How to send your farmer to jail Update on Tester Amendment Post 239

[Q9]

Quote:
The shooting war got under way in the Kansas Territory, within spitting distance of the Missouri Border, in 1854. There was a slight pause (late 1850's) then Edmund Ruffin lit the taper, literally (some contemporaneous journals mention this - others think it was Ruffin's friends fluffing Ruffin's image). Lincoln was where the `weasel word' "other persons", written into the Constitution as a euphemism for `Slavery', was going from the time the founders found it necessary to include the phrase in order to preserve the illusion that "all men are..." and all of that.

The 3/5th `Clause' allowed for ehancement of total representation, by Southern Slave States, while only paying 3/5th tax on those `other persons' that resulted in the enhanced representation.

Imagine that there is a nation with two towns. In one town there are 300 people. In the other there is a graveyard with 1000 occupants, and me (live next to church graveyard). Imagine, as well, that those in the graveyard are my slaves (they don't mind).

Each of the citizens in the other town pay taxes ($1.00 per person) and can elect one rep. for every hundred citizens. They send three reps. and pay $300.00 in total taxes I (only voting citizen) pay full taxes but, I only pay 3/5 of the tax rate for my, ah, `zombies' (don't like the concept of slavery) ($601.00 tax total). And, I get to send 6 reps as well (got to hire some folks to do this

) that both the town and I get to send two senators (Connecticut Compromise) doesn't really decrease the imbalance much. Pretty sweet deal for a slave owner, methinks; all 6 of my reps will support my position/the three reps from the other town have to field and then shape three hundred different opinions into a plan on how to counter my `Zombie Power'. This disparity did grate on free state citizens for nearly a century. I mentioned Lincoln as he is only the most consequential character in the tragedy. I asked whether 3/5th was a sweet deal for slave owners.

It is history, it is not something I can use an eraser on, I don't consider what others did in the past as the play book for the current game but, rather, as a cautionary tale. I was kind of worried that you were going to say that the 13th amendment, because it resulted as a consequence of the `unlawful' "dictatorship" of Lincoln, was the `fruit of the poisonous tree'; glad that we agree that it is legit. Zombies are bad enough, zombie owners with an edge on federal power="effusion of blood"

Q9 wrote: Yes, dying in a government internment camp is much better than being murdered. Also, last I checked, it wasn't typical for people to go around killing due to ethnicity in America. Did it happen occasionally? Yes, but not often. Prejudice would be an issue (remember Freedom Fries?), but murder? I don't think so. It's all hypothetical, though

Go read up on J.Edgar Hoover's activities concerning other ethnic groups during WWII

Treatment of Native Americans? Jim Crow `laws'?

ed: formatting​

I know what the 3/5 clause is. I study this era for fun. I'm asking how it in any way justifies Lincoln's dictatorship.

As for treatment of Native Americans, Jim Crow laws, etc., those were all done by GOVERNMENT. Who massacred the Plains Indians for no good reason? The government. Who forced the Cherokees on the Trail of Tears? US soldiers. Who enacted Jim Crow? State governments. Private citizens, while obviously some (KKK and White League are both notable) commited murder, did not - and were not capable of - commiting anywhere near the atrocities of government. Had the Japanese not been forced into internment camps with no trial or charges, they'd have been FAR better off.

 

[booker81]

Quote:
Most definately. Even starting young, getting more kids involved with FFA and 4H. Encouraging Ag classes in school. Obviously my school was VERY Ag based, heck, we grew pigs and chickens AT the school, and now they have a crop field to use (tractors are donated, most of the kids who didn't have access to one learned how to drive one at school.)

Here's a good one - yes, that's me, Jenny

I don't farm, I'm pretty sure Brad does though. Looking through my yearbook, of the 42 of us that graduated, 10 are working in some sort of farming or ag based business (doesn't count the many that didn't finish highschool, of those 20, about half farm. Went from 62 to 42 in 4 years.) Our FFA group was the largest group of any sport or club, and though our school was very, very small, we did very well in the State and even National competitions.

Folk who want a different thing to watch, check out the US Farm Report at http://www.agweb.com/USFR/default.aspx . If anything, watch Baxter Black

 

[kstaven]

Quote:
For the most part I agree, but in this region I am seeing more informed people all the time searching for farm direct and willing to pay a realistic price to get it. On the other side of the equation I also see people moving from the city and then screaming about normal farm activities that go on around them.

What do they expect when moving to a rural AG area?

Doesn't help when the health departments get into the media and scare people to death about manure, animals, etc....

 

[ivan3]

Q9 wrote: I know what the 3/5 clause is. I study this era for fun.

It has always served me well to consider the implications of what I'm about to write, before I write it.

You still didn't say whether or not the 3/5th compromise was an unfair sop to a certain class of businessmen and, a `deal with the devil' , acquiesced to in order to create the Republic, and so described by no less than the slave-holding founder Patrick Henry. Georgia and the Carolinas held out for a better deal and got to continue importing slaves for another 20 years.

Q9 wrote: I know what the 3/5 clause is. I study this era for fun. I'm asking how it in any way justifies Lincoln's dictatorship.

