Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Why is the Mississipi State Tax Commission closed today?

This is topic Why is the Mississipi State Tax Commission closed today? in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003834

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-17-2005, 01:41 PM:

It's a long distance number for most of us, but you get a good laugh.
It's like a 2 for 1 deal.

601-923-7000

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 01-17-2005, 01:46 PM:

That's the funniest thing I ever heard!

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-17-2005, 03:34 PM:

Well, what more do you expect from Mississippi?

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 01-17-2005, 04:09 PM:

Yeah, I agree, what kind of moron's would celebrate Martin luther king Jr's birthday. Bunch of frikin idiots.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-17-2005, 11:27 PM:

Haha, I love the reply Chris.
Especially with that out of place apostrophe!

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-18-2005, 12:04 AM:

Oh Oh! I feel a controversy coming on and an ultimate closing of this thread.

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-18-2005, 01:45 AM:

Somebody needs to record whatever is on the other end of that phone line and post it so we can all get the joke. Otherwise we will lock the thread, BAN James AND Thomas Procyk just for good measure.

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 01-18-2005, 04:35 AM:

da fone call

Posted by Christopher Duvall (Member # 284) on 01-18-2005, 07:14 AM:

Virginia would not ratify MLK Day when it came up for vote unless they could add Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee. They call it Lee/ Jackson/ King Day. Only in Virginia can celebrate a black leader's birthday with 2 confederates. You know it is bad when they have a town called LYNCHburg. You gotta love the south... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 01-18-2005, 07:19 AM:

OK, mystery smaller. Robert E. Lee's birthday (Jan. 19) is a longtime state holiday in GA, MS, & AL (that I know of), & when Martin Luther King's birthday (January 15) was made a state holiday, with the scheme of moving holidays to the nearest Monday, both holidays ironically became observed on the same day. Except GA, which moved the Robert E. Lee holiday to November, ask them why. Generally they're called the Martin Luther King/Robert E. Lee holiday, & it's thought-provoking.

In Alabama & Mississippi, it's officially per the wording of the act passed in the state legislatures the Martin Luther King/Robert E. Lee state holiday. Giving Robert E. Lee top billing in the announcement could be either an oversight by the person who recorded or scripted the recording, or a little display of sneering deniable bigotry somewhere in the line.

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 01-18-2005, 10:51 AM:

The link Mike posted cuts off after, "Hello, you've re...."

Someone should ban Joe Redifer and inform him that Black & White photographs are obsolete and anyone who claims to use them for "artistic effect" is simply cojuring an excuse for being cheap and unimaginative. [Razz]

=TMP=

Posted by Ed Inman (Member # 2583) on 01-18-2005, 12:56 PM:

Yes, it is ironic to officially celebrate the King/Lee holidays jointly but I guess it was the best compromise the state Legislature could come up with at the timein the 1980s. Most people today simply know it as MLK day but some Confederate history organizations still celebrate Lee's birthday as well.

For whatever it's worth the state still officially celebrates the historic Confederate Memorial Day (we sometimes jokingly call it Confederate Christmas) and Jefferson Davis' birthday as well (which was later combined with "National" Memorial Day).

http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/03/003/0007.htm

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-18-2005, 12:58 PM:

Why is there a Lee holiday? Didn't he lose the war for the Southern States?

Posted by Ed Inman (Member # 2583) on 01-18-2005, 12:59 PM:

.

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-18-2005, 03:07 PM:

Thanks, Mike, you just saved my life!
Thomas, I was able to download it and play it just fine.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 01-18-2005, 09:33 PM:

Although Lee was in command of the Army of Northern Virginia (the largest and best equiped of southern forces during the Civil War), he did not loose the war for the Confederacy. The South lost the war based on a number of miscalculations and in the end, the odds were just not in their favor.

Lee is celebrated by many Americans - north, south, east and west - because of his character, poise, and way he lived his life. He was born into a wealthy Virginia family, yet his father was a drunk who abandoned his wife and kids. Lee was quite smart and graduated second in the West Point class of 1829. During the Mexican War, Lee served as a scout and located a path through an ancient lava flow prior to the final assault on Mexico City by General Winfield Scott. When abolitionist John Brown attempted a slave uprising by capturing the gun factory at Harper's Ferry in 1859, Lee led a detachment of Marines in resecuring the facility.

