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.

[PeaRidge]

Then you don’t know where “The Red Badge of Courage” was first published.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "These people with whom we are arguing simply do not get it.
Economic independence of the South from the North very badly damages the Northern economy in many disparate ways that are not obvious to people who are not accustomed to thinking in these terms, but the Businessmen of New York/New England area were not fools."

Those businessmen with strong economic interests in the South were all Democrats.
They hated abolition, they hated Republicans and they hated "Ape" Lincoln.
They were partners economically and politically with Southern Slaveocrats.
When secession was first threatened these Democrat businessmen favored granting whatever concessions on slavery secessionists might want.

Once secessions were declared, these Democrat businessmen favored the most congenial relations possible with the Confederacy.
By sharp contrast, only some Republicans demanded the President and Congress take a hard line with secessionists, grant them no demands, don't let them seize Federal properties in the South.
And when the Confederacy launched war at Fort Sumter, those Republicans demanded rebellion must be defeated.

but even amongst Republicans, the majority had counselled surrender of Fort Sumter.
So Lincoln's choice of action there was his own, not Republicans generally and certainly not Northern business Democrats just recently divorced from their Southern Democrat political spouses.

[DiogenesLamp]

Found this. BroJoeK is constantly trying to minimize or obfuscate the fact that *MOST* of the Trade money was being produced by the South. Apparently some Northern newspapers at the time accurately recognized this.

Cleveland’s Daily National Democrat November 20, 1860.

“The entire amount, in dollars and cents, of produce and of manufactured articles exported to foreign countries from the United States for the year ending June, 1858, was $293,758,279, of which amount the raw cotton exported alone amounted to $131,386,661. . . taking the estimate of the cotton used [in the] North . . . and adding it to the worth of the cotton sent abroad, and we have over one hundred and fifty-eight million dollars[’] worth of cotton as the amount furnished by the South.

Deduct from the exports the silver and gold and the foreign goods exported, and the cotton crop of the South alone exported exceeds the other entire export of the United States, and when to this we add the hemp and Naval stores, sugar, rice, and tobacco, produced alone in the Southern States, we have near two-thirds of the value entire of exports from the South.

Let the States of the South separate, and the cotton, the rice, hemp, sugar and tobacco, now consumed in the Northern States must be purchased [from the] South, subject to a Tariff duty, greatly enhancing their cost. The cotton factories of New England now, by getting their raw cotton duty free, are enabled to contend with the English in the markets of their own Provinces, and in other parts of the world. A separation would take from us this advantage, and it would take from the vessels owned by the North the carrying tradeof the South, now mostly monopolised by them.”

In other words, *we* are correct, and BroJoeK is absolutely wrong. This statement was contemporary and from OHIO, a Northern state.

It also points out that the North had monopolized the shipping trade, just as we've been saying.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "~New York Evening Post, March 1861"

Discontinued publication in 1851.

PeaRidge: "~~Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861"

No record of such a publication.

PeaRidge: "~The Living Age, Boston, March 23, 1861."

Still no record of such a publication.

PeaRidge: "Still no mention of slavery as a cause for the blockade. ONLY MONEY."

FRiend, any child in school learns that slavery was the cause of secession and rebellion the cause of blockade.

How did you manage to forget that?

[DiogenesLamp]

On December 10, 1860, an editorial in the Daily Chicago Times affirmed that:

“With her immense staples, [the South] has furnished near three-fourths of the entire exports of the country. Last year she furnished seventy-two per cent. Of the whole . . . It is almost impossible to estimate the amount of money realized yearly out of the South by the North.

It, beyond all question, amounts to hundreds of millions. By the present arrangement, also, we have a tariff that protects our manufacturers from thirty to fifty percent, and enables us to consume large quantities of Southern cotton, and to compete in our whole home market with the skilled labor of Europe. This operates to compel the South to pay an indirect bounty to our skilled labor,of millions annually. The result would follow any tariff, for revenue or otherwise.”

[bert]

States rights

[rockrr]

What “States rights” specifically?

[BroJoeK]

CodeToad: "Money was the reason Lincoln went into the war. He was a railroad attorney..."

Money alone was not justification for war.
That's why in his Inaugural Address on March 4, 1861 Lincoln told secessionists they could not have a war unless they themselves started it.

Which they soon did.

Why are you so intent to confuse yourselves on these matters?

[CodeToad]

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I've also seen statements from Northern editorial staff that they should use the guns of Ft. Sumter to destroy the port of Charleston so as to prevent the establishment of European trade at the greatly reduced tariff."

I think we've now established beyond reasonable doubt that all such quotes are deeply suspect and should not be accepted at face value, until strong confirmations received.

