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]

Once the Confederacy started the war then Greeley was supportive of the war effort, if not always supportive of Lincoln's actions in pursuing it. In may ways Greeley was far more blood-thirsty than the Southern supporters paint Lincoln as being.

I am reminded of an incident between Hitler and his Architect, Albert Speer. When they were designing some piece of architecture that was intended to be a reflection of Hitler, Hitler said he wanted it to be some ridiculous size, to which Albert Speer replied, "No My Fuhrer, it must be bigger!"

Toadies are always massaging the egos of their masters. Once Lincoln's men made certain whom Greely must answer too, he became a good little propaganda organ.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hey Peabody, are you and the Lampster related?

Yes. We are all children of God.

[DiogenesLamp]

Like I said. Crazier by the hour.

It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why a man who was crosswise with this particular president would absolutely reverse himself.

Woodrow Wilson pulled the same stunt during World War I. He locked up anyone who protested or disagreed with him.

Wilson is known for it, but Lincoln pioneered this stuff.

[PeaRidge]

Here is the economic data: (from Historical Statistics of the US, Dept. of Commerce, pg. 164)
Receipts of US Government for 1859—$53,486,000

Revenue from tariffs in 1859—$49,566,000

Federal government spent all of this on Congressional items, Navy and Army budgets, interest on public debt, and veterans pensions.

Tariff data: In 1859 tariff revenue was $49,566,000 on $331,333,000 worth of imports.

The exports from the US that bought those goods were worth $278,902,000 at the ports of exit from the US.

Of that amount, the value of cotton, tobacco, rice, naval stores, sugar, molasses, hemp, cotton manufactures (all originating in the South) was worth $198,309,000 (Statistical abstract of the US, 1936 edition,pgs 435-439) or about 71%.

Adams uses the figures of 87% which is the above amounts, plus he adds the value of tariffs paid on overseas purchases made with cash by Southern governments.

If you want the actual tables for mulit-year data, let me know.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you want the actual tables for mulit-year data, let me know.

Thanks. I wish we could find some sort of GDP by state data because I want to separate out what part of the New York/New England economy was tied to the European trade.

I believe your 87% number, but most people on the other side will reject that out of hand. BroJoeK has admitted to 50% of the total. (and this produced by the 1/4th of the population living in the South)

The ugly truth which the other side simply does not wish to believe is that the Money earned by Southern production was extremely significant to the economic interests of the New York/New England industries.

Secession by the Southern states not only removed this source of income, but would have soon created competition for NORTHERN INDUSTRIES, such as Southern based Textile and other factories.

Not only were they going to lose the trade, they would have competing industries undercutting their markets, and the business men of New England were intelligent enough to see this once they had been awoken to the danger an independent South represented to their interests.

It was a matter of financial survival for them to stop this before it got started, hence the war, which was in fact, a protectionist war.

[jmacusa]

Well how do brother! The reason I ask is because he hit’s me with a post and then you do and then he does and then it’s back to you. I’m just wondering if you’re both working from the same keyboard.

[DoodleDawg]

It is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why a man who was crosswise with this particular president would absolutely reverse himself.

Without any basis in fact and unsupported by any evidence. Other than that it's just great.

[rockrr]

If you go back to the 1787-88 debates in the New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and North Carolina legislatures, you will see many examples of secession discussions.

Yes, they did. And no they didn't include them in the final document. None of them accepted the notion of unilateral secession or dissolution “at pleasure”.

We do know that 74 years later, that the United States Congress judged secession to be legal....unilateral or not.

In other words, they recognized that secession was not currently legal and proposed an amendment to the Constitution to make it so. The proposal did not survive the constitutional amendment process and thus is not law.

[rockrr]

Evidence - or are you hallucinating again?

[DiogenesLamp]

Well how do brother! The reason I ask is because he hit’s me with a post and then you do and then he does and then it’s back to you. I’m just wondering if you’re both working from the same keyboard.

People with discernment would recognize his style of writing and mine are quite different. He tends to be the more mature and scholarly type of writer, while I tend to be bombastic and aggressive.

I like incorporating a significant portion of emotion in my arguments because I have long ago realized that humans respond better to emotional arguments than they do to logical ones.

This is one reason why your side always leads with the "SLAVERY IS BAD, AND THEREFORE JUSTIFIES ANYTHING WE DID." Spiel.

People instinctively recognize emotional arguments are more potent, and they gravitate towards them constantly.

I personally prefer to read logical, well thought out reasoning beginning with "First principles", but one must tailor one's method of arguing to the audience for which it is intended.... brother. :)

[PeaRidge]

You said: “None of them accepted the notion of unilateral secession or dissolution ‘at pleasure’.”

Read this AGAIN.....If you go back to the 1787-88 debates in the New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, and North Carolina legislatures, you will see many examples of secession discussions. There were several efforts to codify, modify, and place limits on states involved in seceding. State legislatures would not make secession illegal, and thus neither did the Constitution.

So that this is perfectly clear, ratifying state legislatures would not in any way limit secession.

And as I said also, given the opportunity to pass legislation limiting secession, neither would the US Congress.