Yet in all this, Lee held duty, honor, country not only as his motto, but as the hallmark of his personal traits. Books have been written about his Civil War service, but what he did after the war was more important. Facing charges of treason, Lee turned himself into Federal authorities on his own knowing full well he may be executed. He also asked other former Confederate commanders to do the same. Lee advocated and supported the new ammeddments to the Constitution abolishing slavery and black suffrage. Later he became president of Washington (now Washington & Lee) University in Virginia, where he rehired committed faculty and restocked the war-ravaged library collection. Lee died in October of 1870.

Thats why Lee is celebrated today. His human actions speak louder than his military might ever did.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-19-2005, 02:25 AM:

Thanks for the detailed background info. Still, he may have been a nice guy as such, but didn't he work on breaking up the US? What is the motivation behind dedicating a holiday to a man who technically appears to be a traitor? How did he hold duty and country high and yet played a very active role in an attempt to deconstruct his country? He didn't fight for the USA, but for the CSA. Why did he advocate the abolition of slavery, but led people into battle and death in a conflict at least partially triggered because his side did not want to abolish slavery?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-19-2005, 02:40 AM:

Anyone want to take bets on how long before this thread is locked?

In any event, at the time many people felt more loyalty to their state than they did to the USA as a whole, Lee was one of them.

Although I never have fully bought the 'state's right's not slavery' argument for the Civil War (hint: the term 'state's right's' didn't become popularized as a caue for the Civil War until the 1880's), it was a factor. Only about half of the South seceded with South Carolina. States like Virginia stayed in the Union until Lincoln tried to use force to keep the seceeding states in the union, only then did they also secede.

When Virginia seceded after the battle at Fort Sumpter Lincoln asked Lee to lead the Union army. He would have accepted but he would not fight against his native Virginia.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-19-2005, 02:58 AM:

Why lock the thread? These are not political arguments, but historical questions. Or are some states still planning to secede?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-19-2005, 03:10 AM:

The debate over the issues that led to the Civil War is still raging today, Mississippi's Martin Luther King Jr/Robert E. Lee Day and Alabama confederate flag issue are just two examples.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-19-2005, 03:24 AM:

Flag issue? Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Texas the only state which can vote itself legally out of the US? Isn't any secession activity by definition illegal? Or were the Confederate states technically entitled to declare themselves out of the union? Whatever happened back then, is there any number of people anywhere who seriously wish to split their state from the US?

Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 01-19-2005, 02:31 PM:

There are several radical groups that want to try to convince a state to secede, but I dont think any of them will convince any state to do it.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 01-19-2005, 02:34 PM:

The idea of state succession was not a new idea to the generation that fought the Civil War. Late in the proceedings at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, South Carolina delegate Charles C. Pinckney offered a resolution to be included in the final draft that any state could legally succeed from the Union if it felt the Federal government was too "oppressive". Benjamin Franklin personally cornered Pinckney in another room at the convention and advised the younger delegate to drop it . . . or else. The final draft to the Constitution bears no legally binding clause permitting state succession. Abe Lincoln used this point as reason enough to "invade" the southern states with a Federal (Union) army.

Two other succession events from the Early American Republic:

During the War of 1812, all of the New England states suffered economic downturns as a result of lack of trade with Europe. At the Hartford Convention of 1814, these states threatened to leave the Union since the Federal government did not take into account their economic well-being when declaring war on their premier trading partner - Britain. Unfortunately for the New England plotters it was too little too late since the war had turned and America was winning on the Niagara front. Cooler heads prevailed at this convention as well, and New England stayed loyal to the United States.

In 1832, South Carolina evoked the Nullification Act which sought to "null and void" any Federal law in which state leaders disagreed with. Cotton planters blamed low cotton prices on Federal tariffs designed specifically to choke the southern agricultural economy. When South Carolina officials refused to collect the tariff, President Andrew Jackson threatend to send troops to arrest the ring leaders and restore order. This, however, was seen as an insult to ALL southerners since Jackson was from Tennessee and his Vice President, John Calhoun, was a native South Carolinian himself. Calhoun sided with his state's officials and resigned in protest from the Vice Presidency (though newspapers at the time claimed he was preparing for a Senate run). Regardless, Jackson and Calhoun's friendship ended abruptly . . . and so too did the Nullification Act.

