Hamilton Wins, Jackson Loses

[GannonFan]

In what way, do you mean the draft riots?

Not really. Mayor Wood of NYC wanted NYC to secede and be a free city so that it could continue being profitable...off the backs of southern slaves. Tammany Hall!

But, if you think factory owners welcomed a rise in prices, then that's just naive.

Yes, as I said, less numerous voices compared to those that thought otherwise. A general rule of thumb is that only 1/3 of colonists really supported the American Revolution, and an equal number opposed it. No movement, no matter how correct, is ever fully supported by 100% of the participants. Obviously there were many Northern Democrats who, for various reasons, expressed support for the South during the war. I don't believe Mayor Wood's suggestion to have NYC secede was readily accepted by the other parts of NYC government at the time.

[Ibanez]

Not really. Mayor Wood of NYC wanted NYC to secede and be a free city so that it could continue being profitable...off the backs of southern slaves. Tammany Hall!

But, if you think factory owners welcomed a rise in prices, then that's just naive.

Yes, as I said, less numerous voices compared to those that thought otherwise. A general rule of thumb is that only 1/3 of colonists really supported the American Revolution, and an equal number opposed it. No movement, no matter how correct, is ever fully supported by 100% of the participants. Obviously there were many Northern Democrats who, for various reasons, expressed support for the South during the war. I don't believe Mayor Wood's suggestion to have NYC secede was readily accepted by the other parts of NYC government at the time.

I've said it plenty, especially on here, the people that seceded from the South represented only a small percentage of the population. Southerners, for the most part, didn't care about slaves they didn't own. Something like 1.4% of the white population owned slaves.

You have people

Spoiler: show

like Dback

that think every white man in the South was given a slave at birth and every white person hated blacks and beat the shit out of them. That just isn't true.

[GannonFan]

The idea that the South started the war is ridiculous. The Southern states seceded, as was their right to do. The South fired no shots until Northern military action forced them to do so.

As for Jackson making it clear that secession and nullification were moot, I ask where did he get the authority to prohibit secession? The correct answer is, he did not have that authority. The 10th Amendment is what it is and Jackson's opinions about it are entirely irrelevant without a constitutional amendment to back them up.

Secession was never a legal right and no reading of the Constitutional convention nor the debates that happened after that would imply that. Even Madison walked back his arguing in the Virginia Resolutions after realizing the extrapolations that he wrought and Jefferson's contribution to the principle of secession was always considered to be of a revolutionary spirit other than a legal one (our Revolution was illegal, per se, for example). Jackson's interpretation (and precedent does account for things) was that there was no Union if states could leave at will or ignore laws at will and that there wouldn't have been a Union or Constitution in the first place if those things were permissible or a "right".

As for the shots fired, well, there wasn't any real immediate danger from Fort Sumter staying in Union hands so there was no "force" that required the South to fire (assuming Fort Sumter itself was the initial "first" shot). And of course, there was no Northern military action that caused South Carolina and the rest of the South to secede in the first place, just simply the result of a Presidential election of a person whom the South didn't want. Just as the war doesn't happen without slavery, the war doesn't happen, obviously, if the South hadn't then, as a result of slavery, seceded.

[GannonFan]

Yes, as I said, less numerous voices compared to those that thought otherwise. A general rule of thumb is that only 1/3 of colonists really supported the American Revolution, and an equal number opposed it. No movement, no matter how correct, is ever fully supported by 100% of the participants. Obviously there were many Northern Democrats who, for various reasons, expressed support for the South during the war. I don't believe Mayor Wood's suggestion to have NYC secede was readily accepted by the other parts of NYC government at the time.

I've said it plenty, especially on here, the people that seceded from the South represented only a small percentage of the population. Southerners, for the most part, didn't care about slaves they didn't own. Something like 1.4% of the white population owned slaves.