Election of 1860: Lincoln:59.4% of the popular vote, 180 Electoral votes/ ALL other Candidates combined: 40.7% of the popular vote, 123 Electoral votes

Most presidents have had their polcies described as everything from dumb, to dictatorial to `expletives deleted', Lincoln was nothing special in that regard and he was elected by a clear majority. One of the reasons for the North's increasing infuriation was owing to the disparity in representation made ever more galling by the South's insistence on spreading the `peculiar institution' westward, garnering ever more leverage in Congress, and stymyng legislation, etc. important to the North unless and until the North cried Uncle. Abolition was a bit player in the North's growing disgust with the South's Special Pleading. Lincoln was being branded a dictator, by the Secession minded South, even before he assumed office; having to be snuck into Washington under cover of darkness for fear he'd be assassinated. Let's ignore issues surrounding immigration and the Nativist backlash, industrialization, the potential for foreign intervention by England on the South's behalf, the very real concern by the military that Washington might be taken, etc.
Railing against the `dictatorial' actions of Lincoln without referencing the context in which those actions were taken is like yelling that the chicken should be thrown to foxes because the chicken poop stinks.

As for treatment of Native Americans, Jim Crow laws, etc., those were all done by GOVERNMENT. Who massacred the Plains Indians for no good reason? The government. Who forced the Cherokees on the Trail of Tears? US soldiers. Who enacted Jim Crow? State governments. Private citizens, while obviously some (KKK and White League are both notable) commited murder, did not - and were not capable of - commiting anywhere near the atrocities of government. Had the Japanese not been forced into internment camps with no trial or charges, they'd have been FAR better off.

Without understanding the context within which all of the above occurred, there can be little hope of preventing such from happening again. Humans, regardless of the political system, usually consider that which is in their interests as `ethical' and, often, failing to see their own hands in loathsome deeds call such `melancholy accidents'. Have to stay sharp, every morning checking out the reflection in the mirror before critiquing anyone else (we are the government).

Would you, as president, send Federal troops into a State that had passed a law that prevented citizens with blond hair, whose ancestors hailed from Germany, from voting? Or would the State Law prevail and the Nordic types could just drown their sorrows in beer while singing something by Wagner?

"Dictator, n. The chief of a nation that prefers the pestilence of despotism to the plague of anarchy." Ambrose Bierce (from the Devil's Dictionary - it's online, I think you might like it).

Still waiting to hear about the dozen instances of vague wording in S510...

 

[seedcorn]

Quote:
For the most part I agree, but in this region I am seeing more informed people all the time searching for farm direct and willing to pay a realistic price to get it. On the other side of the equation I also see people moving from the city and then screaming about normal farm activities that go on around them.

What do they expect when moving to a rural AG area?

Doesn't help when the health departments get into the media and scare people to death about manure, animals, etc....

There in lies the problem. A realistic price is what the market will bear and not what the consumer wants to pay for it. After all the producer has a right (obligation) to make a living. NONE of us go to our employers and say "Hey boss, you can cut my salary because I can live on less or save less." If you want food raised a certain way, you pay for it regardless of price otherwise you are just another hypocrit saying one thing and doing another. If the profit margins are good and consistent, others will join in and lower the costs. Those that raise the food in an alternative way need to understand how to market, sell value and not try to compete w/commercial ag as we are VERY EFFICIENT. We in 2010 ag raise 160+ bu/acre field corn while organic is lucky if they hit 100 and average close to 50 bu/acre. So organic corn needs to be 4X higher to compete--that doesn't even get into the extra labor/costs (seed is higher, fertilizer is higher, etc.) organic has.

 

[bargain]

As for me and my family, we choose chemical free, yes it's more intensive but it is satisfying to know first hand what in, on and around the corn, the land and that our products are not GMO. It's my preference and as long as we can scratch out a living we'll be here on the farm for those that prefer this kind of food. Yes, it costs more but it's pay now and get good food which promotes health or pay later in poor health, health insurance etc. It is a personal choice as to what we feed our bodies and how we live our lives. For us, a body is a temple, and how we feed it physically, spiritually and emotionally make all the difference in the world. Have a wonderful and bless Thanksgiving to all. Nancy and our small little farm....Living in the year 2010 the way living was over 40 years ago....It's harder but so worth it. Now, off to feed more animals and chop fire for that wood stove and put on a bot of beans on it!

 

[Katy]

Quote:
I can't find the study that I saw one time, but I think overall farmers today use less concentration of chemicals now per acre than we did 40 years ago.....I know we do. I know the avearage lawn in the US has more chemicals appled per square foot than any square foot of farm ground.

Chemical free may be realistic for your 20 acre farm and the crops you grow, but to the majority of farms which are 100's if not thousands of acres going out and weeding the fields with man-power is unrealistic and cost prohibitive. The only people willing to do that kind of back breaking work other than the farmers themselves is undocumented workers for the most part which leads to a whole other set of issues.

 

[Q9]

Quote:
It has always served me well to consider the implications of what I'm about to write, before I write it.