Today, no state in its right mind will ever argue succesion from the Union. Its brought up more for a laugh than anything serious. However, the Quebecois Succession Movement in Canada inches closer and closer to its goal of disolving the bonds between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Many believe that the next refferendum vote will be enough since Quebec's succession becomes more and more popular in the 40 or so years since first suggested. We'll see what happens.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-19-2005, 03:28 PM:

quote: Aaron Mehocic
Cotton planters blamed low cotton prices on Federal tariffs designed specifically to choke the southern agricultural economy.

Was that true, and if so, why would they try to choke the economy of the southern states?

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 01-19-2005, 04:14 PM:

While it is true that when it was admitted as a state Texas was alowed special provisions in its constitution for sucession (or, interestingly enough, the ability to split itself up into as many as 5 seperate states), neither of these provisions exist any longer, they were removed after the Civil War.

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 01-19-2005, 06:09 PM:

It wasn't so much that Federal authorities had it out for the southern states and hoped to destroy their agrarian base, but what one needs to remember here is that trade tariffs were the only real way the early American Republic could raise money. The Federal income tax you and I pay did not come into creation until 1913. Prior to that the government operated on a finite amount of cash usually generated by riping off the states. The South Carolina Legislature believed the Federal government was being "oppressive" by charging a tax to ship their product (cotton) out of state, but no tax was paid by northern factory owners who used that cotton to make cloths or other items. The Nullification Act of 1832 sought to strengthen the planter's political and economic clout, while not damaging their business relationships with Yankee industrialists. Essentially, the northeners got what they wanted and the southerners didn't have to pay the Federal government to send it to them.

Posted by William Leland III (Member # 1400) on 01-19-2005, 07:56 PM:

I never heard of Robert E. Lee day. they never mentioned this school. you think living in the south i would of heard of this.

Posted by Tao Yue (Member # 836) on 01-19-2005, 10:34 PM:

Certainly export taxes on cotton (and the lack thereof on Northern manufactured goods) were a concern. But the tariff on imported manufactured goods is the more classical case of Southern complaints over trade policies, as Southerners felt it amounted to double taxation. Cotton going to Britain was taxed, then incoming goods from Britain were also taxed. While export taxes were also a concern,

Also, isn't it generally considered that the 1998 vote on Québec secession was their last hurrah? They didn't even manage a majority, not to mention a supermajority; the Supreme Court later ruled that a regular majority vote would not be binding; and continued immigration would continue to dilute the Québecois vote.

On Robert E. Lee, there's talk in military history circles that he is overrated as a general. Needless to say, this view is highly controversial.

Posted by Jim Ziegler (Member # 86) on 01-19-2005, 11:04 PM:

When Robert E. Lee became a U.S. Army officer, he took the following oath - " I do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whomsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the articles of war."

By taking up arms against the United States, he violated that oath. What he did after the war notwithstanding, he betrayed his country and surrendered his honor.

If anyone is interested, the historical background of that oath can be found here: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/win02/keskel.html

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 01-20-2005, 10:28 PM:

There is no question Lee violated the oath as written for his historical period of service. In legal terms he is a traitor to the United States of America and WAS possibly subject to court martial and execution as such. Fortunately for Lee, the post-war Republican party was too factionalized between the Radicals and Regulars to worry about the guilt or innocence of the supreme military commander of the vanquished Confederate government. I merely suggested in my previous posts that Lee's humanity to his fellow citizens speaks volumes as to how he lived his life.

As to Lee being over rated as a military commander, I will argue that there may be some truth to that as well. Prior to the Battle of Gettysburg in July, 1863, Lee won every fight in which he commanded troops. Exactly one year earlier at Battle of Malvern Hill, Confederate forces attacking on vague orders from the general "accidentally" broke the center of the Federal line and caused a few Yankee commanders an afternoon of grief and fear. Lee had no idea his men would be so successfull, yet in successive battles, he constantly looked for another repeat opportunity to present itself so this time he and his army could capitalize. At Gettysburg, Lee felt he had that opportunity, but, alas, he was wrong . . . and 10,000 men died in a little over 45 minutes.

One more miscalculation on Lee's part that I can think of off the top of my head was his inability to judge Union General Ulyses Grant's battlefield strategy (particularly at Battle of Spottsylvania Court House in May, 1864 and again at the Battle of Cold Harbor in June, 1864), as it related to other Federal commanders he faced previously. When Grant took the pounding that he did after opening up the North Anna Campaign resulting in the Battle of the Wilderness, Lee expected a northern retreat back to the safty of the Washington DC defensive line. Two months and 30,000 casualties later Grant was knocking on the Confederate capitol city of Richmond's door. I don't think Jefferson Davis and other Rebel leaders were too happy about that, and I've read some modern historians' views on this subject. Needless to say, Bobby Lee didn't get steller reviews on this.

