House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

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.

They could not have done such a thing without amending the constitution.

So they could not have just ended it in a short period of time, as claimed. It would have taken a constitutional amendment. So how long would it have taken for three Confederate states to call for a convention of states to amend the constitution to end slavery? And how long for two-thirds of the states to agree to ratify it?

In fact, "free states" were impossible without amending the constitution.

Wrong clause. Article IV, Section 2: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." So Confederate states could not end slavery within their borders and the concept of a "free state" was foreign to the Confederacy.

The plantation owners that could retain ownership and ship independently found themselves in a bind. If they wanted to ship their own cotton to market, the packet ship owner would charge them very high rates that were slightly under the rate of the foreign ship rate, plus the Federal shipping penalty that would be added.
The success of the shipping business produced larger and faster transoceanic freight ships. These larger ships required 18 to 22 feet of depth to operate.
Sandbars at the mouth of the Mississippi, and particularly at the shallow Charleston harbor presented the merchants with a major obstacle to using the more efficient new shipping. Northern shipbuilders solved this problem with a unique vessel of shallow draft that had an almost perfectly flat bottom.
This made it possible to clear the sandbars without getting stuck. An added benefit was that now bales of cotton could fit more easily in the flat-floored hold and carrying capacity was greatly increased. At first, the sailing qualities of such a vessel was doubted, but soon, to the relief of their owners, these flat-bottomed ships proved to have fine sailing qualities. These were the ships used in the coastal trade.
With these technical advancements, cotton was loaded onto the coastal packets, shipped to New York via these fast boats, offloaded to warehousing,and shipped out on the large V-bottomed ships that sailed the high seas to Liverpool.
All along the way, the middlemen took their cut and New York merchants prospered.
Regularly scheduled coastal packet shipping became a very lucrative trade. Stevedores, dock workers, warehouse owners now had lots of work. Insurance agents, bankers, accountants, livery agents, boat builders, riggers,and cargo shippers vastly benefited.
Wharf owners stayed busy and Atlantic packets sailed eastward on the “Downhill Passage” with full cargoes and stayed very busy for years.
With the control of the transportation trade business being dominated by Northern interests, and now being vastly aided by the Warehousing Act, southern planters began to complain.
Many estimated that New York merchants were making 40 cents on every dollar, but being constantly in debt to the New Yorkers, they were hardly in a position to change this state of affairs.
The Northern business interests were in full control of the market. However, by the end of the antebellum period, with southern ship building beginning to establish itself, improvements in both New Orleans and Mobile Bay harbors, and South Carolina's self-financed dredging of Charleston arbor, the entire northern shipping combine was about to become vulnerable to direct European trade.
Suddenly, secession totally eliminated the transportation of Southern goods. This brought about a 60% drop in volume for all the Northern operators....IMMEDIATELY.
Lincoln's office became filled with Governors and businessmen immediately after his inauguration.

Just want say thanks to you for posting some hard realities to DL. The poor fellow has built a castle in the sky and seems hell bent on defending his peculiar slant on The Civil War to the bitter end. It is sad really that a person can demonstrate such a degree of self-delusion. How does he reconcile the leaders of the Confederacy insisting that slavery was the Cornerstone of the Confederacy?

Go ahead and follow money. Yeah, the North had it and South wanted it (what else is new?). The Southern Slave Power saw their way clear to getting all the beans. Separate from the North and expand Slavery. And hope that Europe goes along. And especially that Central and S.America gets in line.

I should know better than to let myself get dragged into this skirmish again but I am beginning to pity the poor self-deluded creature. It's no way to go through life.

Trump or Bust

That's just a pathetic bit of historical revisionism.

It is the only reasonable conclusion at which one may arrive if one looks at the facts and ignores the Rhetoric.

The Civil War was about Slavery.

It was about slave earned money, and who was going to get that money.

You can post your graphics all you want, but the reason hundreds of thousands of middle class Northern parents were willing to send their sons off to die in a Civil War wasn't to protect the economic interests of greedy uber-rich Northerners.

Do you think anyone *TOLD* them that's why they were sent away from their homes to die in a far off place? Why would anyone tell them the truth?

It kind of reminds me of the Liberal chant "No Blood for Oil." Our government says we weren't fighting for Oil, but we were instead fighting for the "freedom" of the Iraqi people. Liberals keep pointing out that if Iraq didn't have oil, we wouldn't give a sh*t about their freedom, and I must say, there appears to be a great deal of truth in this claim.

