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: "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."

No, my point is valid regardless.
But in fact, by April 15 Confederate forces were already active in at least seven non-Confederate states -- seizing Federal properties (i.e., forts, ships, arsenals, mints, etc.), threatening Federal officials and anyone else loyal to the Union.
Those seven Union states included not only Maryland and Missouri, but also Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky.
As a result, four of those Union states changed their allegiances to Confederate and the other three loyal states suffered as terribly from fighting as any.

Remember, on April 15, 1861 there were only seven Confederate states, but the Confederacy had a plan to conquer at least seven more, plus several western territories.
We know that because it's just what happened.

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

No, the first serious event was the Civil War's Pearl Harbor and 9/11 -- the Confederate assault on Fort Sumter.
It immediately resulted in four states switching from Union to Confederate and brought out pro-Confederate forces threatening three others, plus western Virginia.

So, in one brilliant stroke Jefferson Davis nearly doubled the Confederacy's white population and was on the march into the Border States.

All this happened months before a single Confederate soldier was killed by any Union force, and before any Union army invaded a single Confederate state.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, my point is valid regardless.

No it isn't. Bye!

[BroJoeK]

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."

No, your point is simply wrong.
The point of discussion here is the same one raised by some Southerners at the time: that they were carrying an unfair share of cost of Federal government.
We have seen numbers like 75% to 87% frequently mentioned here, so I am merely demonstrating those percentages are considerably off.

As for you other points, they are far less relevant because they were never used by Southerners at the time to justify their actions.

Finally, your claim that President Lincoln started civil war and invaded the South just to benefit Democrats! in New York is just too insane for words.
You have no evidence of it and abundant evidence we have shows Lincoln as a life-long mid-west lawyer whose first concerns related to keeping his oath of office to the Constitution.

Remember: in the first hour of his first day on the job Lincoln promised Confederates they could not have a war unless they themselves started it.
That was as clear and direct as anyone could ever be at any time.
When the Confederacy assaulted Union troops in Fort Sumter, that started the war, pure and simple.
Just as Pearl Harbor started WWII for the US and 9/11 the War on Terror.
All the rest of your speculation is just pure gobbledygook psychobabble, imho.

Here is the real reason for Civil War:

[jmacusa]

The history could be very different in the South had carried the day at Gettysburg. It would have to have been a very resounding military defeat, such that the Union Army would never be able to rise. But the South was deluding itself before the first shot was fired.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: " It would have to have been a very resounding military defeat, such that the Union Army would never be able to rise.
But the South was deluding itself before the first shot was fired."

Modern historians are more critical of RE Lee generally and at Gettysburg specifically than previous generations were.
It's said that Lee wasted manpower the Confederacy could ill-afford when he would have been better off to fight a much more defensive war.
I think that's a big maybe, since Gettysburg was Lee's last big opportunity to make a war-winning stroke, and he couldn't do otherwise.

Indeed, had the Union army proved as feckless at Gettysburg as it had previously, there's no reason to think Lee couldn't defeat them decisively.
And I'm certain that's what Lee was counting on.
But Lee made mistakes, many of which we can easily recite, and the Union Army made far fewer.
So Lee's last opportunity for victory was gone, though it took almost two more years for the dumb*sses to figure that out.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, your point is simply wrong.

No it isn't, and you haven't even attempted to address it.

[jmacusa]

Had Lee and Davis had given more thought to a political stalemate Lee could have surrounded Washington, the Union's nerve center he could have captured Lincoln and his cabinet and would have created on hell of a hostage standoff.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "No it isn't, and you haven't even attempted to address it. "

Of course I did, many times.
But by your own highly public confession, you don't read my posts, so you have no real clue what I've been saying.
That lets you endlessly pretend that I've been nonresponsive, when in fact it's you with blinders on, my FRiend DiogenesLamp.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "Had Lee and Davis had given more thought to a political stalemate Lee could have surrounded Washington, the Union's nerve center he could have captured Lincoln and his cabinet and would have created on hell of a hostage standoff."

That was indeed the great Union fear throughout the spring and summer of 1861, and beyond.
After defeat in the First Battle of Bull Run/Manassas (July 1861) Washington lay open to a decisive Confederate thrust, which however never came.

Fear was especially heightened, you may remember, under Union General McClellan, whose Pinkerton security people kept exaggerating Confederate troop strength by almost orders of magnitude -- 1,000 became 10,000 and 10,000 got reported as 50,000, etc.

So Washington, DC was in near panic for many months until Union troop strength there eventually reached levels even exaggerated Confederate armies could not defeat.
At the same time, Confederate generals of the caliber of Lee or Jackson were few & far between and Davis, considering himself the ultimate military genius, overrode generals' advice on occasion.
Results, iirc, were that assaulting Washington itself was not seriously considered.

Of course, Lee's invasions of Maryland in 1862 and Pennsylvania in 1863 had threatening Washington as their ultimate targets, in hopes of negotiating peace on Confederate terms.

Jubal Early's July 1864 assault on Washington to us seems quixotic, but is best understood as RE Lee's effort to relieve pressure from Grant on Richmond.
And it worked.
Early remarked after the battle: "...we didn't take Washington but we scared Abe Lincoln like hell."

By summer of 1864 that was about the best Confederates could hope for.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you are going to bring up specie, and insist it has something to do with the loss of money to the North from Southern independence, then you *DON'T* understand the economic issues involved.

The only economic considerations that affect whether or not the North needed to go to war with the South, are those that are affected by Southern Independence.

"Specie" would remain the same with or without Southern independence, and so therefore it is a non factor in regards to the North's decision to invade the South to stop their independence.

I don't have to read the rest of what you wrote. When you write "specie" you don't grasp the point.

As Wolfgang Pauli said: "You are not even wrong."

[rockrr]

The only considerations that affect whether or not the North needed to go to war with the South, are those that are affected by Southern aggression. No aggression - no war. The cause and the outcome were as a direst result of the south's actions.

[DiogenesLamp]

The only considerations that affect whether or not the North needed to go to war with the South, are those that are affected by Southern aggression.

The economic numbers demonstrate otherwise. The Union DESPERATELY needed to stop that loss of trade and the arisal of competing industry.

Northern financial positions were under a massive threat from Southern Independence, and they simply could not allow unimpeded trade to develop with Europe. They also could not allow for the capitalization of competing Southern industries that would develop from the increased economic benefits of free trade with Europe.

Northern industries would have been severely attenuated and/or possibly destroyed. The balance of economic power would have shifted to the South, and the Empire State simply could not allow such a thing to happen.

This is why the first thing the Union did was to throw up a blockade. That trade had to be stopped at all costs. If trade had been allowed to be established, and if the Europeans had become accustomed to receiving the economic benefits of free trade with the South, the Europeans would have used their military might to insure that it continued unimpeded.

This was a war about money, despite all the subterfuge intended to divert attention towards everything except the money involved.

[rockrr]

The balance of economic power would have shifted to the South, and the Empire State simply could not allow such a thing to happen.

That would be comical if it weren't so preposterous.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "If you are going to bring up specie, and insist it has something to do with the loss of money to the North from Southern independence, then you *DON'T* understand the economic issues involved."

Believe me, it's you who don't understand what you're saying.
The importance of specie is that it makes a lie of pro-Confederate claims that Southern exports paid for 75% to 87% of Federal revenues.
In fact, when you consider specie that number was much closer to 50%.

So now, let's go right to the heart of your ridiculous argument: those Northeastern bankers and merchants you so vilify were, in fact, political and economic allies to Southern slaveocrats.
For many decades before 1861 they walked arm in arm together socially, they were lip-locked economically and joined at the hip politically.
And they were all Democrats!.
They hated abolition, they hated Republicans and they hated "Ape" Lincoln.
They wanted Union political compromises to stop secession and they certainly didn't want war against their slaveocrat friends.
These Democrats! opposed Lincoln in 1860 and worked to prevent his election.
And who was this Lincoln?
He was a mid-western country Whig lawyer with some military & political experience, dedicated to law and constitution, but no known ties to those Northeastern Democrats!.

Now suddenly, DiogenesLamp, with no evidence -- zero, nada, nothing evidence -- wishes us to believe that these Northeastern Democrats! prevailed on Lincoln to start a war just to save their sorry economic *sses?
No.

DiogenesLamp: "The only economic considerations that affect whether or not the North needed to go to war with the South, are those that are affected by Southern Independence."

Neeeeeed or no-need, those Northeastern Democrats! were not going to drive Lincoln into something he would not do otherwise.
Their concerns were irrelevant.
What certainly did matter to Lincoln was his oath of office to the Constitution, his desires to preserve the Union and his understandings about such matters as rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", treason and invasion.
Lincoln was also an abolitionist who fully understood that war was one method to constitutionally emancipate slaves.

That's why Lincoln's inaugural address told secessionists they could not have war unless they themselves started it.
Which they soon did.

DiogenesLamp: " 'Specie' would remain the same with or without Southern independence, and so therefore it is a non factor in regards to the North's decision to invade the South to stop their independence."

But, but specie was certainly an important factor in making Deep South cotton irrelevant to the overall Northern economy during Civil War.
Specie was part of the reason the North didn't really need Southern cotton and therefore would not have gone to war just for that.

DiogenesLamp: "I don't have to read the rest of what you wrote.
When you write "specie" you don't grasp the point.
As Wolfgang Pauli said: 'You are not even wrong.' "

Because you refuse to read and comprehend my posts you continue to pretend I don't answer or understand.
In fact, my answers are right there, slapping you in the face, but you make no effort to learn.

Thus demonstrating that DiogenesLamp is a dedicated pro-Confederate propagandist, not a serious truth-seeker.

[DiogenesLamp]

That would be comical if it weren't so preposterous.

The numbers tell a different story. 3/4ths of that pile is the consequence of Southern exports.

Move 3/4ths of the trade represented by that pile to the south, and New York is in a serious crises.

[DiogenesLamp]

In fact, when you consider specie that number was much closer to 50%.

Even with your heavily massaged number which includes everything and the kitchen sink thrown in in an effort to make it come out that low, you still have 20 million people in the North producing 50% of the Trade, and 5 million people in the South producing 50% of the trade.

That's 4 to 1 economic productivity from the South to the North.

20 million Northerners were producing only 1/4 per capita of the export value of the 5 million Southerners.

And the vast bulk of the return money still came back through New York. You can pretend that money meant nothing to the Northern Industrialists/ Shippers, etc, but you are only fooling yourself.

They had gotten rich off of slave produced trade.

[rockrr]

The numbers tell a different story. 3/4ths of that pile is the consequence of Southern exports.

No it isn't. It's the consequence of goods being shipped into the United States.

[DiogenesLamp]

No it isn't. It's the consequence of goods being shipped into the United States.

Which are only shipped into the United States as a result of the exchange value for goods shipped out of the United States.

If the South wasn't producing 200 million dollars worth of export value, (per year) Europe wouldn't have been shipping in 200 million dollars worth of import products. (per year)

This isn't rocket science. Trade must more or less balance over a given period of time or you will have what is called a "Trade Deficit" or "Trade Surplus."

The steady state solution for this equation is 200 million in import value is the result of 200 million in export value.

You are resisting this because you do not like what it proves. It proves that in 1860 the vast majority of the US government Budget, and a huge amount of the Northern Economy was heavily dependent upon slaves.

It proves that when the South became an independent economic system, it caused a severe loss of money to the North Eastern economy.

[rockrr]

Which are only shipped into the United States as a result of the exchange value for goods shipped out of the United States.

No they're not. There was/is no quid pro quo. You're sounding more and more like a wacky marxist every day!

[DiogenesLamp]

No they're not. There was/is no quid pro quo. You're sounding more and more like a wacky marxist every day!

And you are sounding like someone who does not understand basic economics.

Pray tell why Europe would be sending 200 million dollars worth of products into the United States if it is not in exchange for something of equal value? Why would they do that?