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.

[jmacusa]

You really are insane. This is a man who was president of the Confederacy. The right he speaks of is the right to own a human being as was enshrined in the Confederate Constitution. Christ Almighty you're a hop in the ass.

[PeaRidge]

Read it again.

“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)

[DiogenesLamp]

The Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in areas controlled by Union forces.

No, it only ended slavery in Confederate territory controlled by Union forces. It did *NOT* end slavery in Maryland (presumably also under the control of Union forces) or Missouri, etc.

It did not end slavery *ANYWHERE* except in Non Union states, which is why I said Bondage ended under the Stars and Bars, yet continued under the US Flag.

The Confederacy was not formed to end slavery.

It was in a manner. It was formed to end the control by the Nation's masters who lived in Washington D.C. and New York. (The Masters under which we still suffer to this day.)

How in the hell you could make such an assertion is incredible. You really are an idiot.

That the concept was beyond your ability to grasp is no surprise to me. You are a slow and dull witted thinker in my estimation.

[DiogenesLamp]

This rapidly changed.

Once they figured out how much money just walked out the door.

[DiogenesLamp]

As expected, your response fails to even address the specific pro-slavery wording deliberately incorporated into the Confederate constitution

I will not address it because it does not alter their God given right to leave the Union for whatever reason they D@mn well please! Their morality is not the issue here. Immoral people still have rights, and it is their rights and the rights of subsequent people to engage in self determination that are the larger, more consequential issue at stake.

As I pointed out, the Original 13 colonies were equally immoral to the Southern states, for they all were slave states at the time they declared their independence from the United Kingdom. Slavery was not the focus of their right to independence in 1776, and it is not a legitimate focus of the exact same right in 1861.

Add to this that the Union still possessed slave states, and all these moral questions succeed in accomplishing is to demonstrat that the Union people were hypocrites.

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

But if your claims were true, that the war was commenced to free the slaves, then the emancipation would have been issued *BEFORE* the outbreak of hostilities. That it took almost two years demonstrates clearly that it wasn't the primary reason for hostilities.

Add to this the fact that Lincoln made it clear that he would continue slavery if the South would but rejoin the Union, and your claims of a "moral war" are demonstrated to be just so many lies.

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

No, it is a most desperately desired justification for the War's later day apologists, but it isn't at all obvious. What was obvious is that slavery would have continued in the Union had the South never seceded, or had it been defeated before the first 18 months.

In fact, Slavery *DID* continue in the Union for awhile *AFTER* it had been ended in the Confederacy. That one fact alone puts the lie to your claim. The facts clearly agree with what the London Spectator said of the Emancipation Proclamation.

“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.”

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.

Sure. Kill a four hundred thousand of your own people, and you will need to come up with a "righteous cause" D@mn quick. Unfortunately it is not "the cause" they cited when they entered the war, it is the one they claimed after the bloodshed was wrought and they had obtained no real profit from the debacle they caused.

The Union apologists are *STILL* clinging to it as a "righteous cause" because the thought that they had done something so horribly evil as to murder their brothers for money to line rich Robber Baron pockets, is something their minds refuse to accept.

The War was over money, and the Northern men who were sent to oppress their brothers in the South did not die for a noble cause. They were lied to and misled, and their sacrifices were spent to empower Washington D.C. and the Financial Lords of the Nation who were headquartered in New York.

The War was over Money. Slave money.

[DiogenesLamp]

I never argued that point. The fact is the Stars And Bars fought to perpetuate slavery.

As did this flag for "Four Score and Seven Years."

Stop trying to run away from the slave blood on Union Hands. Stop trying to mislead people as to why the Union invaded the South. Your "team" needs to atone for the evil they have done.

[DiogenesLamp]

You really are insane. This is a man who was president of the Confederacy. The right he speaks of is the right to own a human being as was enshrined in the Confederate Constitution.

STOP THOU HYPOCRITE! The US Constitution enshrined the right to own slaves!

Slavery existed far longer under the US Constitution than it ever did under the Confederate one. Pluck the beam out of thine own eye before you worry about the mote in your brothers eye.

[jmacusa]

The man was lying his ass off.

[jmacusa]

Lampster, you’ve been getting your ass kicked up and down this thread. Give it up.

[jmacusa]

The US Constitution enshrined the right to own slaves? Really? And what amendment was that?

[DiogenesLamp]

Lampster, you’ve been getting your ass kicked up and down this thread. Give it up.

You really are delusional. You are like the "Black Knight."

I have chopped you into giblet meat, but your are both too ignorant and too unintelligent to realize it.

[DiogenesLamp]

The US Constitution enshrined the right to own slaves? Really? And what amendment was that?

Idiot. IDIOT! It was in the body of the document. Article IV, section 2.

You really do not understand enough about this topic to be discussing it with those of us who do.

[PeaRidge]

Yeah, you were there and saw it. Thats how you know that I am sure.

[DoodleDawg]

And as usual, you assert claims in contradiction with the facts extant.

There is a lot of that going around.

You are a waste of time. You've got your religion, and I'm not dressed for church.

And yet you responded again after you posted this one.

[DiogenesLamp]

And yet you responded again after you posted this one.

