doesn't that just mean that remaining factories here switched to total automation? If what we're talking about is JOBS then the point is moot.

PS: Jace...I want to buy you a fish sandwich.

 

[VBRonPaulFan]

Really? Then please go through your house, or the local store and find me some products made in this country post-1980. I really want to know how these numbers are right when so little is produced here. Even if the numbers are right, doesn't that just mean that remaining factories here switched to total automation? If what we're talking about is JOBS then the point is moot.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-17/business/17190961_1_manufacturing-jobs-products-profits

So what's made in the USA these days?

The United States sold more than $200 billion worth of aircraft, missiles and space-related equipment in 2007. And $80 billion worth of autos and auto parts. Deere & Co., best known for its bright green and yellow tractors, sold $16.5 billion worth of farming equipment last year, much of it to the rest of the world. Then there are energy products like gas turbines for power plants made by General Electric, computer chips from Intel and fighter jets from Lockheed Martin. Household names like GE, General Motors, IBM, Boeing and Hewlett-Packard are among the largest manufacturers by revenue.

High-end products
Several trends have emerged over the decades:

-- America makes things that other countries can't. Today, "Made in USA" is more likely to be stamped on heavy equipment or the circuits that go inside other products than the TVs, toys, clothes and other items found on store shelves.

-- U.S. companies have shifted toward high-end manufacturing as the production of low-value goods moves overseas. This has resulted in lower prices for shoppers and higher profits for companies.

-- When demand slumps, all types of manufacturing jobs are lost. Some higher-end jobs - but not all - return with good times. Workers who make goods more cheaply produced overseas suffer.

 

[The Grinning Maniac]

-- U.S. companies have shifted toward high-end manufacturing as the production of low-value goods moves overseas. This has resulted in lower prices for shoppers and higher profits for companies.

And when the Asian nations begin doing high-end manufacturing on the cheap too (if they haven't already)? What stops that leaving too? And also...emphasis on "higher profits for companies". Big emphasis.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

This is always the excuse. They'll find something else. As if someone who is a truck driver has tons of marketable skills. They're driving a truck. Like they're just going to start writing apps for the iPhone. Even if, at 45, they decided to retrain...that costs money. Bye, bye retirement. But even apart from that, how can you make that argument for EVERY industry that leaves? Textiles, automotive, tool and die, truck driving, telemarketing, tech support, etc...and on up the value chain.

How do you not see things as a game of musical chairs?


Not for long when you flood the market with applicants who are desperate for work. Law school grads are having trouble finding jobs now. Glut of lawyers.

I'll post the actual facts, the hard numbers, just to be willfilly ignored once again.

Production is at all time highs, wages are at all time highs, and there has been no change to the unemployment trend.


People are desperate for work right now because there is a severe recession caused by the Federal Reserve, but I guess that you consider the Austrian School some banker financed think tank, so you probably don't subscribe to that. Before that there was not a large portion of the population desperate for work and unemployment was well within historical averages.

These sob stories about how they "took mah jab!", regardless of what the real facts are, is the only way that Democrats get elected.

 

[Jace]

..

 

[romacox]

I come from a long line of farmers and ranchers. Over 20 years ago they were saying the same thing we small business owners are saying today. They warned that if farm land continued to be destroyed here, and food production shipped over seas, we would become dependent on foreign countries to feed us. Many looked at the struggling small family farms going out of business, and thought it was a shame, but few lifted a hand to help as Willie Nelson did.

We did not listen. We use to feed the world, now the world feeds us contaminated food. The Farm subsidies were advertised that they help the small farm, but in fact this government welfare goes to large conglomerates...some of them do not even own an inch of farm land.

Now we are hearing the same reports from small business owners...many of us having been in business for many years (in my case since 1984). Jace, and others are exactly correct in what they are saying. If this continues we will be dependent on foreign countries like China to feed, cloth, house, medicate, educate....enslave us.

 

[romacox]

Wilson and Obama have a lot of similarities.

Wilson was the banker's secret candidate and through him we got the Fed and the income tax. President Taft blocked the first attempt at a new central bank, but then Teddy Roosevelt undermined his buddy Taft and ran third party, and Wilson ended up winning. And so, the wheels were set in motion that put us where we are 100 years later.

Wilson got re-elected under the slogan, "He kept us out of war." In his second term, he started up the draft, got us into the war, cracked down on the press, jailed war dissenters and nationalized much of our economy. He was the worst president we ever had, in my opinion.

Wilson openly criticized the Constitution as being a backward document. Obama famously criticized our Constitution for being about negative rights that define what the government can't do to us, instead of being about positive rights and what government can and should do to us. Obama should never have been elected for those statements alone.

