Jackson Free Press

Marriage—it's what brings us together.

That is, unless you live in Yazoo County and were planning on having a justice court judge officiate your ceremony.

Earlier this week, Judges Pam May and Bennie Warrington sent a letter to the board of supervisors saying they wanted to opt out of having to perform marriage ceremonies.

In a WJTV news report, Yazoo Supervisor Caleb Rivers presumed the letter was spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing same-sex marriages across the country. Rivers said the board voted unanimously to let the judges stop doing any marriages at all.

It was only a matter of time. Not long after the SCOTUS at the end of June, state Rep. Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, suggested that the state get out of the business of marriage licenses. Up in Grenada County, a circuit clerk who was retiring anyway bowed out a few months early because she didn't want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

"I believe you can do whatever you want to do in the privacy of your own home but as for Yazoo County we're just not going to allow it," Rivers, the supervisor, told WJTV's reporter.

Love birds looking to tie the knot in Yazoo County needn't fret, though.

Robert Coleman, the circuit clerk there, confirmed to the JFP that his office will still be issuing marriage licenses.

It'll just be up to couples to find someone—other than justice court judges—willing to perform the marriages.

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2015/jul/10/22081/

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 …

We don't get to say we're number one in many good things, but here's a nice one... according to The Tax Foundation, $100 in Mississippi is worth the most of any state in the country (an equivalent of $115.21).

If there's anything we've known about Jackson for a while, is it's a pretty decent place to be "broke" (by which we mean college-student-level broke, not impoverished).

http://jacksonfreepress.com/users/photos/2015/jul/08/22059/