Jackson Free Press

Early today, word came down from the top of the JFP tower all the way down to the basement where I am located, that we could set up a pick'em game. I have gone out and set up an account for a few fantasy games.

OK, as if dinosaur (and Missouri Senate candidate) Todd Akin hadn't been offensive enough to women already, here's a fun one from the campaign trail today. The Kansas City Start reported that Akin said he is going to win the race because, in part, Sen. Claire McCaskill wasn't "ladylike" in their recent debate as she was against Republican Jim Talent in 2006. More:

“I think we have a very clear path to victory, and apparently Claire McCaskill thinks we do, too, because she was very aggressive at the debate, which was quite different than it was when she ran against Jim Talent,” Akin said. “She had a confidence and was much more ladylike (in 2006), but in the debate on Friday she came out swinging, and I think that’s because she feels threatened.”

Um, Akin, maybe she came out swinging because the majority of women in America right now wouldn't mind taking a swing at you after your disgusting comments about "legitimate rape" and your support of giving women no reproductive rights whatsoever that you don't approve.

Sir, you are no gentleman. You are a caveman. Ladylike enough for you?

On the "Sh*t Politicians Say" front, the JFP is collecting crazy things politicians have said (recently or further in the past) about women for our big Women in Politics issue next week. Please share your, er, favorites below. Direct quotes please, and a link would be great.

In a response to a release from the city yesterday citing decreasing crime numbers you can read about here, the campaign to elect Regina Quinn put out this press release Thursday afternoon:

"Today the Jackson Police Department released statistics stating that overall crime is down 16.2%. As of December 2012, three months ago, the City of Jackson reported 66 homicides, compared to 54 in 2011. Police also said violent crimes were up in 2012, with rape and aggravated assault up 8 percent. The current administration emphasized the fact that property crimes were reduced. Yet, they have offered no strategy to deal with the constant increase in violent crimes in our capital city. What does it say about the quality of life in Jackson when the city boasts a decrease in property crime, and offers no solution to loss of 66 lives? Just this year alone, two young people lost their lives over a dice game. We must take control of crime, especially violent crime. I want you to trust that you can count on Regina Quinn to take Jackson in a New Direction."

A release also included a link to a WAPT report with some background on those homicide numbers. JPD has maintained that it cannot do much about murders aside from solving them, which they have become remarkably apt at doing. Nearly 65 percent of murders in Jackson were solved in 2012, 15 percent higher than the national average of 50, according to WAPT's report.

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 …