Like Wilson, Obama is the banker's candidate who was sold to the public as an antiwar progressive. Obama is surrounded by the same wealthy types of Bernard Baruch characters that pulled Wilson's strings.

Hopefully, Obama won't get a second term like Wilson did. Unlike Wilson, Obama won't be able to run as the peace candidate the second time around, even with his Nobel Peace Prize.

I agree, but if Obama does not win, I fear they have others like him all lined up. Herman Cain worked for the Kansas branch of the Federal Reserve. I think at this point, the only candidate that will risk his life to stand against the Federal Reserve is Ron Paul, and I believe he may be running again to protect his son from the fate of others who have stood up against these ruthless banksters.
The History Of Money And The Federal Reserve

Why in the world would anyone in their right mind be defending the globalist so called "free trade deals"? Do they not know who is behind it? The globalists keep playing the same games on us over and over again...they even explain their path on their websites. How is anyone missing that?

P.S. Thank you Jace for speaking out. You explain the truth so eloquently.

 

[Bossobass]

I'll post the actual facts, the hard numbers, just to be willfilly ignored once again.

Production is at all time highs, wages are at all time highs, and there has been no change to the unemployment trend.


People are desperate for work right now because there is a severe recession caused by the Federal Reserve, but I guess that you consider the Austrian School some banker financed think tank, so you probably don't subscribe to that. Before that there was not a large portion of the population desperate for work and unemployment was well within historical averages.

These sob stories about how they "took mah jab!", regardless of what the real facts are, is the only way that Democrats get elected.

Golly.

Production is at an all time high. You would think someone who argues with as much condescension as you do would have the intelligence to realize that we're in 6 wars that we instigated and are going broke to supply, so the logical thing to do when sporting Federal Reserve industrial production graphs would be to separate production of weapons systems from all other production:




Regarding "real wages" increases, the same lack of scrutiny/blind acceptance of establishment numbers and graphs exists in your blurt. Please factor in that pre-1913 there was no income tax levied by local, state or federal governments. There were no credit cards or debt instruments of any kind charging the usury rates that bank lobbyists have succeeded in making legal. There was no cable TV bill, a commercial delivery monopoly, to create the desire for things people don't need, purchased with money they don't have. There were absent back then approximately 90% of the excise taxes paid on virtually everything, from A to Z. There was not $1.5 Billion Dollars A Day due in interest on the public debt. There was no Retail State Sales Tax. There was no Social Security Tax. There was no Medicare Tax. There was no Medicaid Tax. ETC.

The government provided Unemployment Graph is so laughable, I won't even address it.

If you're gonna preach condescendingly, here's a suggestion: Have a point, and back it by actual research. Better yet, ping Jace and ask for his advice. He's extremely well-researched and puts it down in well thought out and easy to understand outlines.

These pro-global bag lapper threads have become pure agony.

Bosso

 

[romacox]

Our Founding Fathers referred to what we now call the Federal Reserve as the Central Bank.

In ancient times most lived off their land producing food while others produced goods and services. They had no need for money because they bartered between each other (chickens, cows, ext)

But it made for a unreliable labor force because most people preferred to work for themselves, and had little need to work for others on a permanent basis. The British and Dutch, in need of a labor force on their plantations located in various Colonies, concocted a brilliant plan. Folks, they decided to tax those “free roamers” for their land. But the catch was this: they could not pay for it with bartering (things like cows and chickens) they must pay their taxes by money that only the British and Dutch central banks could issue (Much like the Federal Reserve issues today).

The plan worked brilliantly. People who would not be loyal to the plantation owners must now work for them to obtain this solely central bank issued money just to keep their own land. Andrew Jackson was so against the Central Banks that he referred to them as a “den of thieves”

They even spoke of this plan in the news papers:
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=THD18840522.2.31


No matter how much power they get, they always want more, and they don't mind putting it in writing.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2007/12/boughton.htm

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl12_e.htm

 

[Jace]

..

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Golly.

Production is at an all time high. You would think someone who argues with as much condescension as you do would have the intelligence to realize that we're in 6 wars that we instigated and are going broke to supply, so the logical thing to do when sporting Federal Reserve industrial production graphs would be to separate production of weapons systems from all other production:

Naturally, you're forced to take a 10 year graph start starts in 00, the beginning of a recession, and 09, the end of a recession. All that your graph shows is that there was a downturn from 00-02, growth from 03-06, and a downturn from 07-09. Had you shown the previous 20 years your entire argument would have been debunked.

That doesn't even factor in the unquantifiable industrial production that was siphoned off from the private sector into a government sector.

