The Civil War tariff revolt

 

The Nullification Crisis of 1832-33 involved state secession and use of force to repel attempts to collect federal customs tariffs. Nullification acquired a different shade of meaning even before the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision soon extended the reach of the Fugitive Slave Law north to the Canadian border. By 1860 Southern conservatives were complacently decrying “Nullification”–by which they meant the creation of sanctuary cities where slaves could hide.  Local authorities in the North worked only to enforce local and state laws–not to help persecute runaway slaves under odious federal jurisprudence.  

So why do government school history professors stand by and let charlatans convince the innocent that the Civil War was caused by racial collectivism? Andrew Jackson again addressed the Congress, in January 1833, regarding South Carolina’s virtual secession in a bill outlawing US customs from collecting Tariffs of Abominations.

That State Legislature first passed “An act to carry into effect, in part, an ordinance to nullify certain acts of the Congress of the United States purporting to be laws laying duties on the importation of foreign commodities,” passed in convention of this State, at Columbia, on the 24th November, 1832. The next was called “An act to provide for the security and protection of the people of the State of South Carolina.” It then passed “An act concerning the oath required by the ordinance passed in convention at Columbia on the 24th of November, 1832.” This last was an oath rejecting federal power in favor of state laws and courts. Jackson explained:

But by making it ” unlawful for any of the constituted authorities, whether of the United States or of the State, to enforce the laws for the payment of duties, and declaring that all judicial proceedings which shall be hereafter had in affirmance of the contracts made with purpose to secure the duties imposed by the said acts are and shall be held utterly null and void,” she has in effect abrogated the judicial tribunals within her limits in this respect, has virtually denied the United States access to the courts established by their own laws, and declared it unlawful for the judges to discharge those duties which they are sworn to perform.

One federal customs house was moved from from Charleston to Castle Pinckney as a “precaution,” and trusted customs agents who quit in fear could not be replaced, such was the nearness of armed confrontation.  Jackson spoke of the potential for military violence:

…the power of summoning the posse comitatus will compel, under the penalty of fine and imprisonment, every man over the age of 15, and able to travel, to turn out at the call of the sheriff, and with such weapons as may be necessary; and it may justify beating, and even killing, such as may resist. The use of the Posse comitatus is therefore a direct application of force, and can not be otherwise regarded than as the employment of the whole militia force of the county, and in an equally efficient form under a different name.

Jackson made it clear that federal troops would put down the insurrection unless Congress, the courts and the Carolina legislature acted to head off the danger. This they did by lowering the “Tariff of Abominations” that had sparked the reaction. Still, all hope of stopping “protective” tariff extortion within the system was doomed thanks to Jackson’s defusing of the situation.  Colonial “Acts of Navigation” had necessitated the 1st Revolution in 1776. This revolt led Lord Dunmore to issue an Emancipation Proclamation calling slaves to arms in exchange for freedom long before Lincoln’s similar proclamation.

The Opium Wars in which Great Britain attacked Chinese cities to force repeal of the Chinese government’s ban on opium grown in British India came to resumed naval artillery attacks in 1859. At the outset of these wars, in 1837, Britain had withdrawn capital invested in the United States to gird its navy for war. The resulting contraction of capital caused America’s First Great Depression, but to this day it is inexpedient and impolite to even mention this Chinese connection.

China was again defeated and a tariff on opium imports was enacted there in January 1860 to pay reparations to her attackers. Despite professed neutrality, the US also landed military forces in China. Cause had again produced effect. Thus, in a failing economy, the Morrill protective tariff was soon being assembled in Congress. It was reported in March 1860, passed on May 10, then went dormant.

The South reacted and by September the Secretary of War had quietly facilitated southern seizure of federal weapons and facilities. After the mild and Whiggish Lincoln was elected, with three months to go before taking office, Texans raided armories and commandeered revenue ships, sparking tariff revolt elsewhere.  Capital flight and foreign adventures had wrecked the economy, and the Secretary of the Treasury resigned December 10.

South Carolina seized a federal fort, customs-house and vessels that same December. In January, with Lincoln’s inauguration still two months away, Georgia seized two federal forts and an arsenal, then commandeered a steamer. Louisiana took over three forts and the arenal at Baton Rouge as Georgia seized the arsenal at Augusta and a steamer. Then Florida commandeered navy yards and an arsenal.

