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: "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."

First, remember the question is: how much did Deep South exports contribute to paying Federal revenues?
The answer is: all things considered, roughly 50%, period.

The second question is: what percent of the population raised all that cotton?
The answer is: fewer than three million Cotton-South slaves raised it and they accounted for less than 10% of total US population in 1860.

DiogenesLamp: "That's 4 to 1 economic productivity from [slaves in]the South to the North."

Right, in 1860 Southern slaves were amazingly productive and profitable, which is why their price at auction kept increasing throughout the 1850s.
That alone explains why Southern-slaveocrats were so, so anxious to protect their $4 billion investment in slavery.

However, by 1860 Northern productivity in industrial products was also increasing rapidly, some of which found its way into US export numbers, but most Northern produces were for domestic consumption, especially in the wealthy South.

DiogenesLamp: "20 million Northerners were producing only 1/4 per capita of the about the same export value of the 5 million Southerners three million slaves. "

There, fixed it for you. Sure, no problem, you're welcome.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

But I've "pretended" nothing.
Cotton exports were absolutely important in 1860 (50%), but in 1861 Northerners quickly learned how to survive and prosper without them.
So cotton was not as important as Southerners of the time and DiogenesLamp liked to imagine.

DiogenesLamp: "They Southern slaveocrats had gotten rich off of slave produced trade."

There, fixed it for you. Sure, you're welcome.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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.' "

Right.
Throughout those decades the US ran large trade deficits three years out of four, and in those years of trade surplus the surplus was nearly always quite small.
One resource to balance financial books was huge exports of specie, which after discovery in gold in California in 1848 grew by a factor of ten times.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

More rubbish & nonsense.
Roughly 50% of total US exports in 1860 were slave-produced cotton or tobacco.
That's a huge number, but in 1861 the Union quickly adjusted and prospered without it.
So while slavery was absolutely vital to secessionists, it was something Northerners could quickly learn to live without.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "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?"

But it wasn't $200 million, it was much closer to $400 million and the obvious reason is that US money was solid.
What Americans couldn't pay for in other exports they made up for in gold & silver.

[DoodleDawg]

There are two, instead of one, major factors being lost on our friends who are attempting to minimize the value of Southern exports...and the first is that the carrying charges, i.e. freight, taxes, cartage, insurance income was going to immediately be lost in direct proportion to the amount of goods shipped from the South directly and on European shipping. That would cost the private sector over half of their annual revenue....immediately upon secession.

And I submit that what you are overlooking as well is the fact that that cotton still had to get to market somehow. There was no domestic Confederate shipping industry to take up the slack so why is there any reason to believe that Northern shippers would not continue to provide transportation? And continue to charge freight, taxes, cartage, and insurance fees? After all what other alternative was there? Do you think that the European countries had the excess capacity to replace the U.S.?

Our merchants have capital enough to justify them in making their purchases in Europe, and shipping to New Orleans, and in that city, because of the difference in the tariff, goods can be bought cheaper than in New York.

The problem being that once those goods crossed the border into the U.S. from the Confederacy then they would by subject to U.S. tariffs as well, so the would be double taxed. And just because there was no custom house in St. Louis in April of 1861 that doesn't mean that one would not have been established if the South was independent. Like all the other doom-and-gloom predictions that an independent Confederacy would suck the vast majority of trade from Northern ports, it doesn't stand up when looked at it logically.

You can see very clearly how vulnerable the entire shipping empire of the North was upon secession, and the fear these people would have.

But if you look at it dispassionately you can see those fears were badly overblown.

[PeaRidge]

You said: “And I submit that...”

Why speculate when the truth is staring you in the face. The transatlantic trade capacity of British vessels was already in direct competition with Union ships.

Didn’t you know that Northern and British shippers had been fighting over the Southern trade market for decades? Why do you think the Federal government had been used to hurt the British?

At the time of the articles, British shipping was already replacing them. That is written all over the editorials I gave....didn’t read them or ignoring them?

Double tax....how?

You can see that traders were already shipping North...the editorial was complaining about the low tariffs on these goods in early 1861. If you read you will learn. That is if you want to.

The government could not build enough barriers to stop the trade. Even if they did, Kansas and Missouri were about to become wealthy trade centers. Boston and New York would not have that.

