Jackson Free Press

In the GOP's continued saga of internecine warfare, there's another front opening in the Battle of Mississippi with a shot coming from... Missouri?

The chairman of the Missouri GOP wants the campaign investigated by the Republican National Committee, according to the Washington Post. The Missouri GOP chair wants the RNC to investigate racially-charged robocalls and ads that appear to have been placed in Canton, Miss., and elsewhere in support of Cochran's run-off bid.

The head of the Missouri Republican Party on Tuesday asked Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus to appoint a task force to investigate what he called “racially divisive ads and robocalls” critical of state Sen. Chris McDaniel in the Republican runoff for U.S. Senate in Mississippi.

Ed Martin, the GOP chair in Missouri, is apparently concerned that Henry Barbour, nephew of former Governor Haley Barbour, may be behind a radio ad that was reported by Britain's Daily Mail.

The Daily Mail story, which offers an in-depth investigation to determine who placed the ads and how, notes that the ads were tagged "paid for by Citizens for Progress," a group that isn't registered with the FEC.

According to the Daily Mail, this same group name had been used previously by Mitzi Bickers, an Atlanta pastor, who, coincidentally, was being paid by Mississippi Conservatives -- a "super PAC" created by Haley Barbour and run by his nephew, Henry Barbour.

The younger Barbour told the Daily Mail he didn't know about the radio ads, although he acknowledged hiring Bickers to run a robocall campaign in the Cochran-McDaniel runoff.

In the radio ad, McDaniel is linked to an "ally" of the KKK, and listeners are warned that a McDaniel victory could mean a loss of government benefits such as food stamps, lunch programs and disaster assistance.

In an occasional blog series I'm inaugurating here, I'd like to pull forward some debate that's happening in the comments and examine a variety of the myths and legends that surround the South's participation in the civil war.

From the comments section came this one from Claude Shannon:

The war was fought over money and power. In 1860, 80% of all federal taxes were paid for by the south. 95% of that money was spent on improving the north.

Now I'm not a history scholar, but I do get curious when things just kinda sound wrong.

First... even if we assume that's true (which, as you'll see later, I can't) I think the construct is disingenuous, as it suggests that "the South" had very little say in the matter and no recourse but secession given the rapacious chokehold that the North apparently had on the South in terms of political power and usurious taxation.

It's a dramatic picture, but there are a few caveats:

1.) Democrats (the party that included most all Southern politicians) controlled Congress leading up to the Civil War (they lost the House in 1859) and had a Democratic president in the "doughface" Buchanan. (The term being one that suggests a Northern with Southern sympathies.)

2.) The Tariff of 1857 was authored and supported by Southern legislators (the primary author was Virginia Senator Robert Mercer Taliaferro Hunter, who would later be pictured on the Confederate $10 bill) and it lowered tariffs to a level they hadn't hit in 50 years.

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2015/jul/10/22076/

Remember that through most of 1800-1860 there was no income tax on individuals and businesses or other taxes (sales, property) as we define them today -- Federal taxes were almost exclusively tariffs on imports. (The Nullification Crisis had come when tariffs were considerably higher in order to pay down debts from the War of 1812.)

So, "taxes" were considerably lower leading up to the war.

But then... if there's evidence that "The South" paid "80 percent" of those tariffs they'd managed to lower, I can't find it.

As noted here, about 63% of Federal revenue was collected as tariffs on shipments that went through just the Port of New York alone. And those tariffs were collected from the merchants who imported them.

Aside from New York, there were certainly other ports in the North; so an argument that "The South" paid 80% of tariffs -- e.g. that 80% of imported and taxed goods went through Southern ports where the taxes were paid by Southern importers -- isn't correct.

(The tariffs were also protectionist in nature, and likely benefitted both the North and South as they made locally produced goods more attractive.)

If there's a more esoteric argument that says somehow the South ultimately bought 80% of those goods and therefore experienced the markup that came from them being taxes, I haven't seen it, but it would be interesting to read and parse.

One other point to make on tariffs -- the Southern states …

A resident in Fondren sent us this voicemail message, which is an apparent robocall trying to suggest that Margaret Barrett-Simon's campaign is designed to help Tony Yarber.

Link: Robocall Audio

Barrett-Simon responded to the call on her Facebook page last week: "I want to be clear that, should I decide to enter the Jackson mayoral race, my campaign will not engage in these or similar tactics. I would also like to call all of those who decide to enter the campaign to renounce the use of 'robocalls' and similar anonymous 'hit and run' methods."

As one might expect, the call doesn't identify the party paying for it; it does appear to originate from a Washington State area code. When we called the Caller ID number in the message, we reached an automated attendant willing to put us on a no-call list.

If you receive robocalls that you can record or that reach voicemail, please email them to reporter R.L. Nave (rlnave at jacksonfreepress dot com).