The Morrill tariff was revived, the embattled Treasury began selling notes, and John Sherman made a speech about federal tariffs, fort and armories. A secession convention was convened and northerners began backing away from support for sanctuary cities by repealing the Personal Liberty bill and similar enactments. William Tecumseh Sherman calculated the effect of reverting to a revenue-only tariff, dubbed “free trade” by Morrill and other protectionists:

“Now, if the south have free trade, how can you collect revenues in the eastern cities? Freight from New Orleans to St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Cincinnati, and even Pittsburg, would be about the same as by rail from New York, and importers at New Orleans, having no duties to pay, would undersell the east if they had to pay duties.”

This was what the Civil War was about–customs revenue and crony tariff protection.

Meekly disarmed colonial Brazilians had no such possibility, and imperial slavery continued there until after Cleveland’s first term–yet rabble of the looter persuasion do not order their statues torn down or accuse modern Brazilians of racial collectivism. Americana, the Confederate town founded by disaffected Johnny Rebs, holds charming square dances in gray regalia with nary a protest from unreconstructed brown audience members and participants. ALL of them are fed up with carpetbagger looter politicians and their damned taxes!  These politicians and their judges keep the Libertarian Party from forming, so locals–forced at gunpoint to vote–cast enough blank ballots to elect libertarian mayors in many major cities.

If you want Brazilian or American audiences to understand your theory on the roots of war or what causes economic depressions, you might consider hiring a degreed and accredited translator and interpreter.

Advertisements

Adjustment of data into Truth

At Orwell’s fictional Ministry of Truth, Winston Smith labored to erase from the newspaper morgue facts inconvenient to The Party and replace them with “rectified” versions.

As in “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” the better folk–fully deserving of their government jobs and hand in the till–can plainly discern Truth. Their inability to differentiate a constant or read a thermometer to within a single degree is just the sort of spurious irrelevancy one would expect Deniers (in the pay of dollar-worshipping egotists) to criticize by way of misdirection. Today that penchant for rectification via alternative facts is applied by recipients of transfer payments from taxpayers to modern “researchers.” Here, courtesy of Tony Heller, is how political pseudoscience persistently altered the past record of ordinary temperatures to meet present exigencies in the wake of the defeat of the Democratic candidate in 2000:

Data tampering

realclimatescience.com

Yet sudden changes in the policies and laws advocated and passed by “the elect”–those better voters ensconced in the Congress–are not news. Those better people are paid $174,000 apiece in annual remuneration for the discerning way in which they direct the initiation of force to the benefit of fellow Party members by whom they are elected. In November 1892, practically 9% of all voters cast ballots for candidates enamored of the “graduated income tax”, plank 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

In just over a year the income tax neither entrenched kleptocracy party wanted became law. It wouldn’t do for the Great Unwashed to realize that a vote for its own party was what changed the law. Therefore no History book in any government school calls attention to that timely succession of events, much less to the economic collapse that caused the Supreme Court to strike down that tax law the following year.

Government subsidies today call for ex-post-facto rectification of sea level measurement data. The largest changes are reported by Communist China, Ecological National Socialist Brazil and three primitive islands in Oceania, home to fewer than a million inhabitants frightened into a state of fear by pseudoscientific documendacities.

data adulteration

Who controls the present controls the past…

But we’ve also seen how 1.4% of the total vote, when cast by religious fanatics in 11 successive campaigns, added a Mohammedan Sharia law ban on alcohol to the Constitution. Religious racial collectivists formed Germanic-style parties to compete with republicans even after  Prohibition enforcement caused the Crash and Depression and made that party the hateful thing it is today. Constant draining of spoiler votes by socialist, socialist-labor and communist parties had a similar affect in seducing the  Democratic party away from the salutary influence exerted on it by the Liberal Party during the campaign of 1932, when the economy collapsed entirely.