Regarding "real wages" increases, the same lack of scrutiny/blind acceptance of establishment numbers and graphs exists in your blurt. Please factor in that pre-1913 there was no income tax levied by local, state or federal governments. There were no credit cards or debt instruments of any kind charging the usury rates that bank lobbyists have succeeded in making legal.

There were absent back then approximately 90% of the excise taxes paid on virtually everything, from A to Z. There was not $1.5 Billion Dollars A Day due in interest on the public debt. There was no Retail State Sales Tax. There was no Social Security Tax. There was no Medicare Tax. There was no Medicaid Tax. ETC.

None of that is a part of real wage statistics. Yes, those are destructive policies, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.

Real wages are up, productivity is up. Just admit it and things will become easier.

There was no cable TV bill, a commercial delivery monopoly, to create the desire for things people don't need, purchased with money they don't have.

TV has raised the quality of life around the world, and viewership is voluntary.

The government provided Unemployment Graph is so laughable, I won't even address it.

It doesn't matter how you slice it. Unemployment has had a normal long term trend.

If you're gonna preach condescendingly, here's a suggestion: Have a point, and back it by actual research. Better yet, ping Jace and ask for his advice. He's extremely well-researched and puts it down in well thought out and easy to understand outlines

Yes, because claiming that Woodrow Wilson removed all trade barriers(blatently false), productivity is down(blatently false), Austrian Economists are being paid off by banks(while citing the pro central banking Founding Fathers), and that people who opposed tariffs also supported slavery, is CLEARLY an adult level conversation based in reality. He did not even make an argument. He launched a series of poorly researched, inaccurate, childish attacks.

These pro-global bag lapper threads have become pure agony.

Not anywhere near as annoying as the willfully ignorant mercantilists, who believe that the government is needed to steer the market in order to protect special interest groups.

 

[romacox]

Funny you mention this. My dad just read a book about this same thing and we were talking about it today. The way he explained it was that during the days of the British Empire when the Brits ruled much of Africa, the Africans were subsistence farmers but the Brits wanted their labor. So they put a hut tax on the Africans that could only be paid in Royal currency. If the Africans didn't pay the tax, they were imprisoned. The only way to get currency to pay the tax was to work as labor for the Brits.

Kinda sounds like the same scheme the bankers set up here in 1913.

This system was more humane to them than outright slavery, and it's cheaper because you don't have to house and feed the labor. Tariffs don't suit their purposes because you can't force the population into wage slavery and dependency with a tariff. It takes the income tax to do that. Of course, in 1913 the income tax was sold to the people as being a tax the rich would pay to fund social services for the people.

What is the name of the book Jace? I would love to read it.

 

[showpan]

and that people who opposed tariffs also supported slavery,

oh, really.....

George Washington, upon his death bed set all of his slaves permanently free in his last will and testament.
"I hope it will not be conceived, from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter in slavery. I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." - George Washington. April 12, 1786, to Robert Morris:

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life. He considered it contrary to the laws of nature that decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He called the institution an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain" that deformed "what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts."
Early in his political career Jefferson took actions that he hoped would end in slavery's abolition. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest. From the mid-1770s he advocated a plan of gradual emancipation, by which all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free.

"The existence of slavery makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason or experience." - Alexander Hamilton
As an adult, Hamilton consistently opposed slavery, served as an officer of the New York Manumission Society and tended to hold the southern planter class in low regard. In January 1785, he attended the second meeting of the New York Manumission Society (NYMS). John Jay was president and Hamilton was secretary; he later became president. He was also a member of the committee of the society which put a bill through the New York Legislature banning the export of slaves from New York

John Adams.
His sentiments on the subject of slavery are well known. They are well summed up in the language of a letter to Robert I. Evans, June, 1819:
"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States.
"I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave; though I have lived for many years in times when the practice was not disgraceful; when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character; and when it has cost me thousands of dollars of the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap."-- Works of John Adams , vol., p. 380.

James Madison.
From Mr. Madison's Report of Debates in the Federal Convention. Mr. Madison: We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.
Mr. Madison: And, in the third place, where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still more fallacious.
Mr. MADISON THOUGHT IT WRONG TO ADMIT, IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE IDEA THAT THERE COULD BE PROPERTY IN MEN.
Mr. Madison to Joseph Jones.--[Extract.]
Philadelphia, Nov. 28, 1780.
Yours of the 18th came yesterday. I am glad to find the Legislature persist in their resolution to recruit their line of the army for the war; though without deciding on the expediency of the mode under their consideration, would it not be as well to liberate and make soldiers at once of the blacks themselves, as to make them instruments for enlisting white soldiers? It would certainly be more consonant with the principles of liberty, which ought never to be lost sight of in a contest for liberty.