You have people

Spoiler: show

like Dback

that think every white man in the South was given a slave at birth and every white person hated blacks and beat the **** out of them. That just isn't true.

I agree and of course you are right - most Southerners didn't feel as if they were fighting to keep slavery or for slavery. At the end of the day, though, those same folks wouldn't have been in armed insurrection without the issue of slavery ultimately leading people down the road to secession. Consciously fighting for something doesn't necessarily change what was really being fought over though.

As for some people's poor command of history, eh, for every ignorant Northerner who thinks every Southerner was a slave holder there is an ignorant Southerner who thinks slavery didn't really cause the Civil War. They're both wrong. As late night comic "interviews on the street" have shown, there is no shortage of people in the US ignorant of the history of the US.

[Ibanez]

I've said it plenty, especially on here, the people that seceded from the South represented only a small percentage of the population. Southerners, for the most part, didn't care about slaves they didn't own. Something like 1.4% of the white population owned slaves.

You have people

Spoiler: show

like Dback

that think every white man in the South was given a slave at birth and every white person hated blacks and beat the **** out of them. That just isn't true.

I agree and of course you are right - most Southerners didn't feel as if they were fighting to keep slavery or for slavery. At the end of the day, though, those same folks wouldn't have been in armed insurrection without the issue of slavery ultimately leading people down the road to secession. Consciously fighting for something doesn't necessarily change what was really being fought over though.

As for some people's poor command of history, eh, for every ignorant Northerner who thinks every Southerner was a slave holder there is an ignorant Southerner who thinks slavery didn't really cause the Civil War. They're both wrong. As late night comic "interviews on the street" have shown, there is no shortage of people in the US ignorant of the history of the US.

True.

I love the South and South Carolna...but I cringe when I hear the hicks talk about the Civil War.

[GannonFan]

I agree and of course you are right - most Southerners didn't feel as if they were fighting to keep slavery or for slavery. At the end of the day, though, those same folks wouldn't have been in armed insurrection without the issue of slavery ultimately leading people down the road to secession. Consciously fighting for something doesn't necessarily change what was really being fought over though.

As for some people's poor command of history, eh, for every ignorant Northerner who thinks every Southerner was a slave holder there is an ignorant Southerner who thinks slavery didn't really cause the Civil War. They're both wrong. As late night comic "interviews on the street" have shown, there is no shortage of people in the US ignorant of the history of the US.

True.

I love the South and South Carolna...but I cringe when I hear the hicks talk about the Civil War.

Heck, I cringe when I hear most people, present company excluded, talk about history at all. And it's not just hicks.

[GannonFan]

Getting close to official. Replace the Treasury Building picture on the back of the $10 (but keep Hamilton front and center on the front), and then knock Jackson off the front of the $20 and put Harriet Tubman (good choice, IMO, she's a lot more than most people know her for) on the front. Apparently there'll be some stuff on the $5 bill too, although obviously Lincoln ain't going anywhere.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/t ... ill-222204

[93henfan]

Tubman it is, according to CNN.

Let's go ahead and put women and minorities on everything now just to get the attack on white men over with. We already sent the message to my generation's white men that we are evil. Maybe spare my sons' generation.

[YoUDeeMan]

Is the word, "uppity" going to be hidden anywhere on the back (oh, the irony) of the new bill?

[93henfan]

Did anyone happen to watch the Jackson vs JQ Adams episode of Road to the White House a couple of weeks back? Man, if you think politics are dirty now, John Quincy Adams was a motherfucker. He pretty much caused Mrs. Jackson to have a nervous breakdown and die.

[bandl]

Did anyone happen to watch the Jackson vs JQ Adams episode of Road to the White House a couple of weeks back? Man, if you think politics are dirty now, John Quincy Adams was a motherfucker. He pretty much caused Mrs. Jackson to have a nervous breakdown and die.

[93henfan]

Yep. That's exactly what he looked like too.