It is one of my character flaws to not let lies sit on the table without challenge.

It is a bad habit which I should make more of an effort to break. Some people are simply not cognizant enough to bother with.

[HandyDandy]

Quite simply, the cornerstone of the Confederacy was Slavery. The group of states that seceded were bound together by Slavery. It was what they held in common and swore to maintain and perpetuate. In point of fact, it was a criteria of joining the Confederacy. No non-Slave state was acceptable by the Confederacy. This is not arguable. Just think about that for a second. Try to maintain your focus on those terrible four years before going off half-cocked and looking through the wrong end of your telescope and reinterpreting the 1860’s through terms of the 1770’s.

[DiogenesLamp]

Quite simply, the cornerstone of the Confederacy was Slavery.

Quite simply, that has not a D@mn thing to do with the right to Independence as articulated by the 13 slave holding states in the Declaration of Independence.

The right of Independence was the central issue of the War, and Lincoln took the side of King George III.

He rebuked the principle invoked in our own founding; That people had a right to abolish their existing government and create one that suited their interests.

I know you wish to focus on the lesser moral issue of slavery, and this is because you have not a leg to stand on regarding the greater moral issue of the right to independence.

Which is the issue that is still with us today.

[HandyDandy]

It is a fatal flaw to compare the Revolution of the Colonies against a Monarchy in which they had no representation with the War between the States of a Union. It is a fatal flaw to refer to the original Thirteen Colonies as "slave holding". Yes, slavery existed in the Colonies, as acknowledged by the Constitution. But you know you are stretching your false parallels to refer to the the Colonies as "slave-holding". It was barely tolerated, reluctantly acknowledged, certainly not a leading economic component, not cherished as a peculiar institution, and steps were underway to put an end to it. Views in the slave-holding Southern States during the period leading up to the Civil War were vastly and dramatically different. So stop that please.

You repeatedly misinterpret the article of the Constitution known as the the slave clause. The point of it isn't that slavery must be a perpetual institution throughout the land, as you like to put forth, rather the point of it is that yes there existed ownership of men by other men and State rights needed to honor and respect the rights of other States. Obviously, in contradiction to your twisted interpretations, this readily acknowledged that at that point in time there were States that tolerated the practice and States that did not.

I know this is falling on deaf ears and that you will either skip back to the Magna Carta or fast forward to the 14th Ammendment. But just for once, please think about the Confederate Flag. God forbid that it should ever be wrested from those who nobly fought to protect hearth and home with a true patriotic spirit while being misled by their misguided political leaders. Blame your 750,000 dead on the Slave Aristocracy. It was they who made the peculiar institution a cause for declaring independence. Slavery was the reason for the Confederacy. Slavery of the Blackman by the Whiteman was the reason d'etre of the Confederacy.

Where you also fall flat is in your monomaniacal insistence that South had a natural law right, a God given right, whatever you call it, to declare themselves independent. Nobody denies that. I believe it is historically accurate to say that the real SlaveHolding states did secede. They formed their own separate government, elected leadership, chose a capital, money, foreign and domestic ambassadors, etc, etc. They called themselves the Confederacy. But it didn't work. Independence is something you have to fight for and win.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is a fatal flaw to compare the Revolution of the Colonies against a Monarchy in which they had no representation with the War between the States of a Union.

No. I utterly reject your premise. There are no "Conditions" on the right to independence.

You repeatedly misinterpret the article of the Constitution known as the the slave clause.

No, it is your side which refuses to acknowledge it for what it is. The Founders were loath to put the word "Slavery" into the constitution, but the Slave holding states would have balked at agreeing to it without some safeguard for their concerns.

It *IS* a runaway slave clause. That is EXACTLY what it is, and it was routinely broken by most of the Union States because they didn't like it. Joseph Story gave them a legal "fig leaf" for doing so with his Prigg v Pennsylvania ruling; a ruling that has caused a lot of damage way beyond just the issue of slavery.

Blame your 750,000 dead on the Slave Aristocracy.

They didn't invade anyone. They didn't even kill anyone until they were invaded. The blood shed started with the Union trying to stop Independence for people who had a right to it.

They called themselves the Confederacy. But it didn't work. Independence is something you have to fight for and win.

Not when it is supposed to be the accepted foundational law of the existing Nation.

Fighting for independence from a Monarchy which never recognized such a right is one thing, but fighting for independence from a nation that explicitly states this right as justification for it's own Independence is simply bizarre.

And what did Abraham Lincoln have to say about this right to Independence?

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,-- most sacred right--a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.

He was of course, speaking about Texas, who's independence he supported when it was breaking away from Mexico, but who's independence he absolutely opposed when it was breaking away from him.

You have no moral argument for killing people who sought independence, and you and your side are constantly trying to trump the greater moral issue of a right to Independence with the lesser moral issue of slavery, because it is the only weapon you have in your arsenal.

You are desperate to justify the murders committed by a despotic and tyrannical government in suppressing the rights to independence for others, and so you keep coming back to the tired old "But... but... Slavery!" argument.

No, a johnny come lately after the fact justification based on slavery does not absolve you of the murders committed for what was really a case of power and money.

[DiogenesLamp]

Might as well post this here. It speaks directly to the issue.