Small wonder then that a government once dedicated to the protection of individual rights was changed–by persistent casting of looter spoiler votes by tiny but violent minorities–and mutated into a truthless looter kleptocracy. We’ve seen where such spoiler votes took Russia, Germany, China and half of Korea. Since 1972, however, libertarian parties have offered voters a peaceful, rights-respecting path back to freedom, and now function in at least 21 countries. Will 9% of US voters avail themselves of the opportunity to change history? Possibly.

Orwell wrote: “The trouble is that if you lie to people, their reaction is all the more violent when the truth leaks out, as it is apt to do in the end.” –Through a Glass, Rosily, (Collected… V.4 p 35). If 9%–about a third of Americans able to frame concepts and make comparisons–deign to cast their vote for rights and reality, looter altruism may give way to individual rights just as the communism of pelf gave way to union goon violence and communist taxation in 1894, and ecological nationalsocialism in 2008.

This interpretation of current events in the light of historical precedent was brought to you by http://www.portugueseinterpreter.com

 

1920s Drug Fiends

Excerpted from Prohibition and the Crash, by J Henry Phillips

Chapter 18

Drug Fiends

            A five-to-four decision by the Supreme Court in Seattle’s “whispering wires” bootlegging case settled the 4th Amendment issue of wiretapping on June 4. Our highest Court on that day pronounced government skulking over phone lines legal, ethical and good.[1] The Court’s stated position in finishing the work begun with the Sullivan and Marron decisions was that the Bill of Rights was so important that only Congress—certainly not the Judicial branch—had the authority to attribute “an enlarged and unusual meaning to the Fourth Amendment.”[2]

Thirteen Coast Guards were suspended June 2, ostensibly for accepting bribes to overlook smuggling of “liquor” from ocean liners, but that story had been suppressed for over 2 months and had developed an odor.[3] In Buffalo, June 4 was opening day for a conference between U.S. and Canadian customs officials. The meeting was organized by Assistant Treasury Secretary Seymour Lowman. This is the same Lowman, who replaced Lincoln Andrews after Andrews was forced by Elmer Irey – the heavy-artillery agent – to resign. Placed in charge of customs, Lowman’s specialties included narcotics smuggling and dismissing “dirty” agents.[4] When newsmen finally found out about this meeting nearly 3 weeks later, Secretary Andrew Mellon assured them that no railroad men had been threatened and that it “had nothing to do with prohibition or enforcement of the Volstead act.” This naturally raised suspicions about drugs, suspicions reinforced when 6 persons were shot on the floor of the Yugoslav House of Representatives. Yugoslavia was a major exporter of medical-grade opium and was reeling from widespread riots. This news hit reporters even as they tried to pry a scoop on the secret meeting from Secretary Mellon.[5]

In April 1921, the Literary Digest had run an unsigned article “Is Prohibition Making Drug Fiends?” The article raised troubling questions. The State Department understood perfectly well by 1922 that war-fed output and prohibition-enhanced smuggling facilities were thwarting all efforts at narcotics control.[6]

Repeal advocate Franklin Fabian speculated in a 1922 book that prohibition might have something to do with U.S. narcotics consumption being 6 or 7 times as high as in most European nations.[7] The very suggestion was hotly denied by prohibitionist Herman Feldman, who also denied that figures describing the true situation could be had from any source. Feldman relied on the usual apocrypha and anecdotes to shore up his beliefs, and shrugged off any hard data on arrests and convictions as proving only that enforcement was improving. Feldman’s source, a Dr. Kolb, argued that alcohol was actually a sort of gateway drug which led to narcotics use.[8] Nowhere does Feldman explain why no narcotics planks figured in U.S. political party platforms before 1924. Yet that year the Democrats—eager, of course, to exclude Asian immigration—suddenly began railing in their platform against “the spreading of heroin addiction among the youth,” while the Prohibition Party merely blinked and stood mute on the issue.[9] The sight of prisons steadily filling up with “narcotics” convicts led the Democratic Platform Committee and Herman Feldman to diametrically opposite conclusions as to why.