Why not pay attention to what they were saying instead of what you would like to think they should have said?

Are you that biased?

[DoodleDawg]

Why speculate when the truth is staring you in the face. The transatlantic trade capacity of British vessels was already in direct competition with Union ships.

And U.S. ships competed with British vessels. Why should that change?

Didn’t you know that Northern and British shippers had been fighting over the Southern trade market for decades? Why do you think the Federal government had been used to hurt the British?

If you say so. So why wouldn't it continue? Northern shippers had handled cotton exports before, along with European shippers. Why should that change?

At the time of the articles, British shipping was already replacing them. That is written all over the editorials I gave....didn’t read them or ignoring them?

And editorials are never, ever wrong. Are they?

Double tax....how?

You posted this from an editorial, "Our merchants have capital enough to justify them in making their purchases in Europe, and shipping to New Orleans, and in that city, because of the difference in the tariff, goods can be bought cheaper than in New York." So if merchants purchase their goods in New Orleans, after the cheaper Confederate tariff has been levied, and then bring them to New York or St. Louis or wherever then those goods would be subject to the U.S. tariff as well. Double taxation - once in the Confederacy and once in the U.S.

You can see that traders were already shipping North...the editorial was complaining about the low tariffs on these goods in early 1861. If you read you will learn. That is if you want to.

But only if I keep my eyes closed to reality. If the U.S. has a 20% tariff and the Confederacy had a 10% tariff then you claim goods for U.S. consumers would flow to the South. But goods destined for U.S. consumers would pay the U.S. tariff the moment they entered the U.S. regardless of where they come from Europe or from South Carolina. So if they are taxed in Charleston and taxed again in New York then that's a 30% tariff instead of the 20% it would get by going straight to New York. Sending imports to the Confederacy first makes zero sense.

The government could not build enough barriers to stop the trade.

Why not? The trade routes are limited. Either into one of the coastal ports or up the Mississippi. How hard is it to control that?

Even if they did, Kansas and Missouri were about to become wealthy trade centers. Boston and New York would not have that.

Not necessarily. They may have increased in their collections but the chances of them overtaking east coast cities like New York or Boston would be slim, and at best decades away.

Why not pay attention to what they were saying instead of what you would like to think they should have said?

You may accept them unquestioningly, buy I realize newspaper editorials for what they are, opinion and not necessarily fact.

Are you that biased?

Aren't you?

[PeaRidge]

So much speculation, imagination, and so many non-sequiturs.

Your commentary is yours....not factual.

[DoodleDawg]

Your commentary is yours....not factual.

As is yours.

[PeaRidge]

Major Anderson threatened Governor Pickens and the harbor in January of 1861. You can find the info. in the OR.

[DiogenesLamp]

And I submit that what you are overlooking as well is the fact that that cotton still had to get to market somehow. There was no domestic Confederate shipping industry to take up the slack so why is there any reason to believe that Northern shippers would not continue to provide transportation?

You aren't keeping up with the information being provided in this thread. The only reason domestic shipping was competitive at all was because of the Navigation act of 1817 which put heavy penalties on the use of Foreign ships or crew. With independence, that statute disappears and instantly makes foreign ships and crew a relative bargain.

The Domestic shipping market had priced it's services at rates just below what it would cost to hire a foreign ship and crew with the penalties. The South was saving a little bit of money by using US Shipping, but they would save far more by using foreign ships at non protectionist rates.

This would of course, instantly screw the us Shipping industry which had grown accustomed to all those gouged prices since 1817.

With the South as part of the Union, the Shipping industry had jobs. With the South independent, all those jobs evaporated. Might as well join the army and go kill Southerners.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why not pay attention to what they were saying instead of what you would like to think they should have said?

Are you that biased?

Unfortunately yes. They do not want to believe what we are telling them. It upheaves their entire moral outlook on the war, and the role their ancestors played in it.

Unfortunately the evidence indicates it is the truth. The Union invasion of the South was not about "preserving the Union" it was about preserving protectionist trade policies for the Northern States. It was about preserving the dominance of New York in the wealth and power.

I have come to realize that if people look around, the descendants of these people and their elite social groups are still doing the exact same thing today. Their power has simply gotten stronger since 1861.