[dbackjon]

The idea that the South started the war is ridiculous. The Southern states seceded, as was their right to do. The South fired no shots until Northern military action forced them to do so.

As for Jackson making it clear that secession and nullification were moot, I ask where did he get the authority to prohibit secession? The correct answer is, he did not have that authority. The 10th Amendment is what it is and Jackson's opinions about it are entirely irrelevant without a constitutional amendment to back them up.

[OL FU]

They should take Grant off the $50. Great General. Lousy president.

Still better than Jackson. Jackson was a lesser general and, other than staring down Calhoun and then Biddle, an equally lousy president. Grant wins on the basis of the generalship.

Not that it really matters but Jackson's bad presidential issues relate to a more modern view of the president. We care a lot more now about how native americans were treated than people did in the 1820s. Now that doesn't necessarily excuse Jackson's behavior nor does it make him a good president ( I know there are many other issues in Jackson's presidency). But certainly he was a strong president as you have described in dealing with possible secession.

On the other hand, Grant was.........................drunk.


On the other other hand, I wasn't comparing Jackson and Grant, just making the statement that Grant would be one that could be removed. I like the idea of Tubman on the currency. I also like MLK.

[GannonFan]

Still better than Jackson. Jackson was a lesser general and, other than staring down Calhoun and then Biddle, an equally lousy president. Grant wins on the basis of the generalship.

Not that it really matters but Jackson's bad presidential issues relate to a more modern view of the president. We care a lot more now about how native americans were treated than people did in the 1820s. Now that doesn't necessarily excuse Jackson's behavior nor does it make him a good president ( I know there are many other issues in Jackson's presidency). But certainly he was a strong president as you have described in dealing with possible secession.

On the other hand, Grant was.........................drunk.


On the other other hand, I wasn't comparing Jackson and Grant, just making the statement that Grant would be one that could be removed. I like the idea of Tubman on the currency. I also like MLK.

You're being a little too easy on Jackson. Even back then, it was a fairly controversial thing to uproot those Native American tribes like he ended up doing. Obviously it would be even more outrageous today, but there was a great deal of resistance to the change in policy that Jackson initiated. The Indian Removal Act itself only passed the House by something like 4 total votes so it wasn't like everyone was lockstep with this idea. Again, the South (Georgia particularly) led the charge to make it intolerable for the Indians to stay and to force their removal. There's no doubt that Jackson took a course that was fundamentally different from the Presidents that came before him and his legacy deserves a fair amount of the rebuke he gets today.

[Ibanez]

White women must be pissed that a black woman is the first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

White women must be pissed that a black woman is the first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sarah Palin is going nuts on Twitter.

[Ibanez]

White women must be pissed that a black woman is the first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sarah Palin is going nuts on Twitter.

That isn't anything different.

[93henfan]

White women must be pissed that a black woman is the first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reports of broken windows already on 5th Avenue and Rodeo Drive. Shit could get real.

[Ibanez]

White women must be pissed that a black woman is the first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reports of broken windows already on 5th Avenue and Rodeo Drive. Shit could get real.

There's a planned protest being organized by the various Yoga studios around Town

[93henfan]

Reports of broken windows already on 5th Avenue and Rodeo Drive. Shit could get real.

There's a planned protest being organized by the various Yoga studios around Town

Oh. Hell. Yes!

That will surely get a police response.

[OL FU]

Not that it really matters but Jackson's bad presidential issues relate to a more modern view of the president. We care a lot more now about how native americans were treated than people did in the 1820s. Now that doesn't necessarily excuse Jackson's behavior nor does it make him a good president ( I know there are many other issues in Jackson's presidency). But certainly he was a strong president as you have described in dealing with possible secession.

On the other hand, Grant was.........................drunk.


On the other other hand, I wasn't comparing Jackson and Grant, just making the statement that Grant would be one that could be removed. I like the idea of Tubman on the currency. I also like MLK.

