House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

politico.com ^ | 6/23/16 | Matthew Nussbaum

[ColdOne]

A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.

The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.

[DiogenesLamp]

All of this misses the fact that slavery was central to the Souths economy.

And absolutely critical to the economy of New York and Washington D.C.

You keep leaving out that part because it doesn't fit your narrative.

In 1860, Slavery accounted for 3/4ths of all cargo carried by the New England New York shipping industry.

They fought that war to get that money back, not to abolish the source of that money.

In other words, they were more evil than the slave holders. Their god was Mammon.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thankfully the Norths efforts ended it.

Yes, they murdered their brothers for money. Kinda like Cain, don't you think?

[DiogenesLamp]

I’ve read plenty bozo and they all tell the same story:

You are right. They will all tell the same story because they are all coordinated propaganda from the same source. Fortunately though, we have records that demonstrate these "stories" they are telling are in fact deliberately misleading lies.

You cannot escape the fact that the South produced ~3/4ths of all European trade. That those 5 million citizens of the Union in the South were producing ~200 million in trade value, while the 20 million Union citizens in the North were only producing 78 million in trade value.

Oddly enough, all that money was ending up in New York. Funny that. It's almost as if New York had somehow rigged the system to make sure they were getting a huge cut of all that slave earned money.

[Pelham]

Those two proclamations would have done it had the Crown won the Revolutionary War. Like with Lincoln the cause would have been a victorious central government exerting power over its citizen/subjects.

[DiogenesLamp]

he North went to war to preserve the Union because the South seceded in order to preserve an economic system based on the use of slave labor.

Gullible one, it's about money. It's *ALWAYS* about money. The North went to War because not only did an Independent South cut New York out of most of 200+ Million in European Trade, the Capital that would subsequently flow to the South would produce competition for other Northern Industries.

The Union had said repeatedly that the South could keep slavery. Do you not believe the words of your own Union leader? He said he would let them keep slavery. Do you not grasp the significance of this?

If the war wasn't over the continuation of slavery, then what was it for? Well again, it was for money.

Money the New York/Washington D.C. (same people we are fighting now.) economy would lose, and the money the Southern economy would gain.

It's interesting to read what people who weren't under the influence of Union Censors had to say about the issue. The London Times recognized this was a war about money and control.

“The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces. These opinions…are the general opinions of the English nation.”

And of course, the London Spectator also noticed this.

“The Union government liberates the enemy’s slaves as it would the enemy’s cattle, simply to weaken them in the conflict. The principle is not that a human being cannot justly own another, but that he cannot own him unless he is loyal to the United States.” London Spectator in reference to the Emancipation Proclamation

And of course, Charles Dickens, (No friend to slavery he.) says the same thing.

“The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states.” Charles Dickens, 1862

Only the religious fanatics who worship at the altar of "We did no Wrong!" believe the Official blarney spread by the Empire builders.

[DiogenesLamp]

Whatever one provides support to the claim that slavery in the South was on its death bed and would have ended in a very short time, which was the original claim I was asking about.

Not that facts will be much good when arguing with you, but here goes anyways.

The McCormick Reaper was designed by Robert McCormick in Walnut Grove, Virginia. However, Robert became frustrated when he was unable to perfect his new device. His son Cyrus asked for permission to try to complete his father's project. With permission granted,[4] the McCormick Reaper was patented[5] by his son Cyrus McCormick in 1837 as a horse-drawn farm implement to cut small grain crops.[6] This McCormick reaper machine had several special elements:

The traction engine, in the form recognisable today, developed partly from an experiment in 1859 when Thomas Aveling modified a Clayton & Shuttleworth portable engine, which had to be hauled from job to job by horses, into a self-propelled one. The alteration was made by fitting a long driving chain between the crankshaft and the rear axle. [1] Other influences were existing vehicles which were the first to be referred to as traction engines such as the Boydell engines manufactured by various companies and those developed for road haulage by Bray. The first half of the 1860s was a period of great experimentation but by the end of the decade the standard form of the traction engine had evolved and would change little over the next sixty years.

For that matter, read what George Washington had to say on the subject. In his memoirs he wrote that it was getting more and more difficult to find work capable of being done by slaves and for which there is sufficient compensation to make it worthwhile to employ them.

The economic value of slavery was about to take a serious crash, and it was only a matter of time.

But the New York Empire Lords who wanted to keep their money stream rolling in didn't know that at the time, and so they launched a war against the South to get that slave money rolling in again.

[DiogenesLamp]

jmacusa, it will make sense to you when you understand that Traitorism is a type of secular religion centered on a celebration of selfish and cowardly anarcism.

And of course, the Jar Jar binks of Historical knowledge and intellect shows up for comic relief.

One wonders how they would react if say an Obama were to call up 75,000 troops to wage war on North Carolina for opposing gay marriage or some other great moral crusade.

And this is a lot closer to the truth than you unwittingly realize.

In 1860, the agitators for abolition of slavery were the political equivalent of liberal gay marriage proponents. They too were from Liberal New England, and motivated by Puritanism and entranced with the idea of using Federal power against the states.

Left wing Kooks from the North East then, Left wing Kooks from the North East (and now California) now.

[DiogenesLamp]

So 25 to thirty years is a very short time?

As compared to the cost of the equivalent 250,000 men per decade? ( 3 decades in exchange for 750,000 men) I would say that was reasonably short.

What would your life have been worth?

[DiogenesLamp]

If 680,000 don’t loose their lives.