As I said, if New York wasn't taking in 200 million per year from slave earned revenue, they wouldn't have given a sh*t about whether the South seceded or not. You may think it wasn't about money, but the facts demonstrate clearly that *IT WAS ABOUT MONEY.* It's always about money.

The South seceded to perpetuate Slavery, and they did precisely that when they authored the Confederate constitution.

And authorized in the United States Constitution. You can't malign others for what you yourself are doing as well. This "We fought to end Slavery" is an ex post factor fig leaf to cover up the horrible despotism of the Union killing people so that they can keep control of a major revenue source. The truth belies your claims. Slavery existed longer in the Union than it did in the South, and that one fact alone puts the lie to your claim that the goal of the war was to "end slavery."

If that was the goal, they would have ended it where they already had control.

And here is the US Constitution's protection of Slavery clause.

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.

So they could not have just ended it in a short period of time, as claimed.

Stop LYING. Nobody said a "short time." That is *YOU* projecting a straw man claim on others, and it is a failing on your part and no one else.

You don't get to say people were lying, because *YOU* are putting words in their mouth, so it is *YOU* who is lying.

It would have taken a constitutional amendment. So how long would it have taken for three Confederate states to call for a convention of states to amend the constitution to end slavery?

Why should I care about this when the much more serious and significant issue of this conflict is the right of a people to self determination? Slavery is long gone, but the Right of the People to abolish an existing government which no longer suits their interests is still very much with us.

The Declaration makes it clear that people have this right, but Abraham Lincoln (at the behest of his Robber Baron Masters) decided it was worth killing 750,000 men to assert his control over people who did not want him. He turned the foundation of our own nation on it's head and rendered our own existence illegitimate, because if the God given right to independence didn't exist for the South, it most definitely did not exist for the Slave owning states of the North either.

You focus on Slavery because it is your "fig leaf" to justify so much murder and bloodshed committed by your "team." You consistently ignore the fact that nobody said they were invading the South to stop slavery , and indeed said the very opposite.

You simply have a proclivity to ignore *FACTS* which contradict what you wish to believe, and what you wish to believe is that your "team" was moral and upright instead of the pawns of a Despotic and murderous dictator who was himself in thrall to his Wealthy Corporate Masters in the Financial capital of the nation. (Same as today.)

The men of the Union North *HATED* black people , and would not have given them the courtesy of even treating them decently, let alone laying down their life on behalf of black people. Oh sure, there was the occasional Liberal nut-burger in their ranks that was very anti-slavery, but the Union management wisely kept them pointed at the South instead of their own Union slave states in the North. Can't have the dupes targeting the wrong masters, now can we?

You need to stop living in a cobbled together historical fantasy and recognize that your religion is greatly contradicted by the available facts.

Some few ships were bought by Southern investors. Operating them at a profit was another issue. Federal mail and cargo contracts enabled northern lines to operate until freight trade grew to support a packet arrangement. After that began, independent owners were few and far between.

Okay, that helps explain some of it. Government subsidies (paid for by the revenues produced from Southern exports) were used to provide a base income for the existing shipping magnates, and allowed them to undercut those people who did not have such government contracts.

It's like plants growing tall enough to steal the sunlight from the smaller plants. It stunts the growth of the smaller plants.

I have read that the US Government at that time, subsidized various (mostly northern) industries, and I am not surprised at all to discover that one of them was the Shipping industry.

This made it possible to clear the sandbars without getting stuck. An added benefit was that now bales of cotton could fit more easily in the flat-floored hold and carrying capacity was greatly increased. At first, the sailing qualities of such a vessel was doubted, but soon, to the relief of their owners, these flat-bottomed ships proved to have fine sailing qualities. These were the ships used in the coastal trade.

Like this?

The Northern business interests were in full control of the market. However, by the end of the antebellum period, with southern ship building beginning to establish itself, improvements in both New Orleans and Mobile Bay harbors, and South Carolina's self-financed dredging of Charleston arbor, the entire northern shipping combine was about to become vulnerable to direct European trade. Suddenly, secession totally eliminated the transportation of Southern goods. This brought about a 60% drop in volume for all the Northern operators....IMMEDIATELY. Lincoln's office became filled with Governors and businessmen immediately after his inauguration.