Oh, and there was the plan to escape into the mountains, link up with Joe Johnson's army, defeat Grant, then turn and face Sherman . . . but I wont go there.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-21-2005, 04:34 AM:

What was Grant's and other Northern commanders' attitude towards Lee and friends after the war? Did they advocate going after them or did they take the "gallant" view point - having defeated them on the battle field is enough?

Posted by Aaron Mehocic (Member # 15) on 01-21-2005, 10:49 AM:

That's an interesting question. The best way to approach post-war relationships among key commanders is to examine Abe Lincoln's Reconstruction Policy that he laid out in his second term inaugural address in March, 1864. Lincoln proposed a quick readmission program of the defeated Confederate states as well as a "forgive-and-forget" political policy in dealing with southerners. According to Lincoln, Confederate officers could apply for amnesty after swearing an oath of loyalty to the post-war Federal government. Unfortunately, when the President was assassinated only five days after Lee's surrender, the Republican Party was hijacked by anti-southern radicals looking to extoll revenge on the former citizens of the Confederate states in all ways imaginable.

In this period of revenge against the transgressions of the south, former officers from both the north and the south bound together to keep Lincoln's vision alive. Grant returned to a hero's welcome in the north and was put on the fast track to be elected President in 1868. Though he and Lee did not remain in contact, its probable that these men respected each other after the war and supported each other's post war career paths.

In the case of Union General William Sherman and his great nemesis Confederate General Joe Johnson, these men fostered a close relationship and occasionally visited each other throughout the 1870's. When Sherman died in New York City about 1885, Johnson traveled north to be in the funeral procession. Marching hatless, Johnson contracted a virus that within a few weeks turned into pneumonia and was dead himself within a few months. The Sherman/Johnson relationship is probably about the closest example of enemies becoming friends in an effort to heal the nation.

Posted by Jeffrey Korns (Member # 2791) on 01-21-2005, 10:33 PM:

One of the biggest reasons a state would not leave the union today is money. Most states are very dependant on federal funding for everything from highways to schools to healthcare and social programs. Leave the country and risk loosing all that money, oh and risk having neighboring states in the union impose tariffs and restrictions? I don't think so. (The same thing confronts the separatists in Quebec too.)

As for Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson holidays, give it another 20 years and they will die out. Our current population is too fluid and many "Yankees" are moving south, and many immigrants are coming north from Mexico. The heroes of the old south will probably fade into history.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-21-2005, 11:47 PM:

There's a secession petition circulating in California right now. Not much chance of anything happening with that, but California by itself would be the world's sixth largest economy, so they claim. [Smile]

They are tired of paying out more to the feds than they get back, again so they claim.

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-21-2005, 11:52 PM:

Paul, I AGREE with that! But since I'm moving to Texas... fuck 'em! HA!

(And just for Joe)

>>> Phil

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 01-22-2005, 03:18 AM:

Paul, that sounds like a cool idea. Actually I read that California is the 7th, not the 6th, biggest economy in the world, but what difference would it make? Arnold could become some kind of king or duke then, and since I am half-Austrian and a current resident of California myself, I would automatically become a marquis or knight, and you and Phil would have to pay homage to me then. Especially you, because one of the first things we would do is conquer Nevada and make it a colony.

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-22-2005, 11:43 AM:

Michael! Your Fullness! That was most profound! Please allow me to retire to my dirt-laden hovel and contemplate your words!

Nah, you wouldn't want to do that Future Lord Michael. Nevada has always served as the dumping grounds for people who couldn't hack it in the PRC (People's Republic of California). Annexing us would only gain you about two million more selfish, anti-social, uneducated, hot-tempered, redneck cracker, NASCAR dad, mullet-wearin', crack-tweekin', gun-totin', nuke waste-lovin', California-hatin' mental cases to add to your welfare rolls. Who needs another San Bernadino County? We're not known as the "Mississippi of the West" for nothin' you know.

Did I miss anybody? [Big Grin]

Nevada, 48th in education spending
Las Vegas, 4th dumbest city in America, and proud of it!