John Jay
As a leader of the new Federalist Party, Jay was the Governor of New York State from 1795 to 1801, and he became the state's leading opponent of slavery. His first two attempts to pass laws for the emancipation of all slaves in New York failed in 1777 and in 1785, but his third attempt succeeded in 1799. The new law that he signed into existence brought about the emancipation of all slaves there before his death in 1829.

Benjamin Franklin in 1787 began to serve as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. The Society was originally formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage; it was reorganized in 1784 and again in 1787, and then incorporated by the state of Pennsylvania in 1789. The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society.
In 1789 he wrote and published several essays supporting the abolition of slavery and his last public act was to send to Congress a petition on behalf of the Society asking for the abolition of slavery and an end to the slave trade. The petition, signed on February 3, 1790, asked the first Congress, then meeting in New York City, to "devise means for removing the Inconsistency from the Character of the American People," and to "promote mercy and justice toward this distressed Race."
The petition was introduced to the House on February 12 and to the Senate on February 15, 1790

 

[Cutlerzzz]

oh, really.....

George Washington, upon his death bed set all of his slaves permanently free in his last will and testament.
"I hope it will not be conceived, from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter in slavery. I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it." - George Washington. April 12, 1786, to Robert Morris:

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life. He considered it contrary to the laws of nature that decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He called the institution an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain" that deformed "what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts."
Early in his political career Jefferson took actions that he hoped would end in slavery's abolition. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest. From the mid-1770s he advocated a plan of gradual emancipation, by which all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free.

"The existence of slavery makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason or experience." - Alexander Hamilton
As an adult, Hamilton consistently opposed slavery, served as an officer of the New York Manumission Society and tended to hold the southern planter class in low regard. In January 1785, he attended the second meeting of the New York Manumission Society (NYMS). John Jay was president and Hamilton was secretary; he later became president. He was also a member of the committee of the society which put a bill through the New York Legislature banning the export of slaves from New York

John Adams.
His sentiments on the subject of slavery are well known. They are well summed up in the language of a letter to Robert I. Evans, June, 1819:
"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States.
"I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave; though I have lived for many years in times when the practice was not disgraceful; when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character; and when it has cost me thousands of dollars of the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap."-- Works of John Adams , vol., p. 380.

James Madison.
From Mr. Madison's Report of Debates in the Federal Convention. Mr. Madison: We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.
Mr. Madison: And, in the third place, where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still more fallacious.
Mr. MADISON THOUGHT IT WRONG TO ADMIT, IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE IDEA THAT THERE COULD BE PROPERTY IN MEN.
Mr. Madison to Joseph Jones.--[Extract.]
Philadelphia, Nov. 28, 1780.
Yours of the 18th came yesterday. I am glad to find the Legislature persist in their resolution to recruit their line of the army for the war; though without deciding on the expediency of the mode under their consideration, would it not be as well to liberate and make soldiers at once of the blacks themselves, as to make them instruments for enlisting white soldiers? It would certainly be more consonant with the principles of liberty, which ought never to be lost sight of in a contest for liberty.

John Jay
As a leader of the new Federalist Party, Jay was the Governor of New York State from 1795 to 1801, and he became the state's leading opponent of slavery. His first two attempts to pass laws for the emancipation of all slaves in New York failed in 1777 and in 1785, but his third attempt succeeded in 1799. The new law that he signed into existence brought about the emancipation of all slaves there before his death in 1829.

Benjamin Franklin in 1787 began to serve as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. The Society was originally formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage; it was reorganized in 1784 and again in 1787, and then incorporated by the state of Pennsylvania in 1789. The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society.
In 1789 he wrote and published several essays supporting the abolition of slavery and his last public act was to send to Congress a petition on behalf of the Society asking for the abolition of slavery and an end to the slave trade. The petition, signed on February 3, 1790, asked the first Congress, then meeting in New York City, to "devise means for removing the Inconsistency from the Character of the American People," and to "promote mercy and justice toward this distressed Race."
The petition was introduced to the House on February 12 and to the Senate on February 15, 1790

Thank you for backing me up, Showpan.