At prohibition hearings held during April of 1926 Congressman William S. Vare of Pennsylvania had declared the “increased use” of narcotics throughout the nation “appalling.”[10] Then on May 14, 1928, Chairman Graham of the Judiciary Committee reported that 28% of federal inmates were “addicts” and pushed for the Porter bill to segregate the junkies on a Kentucky “narcotics farm.”[11]

Yet the wisdom of the Harrison Act stood unchallenged even after 537 pounds of heroin and morphine were discovered in Brooklyn by New York Deputy Chief Inspector Louis J. Valentine’s staff in 1927—the year of the recent “Tong War” on U.S. soil and civil turmoil on Chinese soil.[12] Not only had alcohol prohibition increased U.S. demand for heroin and morphine, but the well-developed channels for alcohol smuggling served even better as conduits for smuggling drugs. It was probably easier to bribe a customs agent to look the other way if the agent believed that rum, not heroin, was being smuggled in.

 

[1] (NY World Almanac 1929 91)

[2] (Olmstead et al. v. U.S. 06/04/28 [465])

[3] (NYT 8/15/28 23:4)

[4] (Merz 1931 248-249)

[5] (NYT 6/22/28 31; 6/23/28 34, 52)

[6] (Taylor 1969 150)

[7] (Fabian 1922 77-80)

[8] (Feldman 1927/30 109, 113-115, 111)

[9] (Johnson and Porter 1975 246; 249)

[10] (Feldman 1927/30 101-102)

[11] (NYT 5/15/28 10)

[12] (NYT 7/1/28 14; 1/13/27 4)

Does your company ever need to come to terms with pharmaceutical suppliers south of the border? Why not hire an interpreter familiar with the history and background of many foreign products?

Letter to ATA director Maier

The American Translators Association Board of unpaid Directors is meeting in Denver today and tomorrow. Jane Meier is a former president and current boardmember.

Hola Jane,
The others can heave a sigh of relief that I won’t be in Denver. But I do have some concerns I will share with you, as suggested on the HITA maillist.

By now it should be clear that letting the ASAE take over the ATA was a mistake. I recommend getting rid of their lawyers and all staff that are ASAE members, and to hire only half as many people to replace them. It should then be a simple matter to return our direct voting ballots—like all other NY non-profit corporations.

Inviting self-righteous impostors and infiltrators in as voting members was as big a mistake. I suggest voting a deadline for their taking and passing an exam to earn entitlement to continue to meddle in policy (). I also favor getting rid of all the Continuing Extortion racketeering.

The ATA website is practically useless. Portuguese is needlessly split 80/20 unlike any other language. Google Search “find a translator” and Abrates.org shows up in the first couple of pages, along with several local associations—even proz, Linked-in and whatnot—but not ATAnet. This is objective proof of GROSS dereliction or subtle sabotage—it doesn’t matter which. The goofy questionnaires, endlessly-looping gotcha capture challenges and screwy searches are befuddling to professionals who have been members for years. They amount to a Keep Out sign to potential clients searching to directly hire someone (someone verifiably holding credentials–rather than agency middlemen).

Now repeat that search with: “Find a translation company” and SHAZAM! The ATAnet website is front and center on the very first page peddling agency URLs. Ask yourself if this looks like a level playing field. Clearly, when Ben Teague and Patricia Newman were in the saddle, with 17% annual growth this was an association of, by and for tested translators. (ATA Chronicle, December 1981)

Oh yes, I still keep all that stuff posted at www.freelanceparty.org

The search engine results objectively demonstrate that today’s ATA is an association of, by and for the American Society of Association Executives and the agencies those worthies perceived as the key to their success in continue… symbiosis of sorts. I am asking you to champion as many of these changes as seem right to you and I’ll listen to your reasons for the ones that don’t.

I am pleased to note that ALMOST all of the boardmembers are certified in at least one language pair. But that has in the past not been a reliable defense against the inveiglements of highly-trained and experienced professional predators. Those folks are nice, agreeable and persuasive, but we were better off without them before and I’ll bet we will be better off without them once they’re working some other neighborhood.

There you have it. I’ll be posting this online just to make it difficult for the others to laugh off or ignore.
Cheerfully yours,
Hank Phillips

The LIB for Liberal gambit

Randal Paul–Son of Ron and survivor of the Bernie Sanders Volunteer Killing Fields gunfight–is tolerated by God’s Own Prohibitionists as handy bait and a false flag lure for libertarian defection; he is a useful Libertarian impersonator.