The liberal dominance of the media is a prime example of what I am talking about. Liberal media financially benefits those businesses in collusion with the government in terms of siphoning dollars out of the taxpayers.

Ever wonder why any sane American would be opposed to cutting spending and balancing the budget? The entire Media was against it going all the way back to 1980. They have *ALWAYS* been opposed to reducing spending. Why? Because the people holding their leash get rich off of government spending, just as their predecessors got rich off of Union protectionist policies which heavily favored New York.

Same enemy, different century.

[DiogenesLamp]

In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries, PeaRidge wrote: Major Anderson threatened Governor Pickens and the harbor in January of 1861. You can find the info. in the OR.

I'm not following. What does "OR" mean in this context?

Also, that's not the example of which I was thinking. There is some verbiage in one of the Newspapers editorials about using the guns of Ft. Sumter to destroy Charleston so as to prevent them using that port for trade.

I think it is just further down in the text of some of the Newspaper excerpts you have already posted. I remember stumbling on to it by finding some of those newspaper articles and reading through them further.

I guess a lot of these people arguing on behalf of the Union side aren't really aware of the fact that there were calls in the Union to use that fort to fire upon the City of Charleston to prevent trade.

And people wonder why they didn't want to put up with Union guns overlooking their harbor.

[PeaRidge]

OR is commonly used to refer to the “Official Records of the War of Rebellion” compiled by the federal government.

https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records

[PeaRidge]

3/22/1861 The economic editor of the New York Times said,

“At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States.”

This was another editor reversing his position of earlier in March when he declared that secession would not injure Northern commerce and prosperity.

He had earlier stated that the economies of the two sections were tied together and would stay together.

That was before the Confederate Tariff rates became known in the financial and governmental groups.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRdige: "...first is that the carrying charges, i.e. freight, taxes, cartage, insurance income was going to immediately be lost in direct proportion to the amount of goods shipped from the South directly and on European shipping.
That would cost the private sector over half of their annual revenue....immediately upon secession."

What you guys are forgetting is that transatlantic trade, in those days, took the shape of a triangle:

1. Leg #1: US owned ships take Southern cotton & tobacco from ports mainly along the Gulf Coast to European customers.
   Now DiogenesLamp claims these ships were all Northern built, owned and operated, but I dispute that.
   First, DL has no data to support his claims and second the Confederacy proved capable of building & operating its own ships during the Civil War, so they must have learned necessary skills well before.
   Therefore I think it far more reasonable to suppose that some significant portion of those ships were Southern built, owned & operated.
   How much?
   Maybe 20%, maybe 30% enough to break DL's claim that "Northerners" had a monopoly on Southern exports.

2. Leg #2: After delivering cotton to European ports, these ships looked for returning cargoes.
   Such cargoes were of two main kinds: manufactured goods and immigrants.
   Both of these naturally went to Northern ports like New York because that is where they could find customers and employers.
   Key point: nothing about secession would drive immigrants or goods to smaller Southern ports which had no use for them.

3. Leg #3: After delivering their products and immigrants in New York, ships sailed South to load up on next year's cotton crop.
   Yes, some merely waited in New York for packets to bring cotton up the Atlantic Coast to them, but over half went to New Orleans and another 30% to Gulf Coast ports like Mobile and Galveston.
   With them they brought such products as Southerners might wish to buy, especially to New Orleans.
   However customer demand in smaller ports was quite limited.
   That's why some ships remained in major harbors & let packets bring the cotton -- it was cheaper for them.

Point is: none of basic economics changed with secession, with a possible exception of now European owned ships competing for Southern loads.
But immigrants and the vast majority of imports would go to Northern ports because that's where demand was for them.
If we assume normal, peaceful relationships between Union & Confederacy, then some adjustments would be made and life would go on.

If we assume a war-time relationship, then we know what would happen, because it did during Civil War.
Economic adjustments were made and life went on.

PeaRidge: "But by far the biggest loss to not only the businesses, but primarily the government treasury was the loss of goods, i.e. tariff producing items, that would now be direct shipped South from Europe, and bypassing New York, Boston, and Philly. Remember that about 85% of the annual treasury income was from tariffs.
If dutiable items even shriveled by 50%, you can imagine the pending damage to the Treasury."

But the key point you must remember is that we already know precisely what would happen given a 100% loss of Southern cotton & tobacco exports.
Northern cities made economic adjustments, the Federal Government made tax adjustments, and life not only went on but the economy prospered and the Union prosecuted the Civil War.

Point is: all this talk about trade & economics was certainly important, but not as important as you might have imagined.

PeaRdige: "The goods are landed at the port of New Orleans-no Custom-house notice is taken of them-no bonds are executed for the payment of duties on their arrival there; and on many articles the saving of one half the duty only, would afford a handsome profit.
If this thing is to become permanent, there will be an entire revolution in the course of trade, and New York will suffer terribly."

Or, New York's duties might be adjusted to compensate.
But the far more likely result is that Confederates would begin collecting their own tariffs (set at pre-Morrill rates of 15%) and so economics would balance out.

Now the Lost Causer argument here is that these economic factors were serious enough to drive Northerners to war.
I'm saying such concerns were not that serious and there's no evidence they "drove" anybody to war.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "All too often our friends simply don't want to believe what their eyes show them.
I always prefer multiple, contemporary sources.
Here are some just at the time of South Carolina's secession."

Nobody except Lost Causers "denies" anything factual, but you are placing more importance on such matters than they deserve.

PeaRidge quoting: "Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow" ~Chicago Daily Times, December 10, 1860

It's most curious that when I go searching for Chicago newspapers in 1860, there is no "Chicago Daily Times", nor was there ever one.
And this would not be the first time that our Lost Causers, desperate to rewrite history to make their side look good, invented necessary quotes out of thin air.

PeaRidge quoting: "...any State which assumes a rebellious attitude will still be obliged to contribute revenue to support the Federal Government or have her commerce entirely destroyed" ~Philadelphia Press, December 21, 1860

Nor can I find any records of a "Philadelphia Press" from 1860, or from any other year.

So I highly suspect the pro-Confederate propaganda machine has been busy, busy, busy at work concocting historical "evidence" to support its Lost Causer mythology.

Regardless, even if we pretend such quotes were true, they would not shift the blame for starting Civil War at Fort Sumter from Jefferson Davis to some amorphous "wealthy Northeasterners".

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "The last article was written a day after secession.
It is good to note that nowhere does it complain of slavery as either a problem or cause of of secession....unlike many here who would minimize the financial panic by presenting slavery hyperbole."

First, I can't find evidence that any of those quotes are valid.

Second, even if we pretend they are legit, slavery in the South was a major concern for only a small number of Northern abolitionists.
But slavery was the important reason cited by secessionists for their declarations and that's why so many Northerners, especially Democrats, were perfectly happy to propose giving secessionists whatever constitutional concessions they might wish on slavery.

[rockrr]

I appreciate your efforts to keep the LCL's honest - that's a fulltime job! Here's what Wackypedia says about the Chicago Daily Times: The Chicago Daily News was an afternoon daily newspaper published between 1876 and 1978 in Chicago, Illinois, United States.

So it ran for a short period but postdate the Civil War.

Similarly there was a Philadelphia Press, but so far I haven't been able to find a searchable index for any particular story or edition from 1860.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge quoting:

• ~Philadelphia Press, January 15, 1861

• ~New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861

• -~Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), February 19, 1861

Near as I can tell, none of those are legit, certainly not important enough to be recorded in histories of newspapers.
So those words should not be part of this discussion.

But PeaRidge's point -- that Southern slavery was a secondary issue in the North -- is certainly correct.
That's directly because: the United States Constitution was first agreed-to in 1787 on the basis of Northerners accepting Southern slavery, and that agreement still held for Northerners in 1860.

So before November, 1860 the US had never, ever before elected an openly anti-slavery President and Congress, and their elections were enough to drive Deep South Fire Eaters berserk with anger, first declaring secession then starting and declaring war on the United States.

In a nut shell.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge quoting from: "~Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861"

And yet again I can find no record of such a newspaper in the histories of newspapers.

Of course, it's totally typical for Lost Causers to concoct their own "history" wherever the real thing doesn't suit them.

After all, by definition, Lost Causers are Dixiecrats, which is to say Democrats of the Old South.
Lying is what Democrats do, it's their basic fundamental nature, their political DNA, so to speak.