[rockrr]

Right - they talked about circumstances that would warrant such a drastic move and possible mechanisms to facilitate such an action but none of those talks bore fruit.

None of them accepted the notion of unilateral secession or dissolution “at pleasure”.

[PeaRidge]

Restrictions on secession were debated but never ratified...unilateral or not.

[jmacusa]

I know your styles are different. it’s just you two ‘’tag team’’. And your side always leads with the ‘’defending our heritage’’ spiel.

[DiogenesLamp]

I know your styles are different. it’s just you two ‘’tag team’’. And your side always leads with the ‘’defending our heritage’’ spiel.

Apparently you missed the part where I explained that it isn't "my heritage."

My family came to America around 1900, and they did not settle in a Confederate State.

I have no ancestors that fought in that war. I had no ancestors on either side of the conflict. I do not live in a Confederate state, and never have. As a matter of fact, I grew up very much pro-Union/pro-USA, and even attended "Lincoln" Grade school as a Kid.

I remember on "Lincoln Day" we all made cardboard cut-outs of Lincoln's silhouette.

About the Civil War I did not give a rip. It had nothing to do with me, and the first I really learned of it was in Jr. High School.

I didn't realize something was amiss until my best friend since high school (who happens to be black) was pursuing his History Major in college. I used to go over to his house to lift weight with him, and one day he told me that he had just learned in one of his history classes that Lincoln cleverly started the war.

He told me how Lincoln did it, and he told me details of which I had never heard. It was only a few years ago that I verified that those details he told me were essentially correct, and so the burden of evidence shifted my opinion towards supporting the position that Lincoln did in fact engineer the war.

It was only since last February that I started to realize *WHY* Lincoln would have engineered the start of such a horrible war.

It's always money. And now I know where the money came from, and now I know where the money was going, who lost it, and who gained it, and why there needed to be a war.

And every piece of it dovetails with the evidence.

But again, it's not "My" heritage. About the time the US Civil War was going on, my Ancestors were traipsing around Denmark and Russia.

[DiogenesLamp]

None of them accepted the notion of unilateral secession or dissolution “at pleasure”.

Why do you keep using that trivializing term "at pleasure"?

Isn't it up to every people to decide for themselves what constitutes hardship?

I know the English thought the Colonists were complaining about no great inconvenience, and from the British perspective, they were seceding "at pleasure."

Hardship and incompatibility are in the eye of the beholder, and the only beholder that matters are those people who feel they no longer belong with a National government that they regard as oppressive to them.

What constitutes necessary Self Determination is up to the people who want it, not to the people who want to stop them.

[jmacusa]

Mine fought for the Army Of The Potomac. You haven’t got a dog in this fight.

[DiogenesLamp]

Mine fought for the Army Of The Potomac. You haven’t got a dog in this fight.

And that's why you are so determined to justify what they did. You *DO* have a dog in the fight.

Demonstrate that the Invasion was evil and your family is implicated in the Horrors committed.

Sorry about that, I just calls em as I see em.

[rockrr]

Spoken like a true anarchist.

[BroJoeK]

WarIsHelAintItYall: "Direct purchase of cotton by the 'factors' enabled the Southern growers to quickly turn a profit instead of waiting months for the cotton to be sold, and the money to return to them.
But this benefit also cut their profits."

In support of your argument, I'll reference possibly the best source.
However, it appears to me they and you exaggerate the importance of Northern shipping to Southern cotton exports.

Other facts should also be considered:

1. In politics for over 70 years, from 1788 until the election of 1860, Southerners dominated the Democrat party (and its predecessors)and Democrats dominated in Washington DC, nearly 90% of the time.
   So nothing happened -- zero, zip, nada happened -- which Southern Democrats strongly opposed, certainly including tariffs and US navigation laws.

2. That's why no US laws -- zero, zip, nada laws -- ever prevented Southerners from building, operating and profiting by their own shipping.

3. Many Southerners did build, operate and profit from their own ships, especially in ports like New Orleans and Baltimore.

4. During the 1850s nearly half of Southern cotton exported from New Orleans directly to international customers -- data from this source is key to my argument.
   It says: of New Orleans total exports only 15% went to Northern US customers.
   So there's no reason to suppose that Southern ships did not transport a very large portion of New Orleans exports.

5. Which ports did the other half of Southern cotton ship from?
   Well, as this map clearly suggests, mostly from other Gulf Coast ports in Texas or Alabama, and some cotton traveled by railroad to Northern cities like Philadelphia.
   So smaller South-eastern ports like Charleston & Savanah could not have shipped more than 20% of all US cotton.
   They were simply not that significant in the bigger picture:

   

6. Compare the map of cotton to one of 1860 Southern railroads:

   

7. Finally, notice the regions and products for other Southern exports:

   

WarIsHelAintItYall: "Business was business and our men in Washington ensured that we would have most of it."

Except they couldn't and they didn't.
By 1860, 80% of Southern cotton exported from Gulf Coast ports in ships which could as easily have been Southern owned as Northern.
So South-East cotton picked up by Northern packets for transshipment in New York or Philadelphia was just a small portion of the total.

SS Planter, built in Charleston, SC, 1860, loaded with 1,000 bales of cotton: