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: "As with all your other attempted rebuttals, you focus on the trivial, and ignore the significant point..."

Naw, all I did was return gratuitous insult for your gratuitous insult.
If you ever wish for serious conversation, you can signal that by conversing seriously, FRiend.

DiogensLamp: "I think i'll skip whatever else you have written, just as I skip most of what you write."

Right, why should you ever disturb your perfect ignorance of real history?
I mean, how could you continue propagandizing utter nonsense once you became aware of real facts?

Oh well, at least you're honest about it -- you admit, in effect, you're only here to lie.
Some of our lost causes imagine they are reporting the truth.

;-)

[DiogenesLamp]

Right, why should you ever disturb your perfect ignorance of real history?

Liberal talking points more like. But as Reagan said:

"The problem with our opponents is not that they are ignorant... it's that they know so much which isn't so."

[DiogenesLamp]

Irony’s lost on you old boy, isn’t it? You, the Confederacy biggest cheerleader and the soul of civility.

I am the TRUTH's biggest cheerleader, and we haven't been hearing the truth from the people who invaded the South and initiated that war.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It was unbeknownst to him that the Federal Government was doing the bidding of the Wealthy and Influential Robber Barons of the New York/New England region to rescue their pocketbooks from the efforts by the South to break away from their economic control..."

Total fantasy.
In fact the entire Union was under threat of Confederate invasion, especially Washington DC, Border States and territories.
Remember, the whole Union Army in early 1861 was only 17,000 with half scattered in small forts out west.
By contrast, Confederates had already called up 100,000 troops and launched war at Fort Sumter.
So Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops to restore seized Federal properties did not even match the Confederate Army.

But in response Jefferson Davis called up another 400,000 Confederate troops and formally declared war on the United States.
So at that point New Yorkers' lost money was the least of Lincoln's concerns.
The main thing was survival of the Republic, and Lincoln's oath of office.

DiogenesLamp: "Of course that double standard for the Wealthy caused one of the worst riots in US History."

As rockrr pointed out, the same "double standard" ruled the Confederacy.
The difference is: the Confederacy had far fewer men to spare and so did a more thorough job of vacuuming up everyone available.
Still, there were many, many Southerners who refused to serve the Confederate Army, and many other Southerners who served in the Union Army.

[DiogenesLamp]

DiogenesLamp: "It was unbeknownst to him that the Federal Government was doing the bidding of the Wealthy and Influential Robber Barons of the New York/New England region to rescue their pocketbooks from the efforts by the South to break away from their economic control..."

Total fantasy.

It is in fact, what is happening right now. From the ideological and regional descendents of the very same people who did it to the nation back in 1861.

Now, instead of the South, it is the entire nation, and instead of one group being slaves, we are now all slaves. The Boston/DC corridor power block are now the nation's international globalists, and their policies are still being implemented by the US Government.

The aftermath of the Civil War was an orgy of corruption precisely because the barriers between government and business had been broken down by the power the Robber Barons wielded in order to start the Civil War.

[BroJoeK]

DoodleDawg: "That was true, North or South."

DiogenesLamp: "The difference is, one was defending their land, the other was leaving their own to go attack others."

In fact, by war's end Confederate forces had invaded or operated as guerillas in most Union states, including:
Maryland, Pennsylvania, western Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado, California and even Vermont.
The Confederate Navy also operated a fleet of commerce raiders (including CSS Sumter, Florida, Alabama, and Shenandoah) which captured many dozens of Union ships.

[central_va]

Gee I could make a movie about the millions of Copperheads in the North but that would be politically incorrect.

[ZULU]

“But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure.”

Gutless, spineless, collaborating, vile, scumbag. I hope a Democrat beats this bastard. It would be worth it to get him out of Congress.

[DiogenesLamp]

When any of that equates to sending 35,000 men to conquer your nation’s capital, you let me know.

[central_va]

I could also make a movie about the “Emancipation Proclamation” How it went over in the North like a fart in church, that actually freed no one, caused massive draft/race rioting and led to the mass conscription of whites and blacks.

[DoodleDawg]

Gee I could make a movie about the millions of Copperheads in the North but that would be politically incorrect.

Just do a better job than Gary Ross did.

[DoodleDawg]

I could also make a movie about the “Emancipation Proclamation” How it went over in the North like a fart in church, that actually freed no one, caused massive draft/race rioting and led to the mass conscription of whites and blacks.

Not big on "based on a true story" are you?

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "The merchants of that city imported three fourths of the European goods consumed in the country, and they in turn exported nearly all of the great crops with which the balance of trade was maintained."

Once again, this report is from New Orleans, 1857:

"Of cotton the total receipts at New Orleans for the year were one and a half million of bales, the average price being 124 cents per pound.
Of this. there were
1. shipped to Great Britain 749,485 bales;
2. to France. 258,103;
3. to other parts of Europe, 186,069; and,
4. to United States ports, 223,204 [=15%].

The entire crop of the South is estimated to have been a little short of three millions of bales."

So New Orleans claims to ship half of all cotton, 85% of it directly to Europe, and again, this map demonstrates that upwards of 80% of all cotton must ship through Gulf Coast ports:

Therefore, it appears that claims all cotton exports went through New York are highly exaggerated.

Imports are a different matter:

Here we see in 1859 that 75% of import revenues did come through New York, and over 90% through the four largest eastern cities.

The obvious conclusion is that ships exporting cotton directly from Gulf Coast ports to Europe returned with imports to New York, where they paid Federal duties on those imports.
But in order to ship millions of bales overseas, those ships numbered many hundreds, meaning dozens in any given Southern port, some owned by New Yorkers, others owned elsewhere (but none foreign).
So cotton producers had choices on which shipper to patronize with their business.
Nothing prevented them from choosing Southern shippers.

[DiogenesLamp]

The import export equation must balance. You can play games with the history, but you can’t play games with math.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The import export equation must balance. You can play games with the history, but you can’t play games with math."

Sure, but only broadly speaking.
In fact, in the 1850s the US usually ran large trade deficits, typically $50 million per year.
These were paid for by exports of specie (i.e., gold) which brought the books back into balance.

So, for example, in 1860 total exports of goods and specie came to around $400 million, of which cotton was just under $200 million or 50%.
These paid for imports of $377 million, leaving a trade/specie surplus about $23 million.

Bottom line big picture: hundreds of large cargo ships in dozens of ports from Galveston, Texas through Norfolk, Virginia picking up cotton for direct shipment to Europe.
Yes, sure, some of it was accumulated in smaller coastal packet ships, but they would carry it no further than the closest deep-water port.
Large ocean-going ships carry cotton directly to Europe, not through New York.

After delivering their load, like any good truckers today, they looked for return loads, and they delivered those loads to the ports which would buy them.
And those would be New York, or Philadelphia, New Orleans, Baltimore or Boston, certainly not backwater Charleston, SC.

Point is: all of these commercial relationships were voluntary, people had many choices and selected those which made the most sense to them.
If they chose Southern owned shippers over Northern carriers, that was their business.

Cotton packet ship, Atlantic crossing ship:

[DiogenesLamp]

This message from you is more rational than most, so I'll wade in.

Sure, but only broadly speaking. In fact, in the 1850s the US usually ran large trade deficits, typically $50 million per year. These were paid for by exports of specie (i.e., gold) which brought the books back into balance.

You've mentioned specie many times in your rebuttals, but specie is more a product of California and Nevada, and therefore does not have anything to do with trade which was the bone of contention between the North and South.

So, for example, in 1860 total exports of goods and specie came to around $400 million, of which cotton was just under $200 million or 50%. These paid for imports of $377 million, leaving a trade/specie surplus about $23 million.

But specie does not belong in the equation. It is not a replenishable resource and does not represent any value of Northern produced goods. Specie export cannot be sustained indefinitely as a major component of trade balance.

The only question that matters is how much foreign trade represented as a percentage of the New York/New England economy. Stuff mined in California and Nevada was irrelevant to the New York/New England economic engine.

Bottom line big picture: hundreds of large cargo ships in dozens of ports from Galveston, Texas through Norfolk, Virginia picking up cotton for direct shipment to Europe. Yes, sure, some of it was accumulated in smaller coastal packet ships, but they would carry it no further than the closest deep-water port. Large ocean-going ships carry cotton directly to Europe, not through New York.

Where it originated and where it went and how it got there is irrelevant to the point that New York controlled it and made a sizable chunk of money off of it.

The only components that matter are those that change with Southern Independence. By splitting into another nation, the South could use foreign ships and crews to move their goods, and thereby avoid the artificially inflated prices the New England shipping people were charging them. They could buy foreign products at lower prices than they were receiving from the "protected" products of Northern manufacturers. They would have not only gotten more money for their exports, they would have gotten cheaper prices on their imports than they would otherwise receive. (Their money would have gone further. It was a double benefit.)

Likewise, the Southern Ship building industry would have been given a shot in the arm too, and so would have Southern Banks, Insurance companies, Warehouses, factories and everything else.

Economic Independence for the South represented a *DIRE* threat to existing interests in New England. The loss of trade was just the immediate impact. The eventual creation of competing industries was another, and even more deadly threat to the well connected Elite of New York.

Point is: all of these commercial relationships were voluntary, people had many choices and selected those which made the most sense to them. If they chose Southern owned shippers over Northern carriers, that was their business.

And this is the only weak point that I haven't yet been able to nail down. Why did the Southern Shipping/Ship Building industry languish? Was the Northern Shipping / Ship Building industries utilizing unethical tactics (such as undercutting every bid for a Southern built ship) in order to keep Shipping under the control of the North?

That the South didn't use much of it's own ships or shipping industries is pretty evident. *WHY* they didn't use their own ships and shipping industries is not.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "When any of that equates to sending 35,000 men to conquer your nation’s capital, you let me know."

In fact:

1. The great Northern fear from April 1861 on was the 100,000 man Confederate Army assaulting Washington, DC at a time when Union strength was only a few thousand.
   Then on May 9, 1861 after declaring war the Confederacy called up another 400,000 troops and Washington, DC was in a near panic.

2. Lee's invasion of Maryland in 1862 with 55,000 men included the goal of threatening and cutting of Washington, DC.

3. Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania in 1863 with 85,000 men included the goal of defeating the Union Army then protecting Washington, DC and so threatening the capital as to force a compromise peace.

4. Even as late as late as July, 1864 Jubal Early attacked Washington with 10,000 men.

5. In other theaters, many tens of thousands of Confederates invaded western Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, while thousands more raided into Indiana, Ohio, Kansas, Oklahoma and New Mexico.

6. Smaller Confederate guerilla forces operated in California, Colorado and even Vermont.

But the largest planned Confederate invasion, of Illinois, never happened because of US Grant's victories at Forts Henry & Donelson.
So the fact is it was lack of abilities, not lack of intentions which kept most Confederate invasions of Union states relatively small and inconsequential.

If Jefferson Davis could have done more damage up North, he certainly would have.

[DiogenesLamp]

Show a serious plan for invading the North prior to April 15, 1861 and you have a point.

If you cannot produce such a plan, then you do not have any sort of point.

The first serious effort at invasion occurred July 21, 1861, and was done according to Lincoln's orders.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This message from you is more rational than most, so I'll wade in. "

All of my posts are 100% rational.
It's only your own insanity driven by utter ignorance of facts which prevents you from seeing that, FRiend.

DiogenesLamp: "You've mentioned specie many times in your rebuttals, but specie is more a product of California and Nevada, and therefore does not have anything to do with trade which was the bone of contention between the North and South."

No, sorry, but here's where you really need to exercise your weak-brain, to keep it from atrophying.
The "bone of contention" here is the claim of Lost-Causers & others that some overwhelming percentage of Federal Revenues (typically said to be 75% to 87%) resulted from Southern exports.
I am merely demonstrating that the true number was much closer to 50% and the key point to remember is that duties were never paid on exports, only on imports.
And those imports were paid for by both exports and specie transfers (i.e., gold & silver).

