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.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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."

At least two points to remember here:

1. Southerners dominated the Democrat party which dominated Washington, DC almost continuously from 1788 through the election of 1860.
   Therefore, no laws, repeat no laws passed Congress which Southerners strongly opposed.

2. So we can well assume that whatever protections or "bounties" Washington gave Northern businesses were matched by support it provided Southerners, period.

[BroJoeK]

WarIsHellAintItYall: "Suddenly, secession totally eliminated the transportation of Southern goods.
This brought about a 60% drop in volume for all the Northern operators....IMMEDIATELY. "

No, not "immediately" and not "all", since by early 1861 most-all of the 1860 cotton crop had already been sold & shipped.
The theoretical issue then was what about the future 1861 crop due for harvest after July?

Anyway, life in general & business especially is full of ups & downs.
So a projected 60% drop in volume for some New York shippers in early 1861 did not mean total devastation for all Northerners.
Indeed, since only 20% of Southern cotton went through New York to begin with the fact remains that in early 1861 economic life continued as usual throughout most of the US and Cotton-South.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

And you have no clue what you're talking about.
Financial panics are common in financial communities and it's not uncommon for investors to demand protection from politicians.
It is uncommon, and indeed crooked (ala "crooked Hillary" DEMOCRAT) for politicians to put wealthy financial interests ahead of their voting citizens concerns.

Nobody has ever demonstrated that Lincoln himself was secretly a Democrat more interested in money than his duties under the Constitution.

[sargon]

Normal American conservatives understand that many people, indeed most people, are motivated by ideals much different from, and stronger than, strict economic utility.

Correct. The young men being sent South to die weren't the children of rich industrialists, and they weren't thinking about the economic advantages that the magnates were trying to preserve or expand.

They were decent, everyday Americans who were making incredible sacrifices for what they saw as a righteous cause.

The fact that a miniscule percentage thought about the Civil War in terms of "money" doesn't obfuscate the fact the it wasn't about money at all to the untold thousands who were losing their lives on the battlefield and in the POW camps...

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Let me make this clear to you, that's insane.
The more significant issue in 1861 was whether Fire Eaters in Deep South states wishing to protect slavery could win that on the battlefield after provoking, starting, declaring & prosecuting war against the United States.

In 1865 the world learned the answer was: not "no" but "h*ll no!".

The Declaration of Independence does not suggest an unlimited "right" to at pleasure arbitrarily declare secession from lawful, constitutional government.

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

Two key terms on this issue our Founders all accepted were: "mutual consent" and "necessary".
Disunion could be by "mutual consent" of the states and/or when made "necessary" by unlawful government behavior.
Neither condition existed in 1860 and so Deep South Fire Eaters' declarations of secession were unconstitutional, period.
This combined with their provocations, starting, declaring and prosecuting war on the United States made their destruction "necessary" by "mutual consent".

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Of course, but we are not talking about today, we are talking about 1860 when Fire Eaters began declaring secession "at pleasure", then provoked, started, declared and prosecuted war against the United States.
Today's situation is very different and so your "slavery" term is only valid metaphorically, or by analogy, certainly not literally in the sense of 1860's slavery.

Further there is zero possibility -- none, nada -- that states will begin declaring 1860 style secession.
What could well happen is a new constitutional convention of states which could, in due time, place stricter limits on Federal powers, or concurrently grant states greater authority against Federal encroachments.
But I'd think that somewhat unlikely so long as the progressive agenda continues to dominate majority thinking around the country.

Your alternative, DiogenesLamp, is simply to leave this country for some other you find more compatible with your own beliefs.
And since you seem such a devoted Marxist historian, may I suggest places where Marx is still held in high esteem -- oh, how about North Korea just for example?

;-)

DiogenesLamp: "...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."

And you, good sir, are a raving lunatic utterly devoted to falsifying history to support your current insanities.
The fact is the past is the past, and back then the issue for Deep South Fire Eaters was protecting slavery, nothing else worth mentioning.
If there were other advantages to secession, no doubt they were considered helpful, but the issue forcing secession was only slavery.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Slavery began under various flags, but not the Confederate flag."

Just so we're clear on this:

Throughout its existence as symbol of the Confederacy, the CBF protected slavery in Confederate territory not under Union Army control.
In Confederate regions under control of the US flag slaves were emancipated by Presidential proclamation.
And each year those Union regions grew in size until by April 1865 they covered most of the South.

After Unconditional Surrender in 1865 the United States ratified the 13th Amendment under its own flag, not the Confederate flag.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "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."

Well, first of all, then as now Manchester was a small city in a small state, not necessarily reflecting concerns of larger metropolitan regions.
Second, the paper's name says it's Democrat meaning allied with Southern Democrats.
So even though it didn't want disunion, that Democrat paper would want war against its erstwhile Southern allies even less.

Third, in those major metropolitan regions like New York their powers-that-be were also Democrats wishing to preserve old alliances and not wishing to wage war on their political allies down South.

Finally, New Orleans in 1860 was already the major port, shipping half of US cotton and along with other Gulf Coast ports 80%.
So all this alleged major economic disruption concerns just 20% of future cotton which could ship through Northeastern cities like New York.

And since such merchants were typically political enemies of newly elected Republicans, their mere economic concerns were unlikely to find much sympathy in Washington, DC.

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

Of course not, because they were Democrats, erstwhile allies of Southern slave-holding Democrats.
Such northerners had no moral issues with Southern slavery, but as of 1860 they were the distinct minority.

The majority of Northerners in 1860 were Republicans whose moral concerns about slavery found expression every Sunday morning in church.
Church... you remember that?
The place where they teach "do unto others as..."

Used to be a big thing in this country, and for some of us, still is.

[DiogenesLamp]

Let me make this clear to you, that's insane.

Trying to argue with a cultist like you is insane. You have no objectivity. You are like George Stephanopolous talking about who should be President.

When I bother to read your posts, I seldom see anything of any interest. It is invariably more regurgitation of the same incorrect talking points you always bring.

It is clear that you are against freedom. You only believe in it in a sort of "mother may I" fashion.

The Tidal wave of evidence against you simply breaks on the hard rock of your head.

[DiogenesLamp]

After Unconditional Surrender in 1865 the United States ratified the 13th Amendment under its own flag, not the Confederate flag.

Right. Slavery was *STILL EXISTING* under the Union flag. A quite obvious bit of proof that eradicating it was not the reason for the invasion.

That bit of hypocrisy lingered awhile longer until Lincoln could threaten, bribe and cajole enough people into supporting that Amendment. Oh, and he put a gun to the head of all the Southern states and *FORCED THEM AT THE POINT OF A GUN* to pass that amendment.

But it's all Legitimate, and "consent of the governed" and all that ethical stuff. It wasn't Dictatorial at all.

The Evil people won that war. They murdered 750,000 people to do it, but what are human lives to Dictators?

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge quoting: "...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... "

According to this source, Greeley's enthusiasm for secession ended by January 1861, after which he quickly began to support harder measures against the Confederacy and is given "credit" for the 1861 slogan "on to Richmond".

Indeed, historians say of Greeley not that he supported secession, but rather that he opposed all proposed compromises of Republican principles intended to woo back Southern states to the Union.
So, what Greeley was saying in November 1860 was: don't grant slavery more constitutional guarantees, let those states go instead.
But when secessionists soon began provoking war, then Greeley's opinions on them quickly changed.

PeaRidge quoting: " 'Wayward sisters, part in peace,' seemed to meet the full approval of the great body of the people of the North.
This rapidly changed."

What so rapidly changed it was the Confederacy's unending provocations for war, each new one more flagrant than the last, culminating in their assault on Fort Sumter.

[DiogenesLamp]

More like the Race Obsessed Liberal Lawyer President from Illinois made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Indeed, i've been looking at Illinois politics of that era. Apparently Illinois has always been a criminally minded cesspool of corruption and extortion.

Same then as now.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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!"

But no such "right" was ever written, implied or believed by any US Founder.
It is totally, 100% a fiction of your own warped imagination.

Indeed, when presented with exactly such threats of secession, each Founder responded appropriately -- From President Jefferson arresting Aaron Burr to President Madison sending troops to put down a possible rebellion at the time of the Hartford Convention.

On this our Founders beliefs are clear: disunion could lawfully come from mutual consent or from necessity caused by serious breeches of the Constitutional compact.

No Founder ever agreed to secession "at pleasure".

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

But the Declaration makes clear it is driven by necessity from the King's many misdeeds, which it itemized at length.
It's those kingly & parliamentary misdeeds, and nothing else, which made Independence necessary.

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

Despite your repeated claims, Northerners in 1860 were in no way "hypocrites".
They believed slavery was morally wrong because that's what they learned in church, and that's why they outlawed slavery in their own states.

Northerners also believed, correctly, that slavery was constitutionally recognized, authorized and permitted in Southern states which wanted it.
So most-all Northerners in 1860 had no intention of, or even desire to, outlaw slavery in the South.
Their goals were to prevent slavery's expansion into western territories or Northern states through the SCOTUS Dred-Scott decision.

No hypocrisy, but when the Confederacy started & declared war most Northerners soon saw the possibility of abolishing slavery through victory in war.
And that helped to keep them going through many dark days.

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

Only pro-Confederates make such a straw-man argument.
Nobody else is confused about why the Confederacy started Civil War and why the Union accepted it.
Slavery played a role in both cases, but defending the Confederacy and protecting the Union were the first thoughts in spring of 1861.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

On any day between May 6, 1861 when the Confederacy formally declared war and April 9, 1865 when General Lee surrendered unconditionally to General Grant, the Confederacy could have asked for peace on much better terms than the ones they elected to receive.

Early in the war those terms could have been almost anything Confederates wanted, including slavery or "just compensation" for their slaves.
But as war continued and deaths mounted without letup, terms the Union might accept grew less and less favorable, until in the end only Unconditional Surrender was available.

None of this reflects poorly on Union morals but certainly does reflect Confederate leaders' poor judgments.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Unlike some of their Confederate cousins, Northerners in 1860 were fully committed to maintaining the constitutional compromise regarding slavery -- it could be legal where wanted and outlawed where not wanted.
Yes, most Northerners believed the Bible taught against slavery, but they were willing to tolerate a necessary evil to preserve the Union.

But when Confederates started & declared war then most Northerners came to see victory as providing the necessary methods for abolishing slavery permanently, everywhere.

DiogenesLamp: "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.' "

Those remaining loyal to the Constitution were still protected by its recognition of slavery until ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865.

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

Because it's just cockamamie nonsense invented by lost causer mythologizers.
The truth is that slavery played important roles at the beginning of war, though it took years of fighting to convince most Northerners that total abolition was the only possible just outcome of warfare.

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

Spoken like a true Marxist masquerading as a pro-Confederate lost causer.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge quoting allegedly Fire Eater Robert Rhett: "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."

Of course it's a Big Lie, but the alleged date is important.
If before April 1861 then it's complete fantasy.
If after April 1861 then Rhett is lying to protect the fact that he and other Fire Eaters campaigned not only for secession but also for war against the United States.

This Rhett quote is from the 1850 Nashville Convention:

"Let it be that I am a Traitor.
The word has no terrors for me...I have been born of traitors, but, thank God, they have been Traitors in the great cause of liberty, fighting against tyranny and oppression.
Such treason will ever be mine whilst true to my lineage.
No, No, my friends!
Smaller States before us struggled successfully, for their independence, and freedom against far greater odds; and if it must be, we can make one long, last, desperate struggle, for our rights and honor, ere the black pall of tyranny is stretched over the bier of our dead liberties.
To meet death a little sooner or a little later, can be of consequence to very few of us.."

Rhett was a stark raving lunatic, even in 1850.
He was very influential in South Carolina in 1860.

PeaRidge quoting Davis, June 1, 1861: "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..."

Well, naturally, having brought war down on himself Davis reached for the protection of Founding Fathers and Constitution.
One difference is that our Founders never started a war they couldn't win.
Another is that slavery was not a core principle amongst most Founders.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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."

Obviously you post such nonsense with a smirk and a snort, thinking just maybe somebody, somewhere could take it seriously.

In historical fact the stars & bars flag protected slavery wherever it flew, while the Union flag emancipated slaves throughout the Confederacy.

But Constitutionally, Federal government could not aboloish slavery within loyal Union states except by Constitutional Amendment -- the 13th, ratified in 1865.

Only a serious propagandist could distort such simple truth into something approaching its opposite.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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."

More lunacy of the stark-raving madness variety.
In fact, Northern states abolished slavery gradually and peacefully decades before 1860.
But since the Constitution recognized slavery in the South Northerners made no moves to abolish it there, before the Civil War.

So there's no hypocrisy in that, just insanity in pro-Confederate propagandists pretending otherwise.

[jmacusa]

On this point I respectfully disagree BroJoeK. As a item of relevance concerning an important and tragic period of American history I can abide the Confederate flag as displayed in a museum or certainly if an individual wants to display it on their private property, fine. But not on public property , no. Speaking for myself I don't believe Confederate dead deserve veneration. Imagine for a moment had they won the war. What kind of a nation would America be? For that matter what kind of a world would there be?

[BroJoeK]

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

Of course there are, and it's pure fantasy to claim otherwise.
Our Founders certainly never did.
All recognized that legitimate disunion required one or both of 1) mutual consent or 2) necessity from unlawful government.

[jmacusa]

For the life of me I can't find where in the US Constitution slavery is allowed.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

That word "destructive" was just as meaningful in 1776 as it is today.
It does not mean, "I have a headache this morning, so you are 'destructive' of my rights."
It does mean a long list of serious abuses which the Declaration itemized, but which were totally absent in 1860, thus making Fire Eater secessions "at pleasure".

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "BroJoeK has already admitted that the 1/4th of the population living in the South contributed 50% of the total export value.
The sources I have say it was 72% in 1860."

To be precise, in 1860 roughly 50% of US imports (thus duties) were paid for by exports of cotton.
This includes those imports paid for by specie (California gold)transfers.

Your 72% is only valid if you exclude some categories of payments for imports.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "You mean after the Lincoln "heavies" had paid him a visit?
He was saying stuff like "The South is Evil!..."

In fact, if anything Greeley was always more anti-slavery than Lincoln and never hesitated to criticize Lincoln where Greeley believed Lincoln weak on principles.

Historians tell us the reason Greeley said, in November 1860, "let them go" was to stiffen weak-willed Republicans against their natural tendency to compromise away principles.
Greeley was saying: don't give secessionists what they want on slavery, hold firm and if necessary "let them go".

Once they did go, and began provoking war then Greeley quickly joined the "go get them" side of Republican hard-liners.

So it was not fear of Lincoln which changed Greeley's mind, but rather Greeley's consistent support for abolition of slavery.