All demanding he "DO SOMETHING" to get that money back. People of today simply have no understanding of the economic desperation that existed in that by gone era.

Earning a living was *HARD*. Most people in the North did not initially realize the economic cost to them of the South going independent. When the pain began to bite, many of them realized they were facing bankruptcy and destitution.

A lot of people don't want to understand this because they very much want to believe that their "team" was morally right, and the thought that they were not is just abhorrent to them.

They want to believe what they were taught because everyone wishes to believe they are the "good guys."

As I have said repeatedly, My family left Europe in the 1900s. By the time we got here, the war had been over for 35 years or more. I can be objective because I don't have a dog in that fight.

How does he reconcile the leaders of the Confederacy insisting that slavery was the Cornerstone of the Confederacy?

Let me make this clear to you, the more significant issue of the Civil War was whether or not the Rights articulated in the Declaration of Independence exist and are fundamental or not.

The Slavery issue we no longer have with us, but the Right of Self Determination is still wanting for a final answer.

The Question is, do you believe in Despotism or not? We are all currently slaves to the Washington/New York power corridor, and if you don't recognize that, you are a fool. The current course we are following will take us into economic and social collapse, and the masters of the nation will insist that we remain, like galley slaves , until we hit that crash.

The idea that we could strike out on our own and avoid the financial meltdown which the New York/DC power brokers have set in motion, was murdered by the false assertions used to legitimizing the Civil War. (Which was really a war about greed.)

If you are talking about Slavery instead of the right of self determination, you are focusing on the red herring and not the moral issue which truly mattered in the longer sweep of history.

You have been gulled into selling your birthright for a Mess of Pottage.

Northern Businessmen Were Awakened to the Consequences of Confederate Free Trade

2/19/1861 Commercial interests in the North were greatly disturbed over the secession of the Southern States, and the announcement of the 13% tariff. They feared great financial harm to Northern shipping through the use of foreign shipping sources, and harm to manufacturing from the lower import tariffs at Southern ports.

An editorial in the Manchester, New Hampshire Union Democrat voiced the common concerns of Northern mercantile interests:

“The Southern Confederacy will not employ our ships, or buy our goods. What is our shipping without it? Literally nothing. The transportation of Cotton and its fabrics employ more ships than all other trade. It is very clear that the South gains by this process, and we lose. NO—we MUST NOT let the South go!”

The anticipated result of the low tariff was that practically all foreign trade would be diverted to Charleston and New Orleans. The Mississippi would divert trade from New York, Boston, the Erie Canal, and Chicago.

I don't see any word of abolitionism mentioned in this editorial which is advocating forced reunion of the seceded states.

What your education did not include was the fact that virtually all political and editorial conversation about slavery and abolition disappeared shortly after Lincoln took office. Your comment: “By the time the Civil War arrived, Abolitionism had grown into a formidable national movement” was being replaced with something else.

Until this time, a large part of the northern press contended that the States of the South had a full right to secede if the people desired to withdraw from the Union, and it was common to see in the northern press the words, “Erring sisters go in peace.”

Horace Greeley’s paper had said the following,

”If seven or eight contiguous States shall present themselves authentically at Washington, saying: ‘We hate the Federal Union; we have withdrawn from it; we will give you the choice between acquiescing in our secession and arranging amicably all incidental questions on the one hand, and attempting to subdue us on the other,’ we could not stand up for coercion, for subjugation, for we do not think it would be just. We hold the right of self-government even when invoked in behalf of those who deny it to others. “

This conservative view of the question which Mr. Greeley gave to the world with such emphasis, and in which he expressed his opinion of the principle involved, had been reiterated for days, weeks and months after the election of Mr. Lincoln, and until after most of the Southern States had seceded.

They continued until after the people of the South had adopted a constitution, and organized their new Confederate Government; after they had raised and equipped an army, appointed ambassadors to foreign courts, and convened a congress; after they had taken possession of three fourths of the arsenals and forts within their territory, and enrolled her as one of the nations of the earth.

After all this, Mr. Greeley’s paper continued to endorse the action of all southern people as fully as it was possible for language to enable it to do so. Mr. Greeley had said:

“Whenever it shall be clear that the great body of southern people have become conclusively alienated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will do
our best to forward their views. “

The most prominent men and able editors of Republican papers all over the North had earnestly and ably supported Mr. Greeley in his views.

The following was published in the Commercial which was the leading Republican paper of Ohio. After Mr. Lincoln was inaugurated, the Commercial said:

”We are not in favor of blockading the southern coast. We are not in favor of retaking by force the property of the United States now in possession of the seceders. We would recognize the existence of a government formed of all the slave-holding States, and attempt to cultivate amicable relations with it.”

In addition to all this, the commander of the Federal army, General Winfield Scott, was very emphatic in endorsing the views of the New York Tribune and other papers, to the effect that secession was the proper course for the southern people to pursue, and his oft- repeated expression, “Wayward sisters, part in peace,” seemed to meet the full approval of the great body of the people of the North.

This rapidly changed.

As expected, your response fails to even address the specific pro-slavery wording deliberately incorporated into the Confederate constitution, BEFORE the first shots were even fired. Do you think that Northern abolitionists didn't read those words? Do you think that Slavery wasn't on the mind of many Northerners as they sent their sons off to War?

There simply no way that so many Northern young mean were sent to their deaths, over a 5 year War, without the Abolition of Slavery as an underpinning principle, whether openly stated or not.

On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, less than 2 years after the outbreak of hostilities.

Whether written or not, and whether official or not, the ending of the scourge of Slavery was on the minds of countless thousands of Union soldiers and families. All you have to to is read their letters. Pay a little less attention to the leaders with their convenient propaganda, and a little more to the People, or you're simply not seeing the whole picture.

That ending Slavery was a critical goal of the War practically goes without saying. It was obvious.

As for perpetuating Slavery and enshrining it in formal Law, there's simply no other explanation for the CHANGES that the Confederacy introduced to their constitution, their founding document.

Where the U.S. Constitution couldn't even directly speak of Slavery, the Confederate constitution made it clear.

Citing the fact that Slavery was "permitted" under the original Constitution means nothing. It was always anathema to Liberty, hypocritical, and a glaring contradiction to even the Declaration of Independence.

By the time the Civil War came around, most Americans believed it to be the Great Wrong, including plenty of Southerners who couldn't afford to own slaves, or didn't want to, and who were seduced into sacrificing their lives by the "State's Rights" principle.

It was the wrong underlying "principle" for the South to hang its hat on, and it provided the moral underpinnings for the North to ultimately persevere and win using the brutal tactics and strategies which were empoloyed.

The North ultimately saw it as a Righteous Cause, and that is what gave them the "Moral Authority" and the Will to crush the Confederacy.

I don't think it takes an incredible amount of book-reading or analysis to understand the Civil Was about Slavery, and to accept that History has passed its judgement.

Denying or minimizing the central role that Slavery played in the Northern will to fight the War, and in the South's resistance to necessary change, is simply a reductionist interpretation.

I mean, almost all Wars are about greed, of course. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that. But their justification is always found in something else, and in the case of the American Civil War, that "justification" towers, morally, above all other causes.

One need only go back to Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration to see that it contained a stinging indictment of Slavery and the Slave Trade. Jefferson's diatribe was deleted in order to preserve unity at the time. In other words, to appease the Southern colonies who would not have signed it otherwise.

Slavery remains America's Original Sin, and the Civil War was simply the settling of that Debt.

A cowardly Congress was never brave enough to settle the issue, and the result was the loss of over a million lives during the Lincoln administration.

People of the time disagreed with you.

“The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States....The Southern States now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States that the Colonies did towards Great Britain....Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern States are compelled to meet the very despotism their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776. .” ~ Rhett

“The cause in which we are engaged is the cause of the advocacy of rights to which we were born, those for which our fathers of the Revolution bled—the richest inheritance that ever fell to man, and which it is our sacred duty to transmit untarnished to our children. Upon us is devolved the high and holy responsibility of preserving the Constitutional liberty of a free government.” (President Jefferson Davis, speech in Richmond, June 1, 1861)

“We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honour and independence; we ask no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms.” President Jefferson Davis, 29 April, 1861

“At a time when the minds of men are straying far from the lessons our fathers taught, it seems proper and well to recur to the original principles on which the system of government they devised was founded. The eternal truths which they announced, the rights which they declared “unalienable,” are the foundation-stones on which rests the vindication of the Confederate cause.” — President Jefferson Davis

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.