 

[showpan]

They were pro tariffs and clearly against slavery. Hamilton would be the exception however since his actions did not support his views. When a friends slave ran away, he turned him in after discovering where he was hiding, the consequences for runaways at the time were quite severe. He also reduced tariffs as he wanted to copy the British system...lol...after we had just fought our independence from it. Thankfully, Jefferson was elected and reversed much of Hamilton's policies. Jefferson and others formed the Democratic Republican Party and had to start their own publications in order to spread the word of what Hamilton and the federalists were up to since they had support from most of that era's publications. Much like we find ourselves today...MSM owned by large corporations who support the neoconservative gloabalist agenda and Ron Paul being about the only one who stands against them. Today we have the internet, although they are rapidly changing that on us too with shills, sock puppets, search modifiers and such.

 

[romacox]

They were pro tariffs and clearly against slavery. Hamilton would be the exception however since his actions did not support his views. When a friends slave ran away, he turned him in after discovering where he was hiding, the consequences for runaways at the time were quite severe. He also reduced tariffs as he wanted to copy the British system...lol...after we had just fought our independence from it. Thankfully, Jefferson was elected and reversed much of Hamilton's policies. Jefferson and others formed the Democratic Republican Party and had to start their own publications in order to spread the word of what Hamilton and the federalists were up to since they had support from most of that era's publications. Much like we find ourselves today...MSM owned by large corporations who support the neoconservative gloabalist agenda and Ron Paul being about the only one who stands against them. Today we have the internet, although they are rapidly changing that on us too with shills, sock puppets, search modifiers and such.

Showpan, you definitely know your history, and thank you for speaking out.

I am currently reading a book by Justice Joseph Story (Justice of the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, born three years after the Declaration of Independence, and who's father fought in the American Revolution). He takes each single clause in the Constitution, and not only tells the history and reasoning behind them.

Here is what Justice Joseph Story says about the 3/5th clause which is so misrepresented by the media and educational system:

There has been much interesting conversation lately concerning the early U.S. Constitution and slavery, particularly concerning Article I (section 2), and the XIII Amendment. So I decided to research the matter by reading the early accounts rather than recent interpretations, and here is what I discovered.

Article I Section 2 refers to slaves as "three fifths of all other Persons".

The XIII Amendment (Section I) stated that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Note: it was not Amendment XIII, but the XIV amendment that amends article I Section 2)
​

At first glance one can easily make some false conclusions unless they know the history which I share with you here. During the creation of the Constitution, Article I (Section 2) was not about slavery. Check it out: it is all about State's representation in the House of Representatives. Slavery only entered the discussion as a result of an attempted power grab. Each State wanted to make sure they had ample voting powers.

The non-slavery States were in a very heated discussion with the slave holding States. The latter insisted on a representation strictly according to the number of inhabitants, whether they were slaves or free persons. The non-slave holding States contended for representation according to the number of free persons only.

As one can see this could have given the slave holding States a big advantage, and encouraged more slavery. By simply importing more slaves, a State could have easily increased their representation, and power in the House Of Representatives.The disagreement was so volatile that it nearly ended the creation of the Constitution of these United States.

After much discussion, a compromise was reached which was that three fifths of the slaves were counted as part of the number of free persons, as the basis of the appointment of Representatives. Interesting note: They purposely did not use the word slaves because the framers did not want to make it appear that the Constitution endorsed slavery, but it was well understood that "other persons" referred to the slave population.

http://www.read-phonics.com/constitution-slavery.html

Note: (1) The word slavery was never used in the original Constitution. George Mason, who is known as the architect of the Constitution, said: [Slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentleman here is born a petty Tyrant…. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers.

(2) Visiting a black college had a profound effect on Ben Franklin. Several years later he joined an abolition Society. Franklin came to believe that slavery should be ended, and eventually freed his own two slaves.



These things are not in our history text books today. What happened to the truth?

That is a most interesting story. Many changes took place after the passing of our Founding Fathers. But, major changes began under Woodrow Wilson, who established the Federal Reserve and the United Nations. He believed in segregation and that blacks were inferior. He ousted all of the elected black leaders in government, and began a powerful movement to rewrite history. There was a large uprising of public objections. He was not a popular President.

We actually had elected black representatives, and revolutionary heroes. A black man, Wentworth Cheswell, rode with Paul Revere, but we never hear about him. I wrote an article about this stolen history, and one black gentleman told me he knew about this. His family passed it down from generation to generation so that it would not be lost.
http://www.read-phonics.com/american-history.html

The progressives have managed not only to distort word definitions, they have done the same with American History. That is not to say the Founding Fathers were perfect, but they were far wiser and greater than modern history allows us to know. It is no accident that our children are not being taught these things...it is now up to parents to show them. I have provided several links above so parents can do just that. Why? because it is so very important for the young ones to know how to find their way back to a Republic.

 

[ProIndividual]

Explaining free trade to a protectionist:

It's like explaining radio to the deaf.



At least the deaf attempt to comprehend what you're saying.