You're being a little too easy on Jackson. Even back then, it was a fairly controversial thing to uproot those Native American tribes like he ended up doing. Obviously it would be even more outrageous today, but there was a great deal of resistance to the change in policy that Jackson initiated. The Indian Removal Act itself only passed the House by something like 4 total votes so it wasn't like everyone was lockstep with this idea. Again, the South (Georgia particularly) led the charge to make it intolerable for the Indians to stay and to force their removal. There's no doubt that Jackson took a course that was fundamentally different from the Presidents that came before him and his legacy deserves a fair amount of the rebuke he gets today.

Well I do love democrats !

[Ibanez]

There's a planned protest being organized by the various Yoga studios around Town

Oh. Hell. Yes!

That will surely get a police response.

Yeah, they aren't likely to take this slap in the face laying downward facing dog.

[Ibanez]

The idea that the South started the war is ridiculous. The Southern states seceded, as was their right to do. The South fired no shots until Northern military action forced them to do so.

As for Jackson making it clear that secession and nullification were moot, I ask where did he get the authority to prohibit secession? The correct answer is, he did not have that authority. The 10th Amendment is what it is and Jackson's opinions about it are entirely irrelevant without a constitutional amendment to back them up.

Secession was never a legal right and no reading of the Constitutional convention nor the debates that happened after that would imply that. Even Madison walked back his arguing in the Virginia Resolutions after realizing the extrapolations that he wrought and Jefferson's contribution to the principle of secession was always considered to be of a revolutionary spirit other than a legal one (our Revolution was illegal, per se, for example). Jackson's interpretation (and precedent does account for things) was that there was no Union if states could leave at will or ignore laws at will and that there wouldn't have been a Union or Constitution in the first place if those things were permissible or a "right".

As for the shots fired, well, there wasn't any real immediate danger from Fort Sumter staying in Union hands so there was no "force" that required the South to fire (assuming Fort Sumter itself was the initial "first" shot). And of course, there was no Northern military action that caused South Carolina and the rest of the South to secede in the first place, just simply the result of a Presidential election of a person whom the South didn't want. Just as the war doesn't happen without slavery, the war doesn't happen, obviously, if the South hadn't then, as a result of slavery, seceded.

I'm not trying to argue, but there'd be no Union if the states hadn't entered at will.

[CitadelGrad]

The idea that the South started the war is ridiculous. The Southern states seceded, as was their right to do. The South fired no shots until Northern military action forced them to do so.

As for Jackson making it clear that secession and nullification were moot, I ask where did he get the authority to prohibit secession? The correct answer is, he did not have that authority. The 10th Amendment is what it is and Jackson's opinions about it are entirely irrelevant without a constitutional amendment to back them up.

Secession was never a legal right and no reading of the Constitutional convention nor the debates that happened after that would imply that. Even Madison walked back his arguing in the Virginia Resolutions after realizing the extrapolations that he wrought and Jefferson's contribution to the principle of secession was always considered to be of a revolutionary spirit other than a legal one (our Revolution was illegal, per se, for example). Jackson's interpretation (and precedent does account for things) was that there was no Union if states could leave at will or ignore laws at will and that there wouldn't have been a Union or Constitution in the first place if those things were permissible or a "right".

As for the shots fired, well, there wasn't any real immediate danger from Fort Sumter staying in Union hands so there was no "force" that required the South to fire (assuming Fort Sumter itself was the initial "first" shot). And of course, there was no Northern military action that caused South Carolina and the rest of the South to secede in the first place, just simply the result of a Presidential election of a person whom the South didn't want. Just as the war doesn't happen without slavery, the war doesn't happen, obviously, if the South hadn't then, as a result of slavery, seceded.

Of course secession was a right. The 10th Amendment makes that clear. Also, the matter of secession was briefly debated at the constitutional convention. When it became clear that no state would ratify the Constitution if it could not withdraw from the Union at some point, the delegates decided to omit any prohibition against secession.