You still didn't say whether or not the 3/5th compromise was an unfair sop to a certain class of businessmen and, a `deal with the devil' , acquiesced to in order to create the Republic, and so described by no less than the slave-holding founder Patrick Henry. Georgia and the Carolinas held out for a better deal and got to continue importing slaves for another 20 years.

Q9 wrote: I know what the 3/5 clause is. I study this era for fun. I'm asking how it in any way justifies Lincoln's dictatorship.

Election of 1860: Lincoln:59.4% of the popular vote, 180 Electoral votes/ ALL other Candidates combined: 40.7% of the popular vote, 123 Electoral votes

Most presidents have had their polcies described as everything from dumb, to dictatorial to `expletives deleted', Lincoln was nothing special in that regard and he was elected by a clear majority. One of the reasons for the North's increasing infuriation was owing to the disparity in representation made ever more galling by the South's insistence on spreading the `peculiar institution' westward, garnering ever more leverage in Congress, and stymyng legislation, etc. important to the North unless and until the North cried Uncle. Abolition was a bit player in the North's growing disgust with the South's Special Pleading. Lincoln was being branded a dictator, by the Secession minded South, even before he assumed office; having to be snuck into Washington under cover of darkness for fear he'd be assassinated. Let's ignore issues surrounding immigration and the Nativist backlash, industrialization, the potential for foreign intervention by England on the South's behalf, the very real concern by the military that Washington might be taken, etc.
Railing against the `dictatorial' actions of Lincoln without referencing the context in which those actions were taken is like yelling that the chicken should be thrown to foxes because the chicken poop stinks.

As for treatment of Native Americans, Jim Crow laws, etc., those were all done by GOVERNMENT. Who massacred the Plains Indians for no good reason? The government. Who forced the Cherokees on the Trail of Tears? US soldiers. Who enacted Jim Crow? State governments. Private citizens, while obviously some (KKK and White League are both notable) commited murder, did not - and were not capable of - commiting anywhere near the atrocities of government. Had the Japanese not been forced into internment camps with no trial or charges, they'd have been FAR better off.

Without understanding the context within which all of the above occurred, there can be little hope of preventing such from happening again. Humans, regardless of the political system, usually consider that which is in their interests as `ethical' and, often, failing to see their own hands in loathsome deeds call such `melancholy accidents'. Have to stay sharp, every morning checking out the reflection in the mirror before critiquing anyone else (we are the government).

Would you, as president, send Federal troops into a State that had passed a law that prevented citizens with blond hair, whose ancestors hailed from Germany, from voting? Or would the State Law prevail and the Nordic types could just drown their sorrows in beer while singing something by Wagner?

"Dictator, n. The chief of a nation that prefers the pestilence of despotism to the plague of anarchy." Ambrose Bierce (from the Devil's Dictionary - it's online, I think you might like it).

Still waiting to hear about the dozen instances of vague wording in S510...

Of course the 3/5 clause was wrong. I never said it was right, but it has nothing to do with Lincoln's dictatorship. And yes, he was a dictator. Hitler was elected, too. Lincoln unilaterally declared war (first instance of it in US history), unilaterally suspended habeas corpus (again, a first in US history, and expressly prohibited by the Constitution), arrested most of the Maryland legislature without trial or charges with Federal troops. Here's the lowest estimate I can find of Lincoln's political prisoners: 13,000. Remember what Seward said? "I can ring this bell and have a man in New York arrested. I can ring it again and have a man in Ohio arrested. Can the Queen of England do so much?" Lincoln also issued an arrest warrant for the judge that ruled the War unconstitutional, and also arrested and imprisoned, then deported, without trial or charges, Congressman Clement Vallandigham, who was vocal in his opposition to the War. Lincoln disarmed citizens in the border states in a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment, and illegally called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the Confederacy for no good reason.

Are these the actions of a good President upholding the Constitution like he swore to do, or are these the actions of a dictator hell-bent on domination of a new nation that merely wants to be independent?​

 

[Q9]

Just so you know, I'll be disappearing for a while due to visiting grandparents for Thanksgiving, as well as the fact that my OCD is kicking in. I can't stop thinking about this thread!!!

 

[bargain]

Quote:
I can't find the study that I saw one time, but I think overall farmers today use less concentration of chemicals now per acre than we did 40 years ago.....I know we do. I know the avearage lawn in the US has more chemicals appled per square foot than any square foot of farm ground.

Chemical free may be realistic for your 20 acre farm and the crops you grow, but to the majority of farms which are 100's if not thousands of acres going out and weeding the fields with man-power is unrealistic and cost prohibitive. The only people willing to do that kind of back breaking work other than the farmers themselves is undocumented workers for the most part which leads to a whole other set of issues.

Hi Katy, we don't veggie farm the entire 20 acres, about 1/2 of it is animal occupied or laying at rest, or under compost for a crop down the road. That way we don't exhaust the land. Yes, generally all farms use less chemicals definitely. And we do our own labor with an occasional, sometimes once a week or once a month worker. Yes, finding help is always another issue, when we do have crops to pick or weeding, especially!

Happy Thanksgiving to all.