I have read that the latest and considered most accurate estimate so far, places the losses at ~750,000 souls.

[DiogenesLamp]

There is nothing to debate. The South launched a war it couldn’t have possibly won and it lost.

Incorrect. You are merely repeating the lies you have been taught. The Union invaded the South with 35,000 men. Prior to this time, the South simply exercised the right to independence asserted by the Declaration of Independence which founded the Nation four score and seven years earlier.

The Union, which no longer recognized the right to independence upon which it was founded, decided to invade and subjugate these people.

Why do you go on carrying a cross for lost and evil cause?

It is *YOU* who are carrying a cross for an evil cause. The right to independence is given by God, and you are cheering the fact that your "team" has successfully thwarted a God given right by subjugating others through force.

The South had the same right to independence from the Union States as the slave owning Colonies had to gain independence from the United Kingdom.

More so in fact, because the God Given right to independence was regarded as an accepted foundation of the Union's own existence.

Can you say "Greedy Lying Hypocrites?" Because *that* describes the people who invaded others to subjugate them.

[DiogenesLamp]

But they didn't. So what would have caused Southern slave owners to end slavery on their own 90 or 100 or 120 years later?

Not the Union. So long as they were sucking up the profits from all that slave money, they were going to keep it going.

[rockrr]

All of that is irrelevant to the fact that the slavocracy who ruled the south was utterly committed to the practice and perpetuation of slavery. Enough so that they started a war with their brethren over the practice. Enough so that they inscribed the practice into their pretend constitution in perpetuity.

It mattered not what advances in technology, culture, or government may come - they were going to have their ni**ers and they were hell-bent to murder anyone who got in their way.

[DiogenesLamp]

All of that is irrelevant to the fact that the slavocracy who ruled the south was utterly committed to the practice and perpetuation of slavery.

No, it isn't. You may not like it, but the existence of slavery was accepted by the founders and they made a bargain with the Slave States (which were most of them at the time) to keep it.

Immoral or not, the Union made great sums of money off of slavery, and they were willing to continue it so long as that money kept coming in. They only threw a fit when that slave money was interrupted.

You don't want to admit it, but the Union went to war with Independence, not slavery. They liked their exploitation of slavery just fine. It was making them wealthy.

Enough so that they inscribed the practice into their pretend constitution in perpetuity.

Hypocrite! So did the Union Constitution!

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Again, the flag of Slavery for "Four Score and Seven Years" was this flag.

It mattered not what advances in technology, culture, or government may come - they were going to have their ni**ers and they were hell-bent to murder anyone who got in their way.

An amusing claim when the only thing necessary to prevent oneself from getting murdered was staying in your own town and not invading other people's homeland.

You keep forgetting, it is the Union who sent men to die so that the slave money could once more be restored to the Wealthy Elite of New England. (who could be excused from participating in this crusade by the payment of $300.00)

[jmacusa]

Lamp buddy. Give it up ok? The South launched a war it couldn't hope to win and it lost. Did the South win the war? Did it? Did Grant surrender to Lee at Appomattox or did Lee surrender to grant? Which was it?

[DiogenesLamp]

Lamp buddy. Give it up ok? The South launched a war it couldn't hope to win and it lost.

The South did not invade the North. The North invaded the South. The first casualty of war is truth, and you are simply not going to grasp what is the truth.

Your "team" were the evil perpetrators of the war. They went to war to fuel their greed. They went to war to continue slavery money coming into their pockets.

They bungled. Before it was over, they had lost the cause for which they started the war, (money) and were forced to live up to the rhetoric they had spoke.

Of course the aftermath of a power broker dominated government was the most corrupt era this nation had ever seen.

We are still fighting the same conflict today. The Wealthy Elite who live in the Boston-DC corridor are still running the government and the media, and they are still trying to force the rest of us to pay for their extravagance.

[PeaRidge]

And amazingly many posters rush right past that toll to question how long slavery would have existed if war had not been brought to the South.

How one can rationalize that kind of carnage by simply changing the premise of a question demonstrates the degree of self righteousness of the ignorant.

[DiogenesLamp]

And amazingly many posters rush right past that toll to question how long slavery would have existed if war had not been brought to the South.

How one can rationalize that kind of carnage by simply changing the premise of a question demonstrates the degree of self righteousness of the ignorant.

When the foundation of your argument is that your actions must be regarded as "right" regardless of the cost, the real numbers of deaths involved don't really much matter to you, do they?

It wasn't concern for the slaves that prompted them to assemble an invasion army.

That point is consistently lost on the Union apologists.

[PeaRidge]

You asked about the meaning of flags.

What flags were flying over the ships from Rhode Island that were trading guns and rum for slaves in 1806?

Which flag was in the chamber of the Supreme Court in 1857 when it declared Dred Scott still legally a slave?

Which flag flew over the U.S. Capitol as newly inaugurated President Abraham Lincoln endorsed the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution that ordered permanent legalization of slavery in 1861?

Which flag could be seen by the slaves locked up in the pens in Washington in July of 1861 as General Irwin McDowell marched union troops into Virginia.

[DoodleDawg]

Those two proclamations would have done it had the Crown won the Revolutionary War.

But they didn't win, did they?

Like with Lincoln the cause would have been a victorious central government exerting power over its citizen/subjects.

And what would have caused slavery to end by the late 1860s-early 1870s as has been claimed?

[Pelham]

” But they didn’t win, did they?”

By that logic right is determined by who wins.