Randal’s function is to lure wavering mystics away from the LP and into the rights-destroying  mob he himself reinforced with his vote for Anointed General Beauregard Sessions, the new Prohibition Czar. The strategy is a variant on the 1932 tactic of suddenly calling communist looters “liberals.” To visualize how odd this is, here is how liberal is defined in the dictionary on my Apple computer:

(in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform: a liberal democratic state.

Need I remind the reader that freedom (in a political context) means freedom from coercion? Anyone can search Google News Archives and see that Liberal meant something akin to Libertarian before the summer of 1932. The stratagem arose in the Corn-Sugar Belt as the Prohibition Party and God’s Own Prohibitionists knelt before the guillotine of the November elections. The Liberal Party in its 1931 platform gave mystical bigots short shrift:

The Liberal Party aims at the dissolution of the Ku Klux Klan, because that society, suppressing the social and political rights of Jews, Catholics, and Negroes, is a foul vulture that is eating the heart out of the body politic; and when it was in its greatest power it continued to enroll new thousands in its membership through the encouragement which Mr. Ford gave to its propaganda with his senseless campaign of libel against the Jews.

Henry Ford and the Klan were pillars of prohibition enforcement, completely immune to rational thought or objective facts. Actual Liberals were organized by Carnegie Institute regulars, captains of industry, railroad presidents, college teachers, steamship officials, bankers, merchants, authors, journalists, publishers, labor leaders, and statesmen in the Steel Belt, not corn farmers, distillers or glucose magnates.

Drys want men with guns to shoot people over alcohol, and conservatives are drys against repeal or relegalization. Wets–mostly meaning liberals–wanted nobody with a gun banning the production, sale and transportation of beer, wine, sauerkraut or liquor in 1932, or hemp, LSD, peyote or mushrooms today. By 1932, wet was the freak flag of liberals against the initiation of force. Mrs Pauline Sabin explained how the former slur became a mark of distinction.

Liberals sought repeal of Republican and Mohammedan Sharia prohibition and blue laws the mystical autocracy had imported from the Mohammedan Middle East. The Liberal Party platform of 1931 explicitly repudiated communism. The rest of their platform could have been written by low-tariff, prohibition repeal liberals in Ontario. Their pre-election propaganda in America, however, was stinging.

The Liberal Party wet plank had already been added to the Democratic platform, and the Dems then won five (05) elections in a row. Today’s mystical prohibitionists hope to trick illiterate voters into thinking “commies” when they see the LIB on the ballots. Make no mistake; the Libertarian party platform is the antithesis of imported communism or Germany’s religious nationalsocialist dictatorship. People who speak of left and right really want communism or nazionalsocialismus. Libertarians seek to protect the constitution from the tendentious initiation of force no government can afford to indulge in this 72nd year of the nuclear era.

Are you surprised to learn that a libertarian-style party existed and wrote the plank for repeal of the Prohibition Amendment? Interpreters have to think outside the box to mediate between languages and cultures.

 

 

Independence During Prohibition

pre-libertarian repeal

Chicago Tribune, 5 July 1931. The top step says Less Graft

1931 was the year the Liberal Party published its platform rejecting socialism, welfare and the dole and calling for repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment and all Blue Laws. This pre-libertarian party’s platform provided the framework for the repeal plank that got Democrats elected five times running.

The cartoon was published 86 years ago, but only 41 years before the libertarian party formed. Because they themselves lacked the courage to stand up to the Klan and other empires of murderous mysticsm, Republicans in 1932 began pronouncing “liberal” the way German National Socialists pronounced it–expectorated with a hiss, the same way they pronounced “Jew.” Then again, freedom is not at all popular among National Socialists.

It’s a pity the Democratic Party platform committee has been entirely taken over by ecological national socialists. Those worthies are far more preoccupied with an Aryan model of purity; not Aryan purity, mind you, but environmental purity with transfer payments from producers to non-producers. The Liberal Party was not collectivist and eschewed coercive solutions.

Do you ever need translations of environmental laws and regulations written in Portuguese or Spanish? I also translate lawsuits and contracts, and interpret depositions and full-blown hearings.