So once again: in 1860 total exports of goods, services and specie came to about $400 million of which around $200 million was cotton.
These $400 million in gross exports paid for $377 million in imports (from which Federal revenues derived) leaving a net-net surplus of $23 million for the year.

Point is: nobody says the South was not important, it's just that they were not quite as important as they had imagined.
We learned this for certain during the Civil War when all trade with the South ended, and yet the Northern economy quickly adjusted and continued to prosper.

DiogenesLamp: "But specie does not belong in the equation.
It is not a replenishable resource and does not represent any value of Northern produced goods.
Specie export cannot be sustained indefinitely as a major component of trade balance."

No, the fact is the US ran a trade deficit throughout this period, with imports greatly exceeding exports three years out of four, and that fourth year was usually a very small surplus.
Before 1850 specie exports were relatively small -- a few million per year, but then grew hugely reaching $56 million in 1855 and $66 million in 1860.
Those are not small numbers -- after cotton they were our single most important export.
They served to balance the accounts which paid for imports that provided Federal revenues.

Your claim that specie "is not replenishable" is as ridiculous as claiming oil or copper should not be counted because they are "not replenishable".
Of course they are all replenishable, so long as prices remain high enough to justify prospectors efforts to find more in the ground.
Here is a chart of gold production going back to 1840:

DiogenesLamp: "The only question that matters is how much foreign trade represented as a percentage of the New York/New England economy.
Stuff mined in California and Nevada was irrelevant to the New York/New England economic engine."

Wrong again.
In fact, manufactured goods shipped to Nevada or California were paid for by gold & silver (specie) mined there.
Specie then help balance the trade which paid for imports on which Federal duties funded the government.
Really, it's not that complicated, if you'll exercise your mind to grasp it.

DiogenesLamp: "Where it originated and where it went and how it got there is irrelevant to the point that New York controlled it and made a sizable chunk of money off of it."

Controls? Nobody "controls" a free market and nobody has demonstrated those markets were not free.
So far as we can tell, Adam Smith's "invisible hand" drove everyone to do what was in their own best interests and that produced amazing prosperity over many decades before 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "By splitting into another nation, the South could use foreign ships and crews to move their goods, and thereby avoid the artificially inflated prices the New England shipping people were charging..."

Maybe, but how much of those savings would have to be spent on vastly increased military forces, to protect not only against the Union, but also against European powers seeing an opportunity to abrogate the US Monroe Doctrine?
I would argue there were huge economies of scale from a continental United States that a smaller Confederacy would never see.

Regardless, none of this was argued by Confederates at the time, end of 1860, early 1861.
Instead, their entire argument was the thread to slavery from "Ape" Lincoln and his Black Republicans.

DiogenesLamp: "Economic Independence for the South represented a *DIRE* threat to existing interests in New England.
The loss of trade was just the immediate impact.
The eventual creation of competing industries was another, and even more deadly threat to the well connected Elite of New York. "

Maybe, but I'll say it again: turns out that Southern products were not as important as many imagined, so Northern industries quickly adjusted and continued to prosper without them from 1861 on.

DiogenesLamp: "That the South didn't use much of it's own ships or shipping industries is pretty evident. *WHY* they didn't use their own ships and shipping industries is not."

First of all, it's not demonstrated that Southerners were less involved in shipping that anyone else.
So much more is being assumed that the available data justifies.

Second, it is often mentioned by historians that many Southerners of the time idealized their plantation life-styles and did not want to become involved in either dirty factory work or the hustle-bustle of big city life.
They were generally content to let such low-status work to others.
So again I'll mention -- all your sophisticated economic analysis may even be somewhat correct, however, those are not the arguments used by Southern Fire Eaters at the critical time of declarations of secession in late 1860 and early 1861.

Again, their chief concern was to protect slavery and their way of life which depended on it.

[DiogenesLamp]

I only read a little of this one and quickly concluded that not only did you not COMPREHEND the point I was making, you simply started back in with your same old spiel.

"Specie" has nothing to do with the loss of money which would have been incurred by the North with an Independent South. Therefore it is irrelevant to the point.