DiogenesLamp: "...Northern Apologists wonder why the South didn't like the idea of a Federal fort overlooking the entrance to their port city."

No, of course they didn't like it, just as the Commie Cubans don't like our base at Guantanamo Bay, and the old Soviets didn't like our outposts in West Berlin.

Tough.

But if they assault those troops then they start a war, just as Confederates did at Fort Sumter.
Why are you so, so confused about that?

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Within six weeks, and due to the advent of a new tariff and a new political platform, the argument was now between the establishment Union and a progressive South on the verge of economic explosion.
The issue of slavery was now a non-issue for these people."

No, there was no "argument".
Instead there was rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion of Federal properties and eventually war against the United States, meaning treason for those who supported the Confederacy.

"Progressive South" in those days was a contradiction in terms, unless you wish to define protecting slavery as "progressive".

If so, it simply proves beyond reasonable doubt how much of a Democrat you really are.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "ordinary people were quite moral and they would not be induced to attack others simply because they were losing jobs and trade to them.
No, the ordinary public had to be induced into this, and the truth would not motivate them to war.
Thus the hyperbole and propaganda."

Hyperbole & propaganda comes 100% from you Lost Causers, no Unionist Republican is sitting around concocting nonsense when actual history doesn't serve.

Lincoln well understood that war over money could not happen, indeed should not happen.
But war over rebellion, insurrection, "domestic violence", invasion and treason were much different matters.

So Lincoln first warned secessionists, and then waited.

He did not have long to wait.

[rockrr]

Thanks for the inadvertent laugh. I don't usually bother with pea's posts but your rejoinder to one made me take a peek.

Up and until December of 1860, the political disagreements and Congressional battles were about the balance of power between the agricultural South, and the Mercantilist North and Midwest.

"Mercantilist North"? Yea, off by a hundred years or so!

argument was now between the establishment Union and a progressive South on the verge of economic explosion.

The only reason the south ventured into anything beyond cottage industry was because they had foolishly committed themselves to a disastrous course of action and too late realized that they lacked the capacity to support themselves and their would-be confederacy. Up until 1860 they were happy to outsource virtually every commodity they needed.

[PeaRidge]

Yes, obfuscate with canards.

From the Treasury records of 1861 http://constitution.org/uslaw/treas-rpt/1861_report_secretary_treasury.pdf

UNITED STATES EXPORTS for 1860

NORTHERN ORIGIN.

Products of the sea . . . . . $ 4,156,180

Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,368,917

Provisions . . . . . . . . . . 20,215,226

Breadstuffs . . . . . . . . . 19,022,901

Manufactures . . . . . . . . . 25,599,547

Total Northern Origin . . . . .$77,363,070

SOUTHERN ORIGIN

Forest . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,085,931

Breadstuffs . . . . . . . . 9,567,397

Cotton . . . . . . . . . . 191,806,555

Tobacco . . . . . . . . . . 19,278,621

Hemp, &c. . . . . . . . . . . 746,370

Manufactures . . . . . . . .10,934,795

Total Southern Origin . . . . . $238,419,680

Total exports . . . . . $335,782,740

[DiogenesLamp]

But BroJoeK is going to argue that $77,363,070 is "50%" of $238,419,680.

Not only is his history skewed, so is his math.

They way I calculate it, the Southern (5 million people) portion works out to 71% of the total.

The North (22 million people) were only producing 29% of the total trade revenue.

[rustbucket]

BroJoeK saying the following:

PeaRidge: "~~Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861"

[BroJoeK] No record of such a publication.

BJK, you are up to your usual standards, such as they are. Did you check Wikipedia? The New York Times?

From Wikipedia:

The Philadelphia Press (or The Press) is a defunct newspaper that was published from August 1, 1857 to October 1, 1920.

In 1861, the New York Times even quoted articles from your non-existent Philadelphia Press: [Link]

I may even have posted information from your non-existent Philadelphia Press in the past, even from the issue in question March 18, 1861.

Philadelphia Press, March 18, 1861 (from "The Causes of the Civil War" by Kenneth M. Stampp, my paperback copy of the book, page 92):

One of the most important benefits which the Federal Government has conferred upon the nation is unrestricted trade between many prosperous States with divers productions and industrial pursuits. But now, since the Montgomery Congress has passed a new tariff, and duties are extracted on Northern goods sent to ports in the Cotton States, the traffic between the two sections will be materially reduced. … Another, and a more serious difficulty arises out of our foreign commerce, and the different rates of duty established by the two tariffs which will soon be in force. …

The General Government, … to prevent the serious diminution of its revenues, will be compelled to blockade the Southern ports … and prevent the importation of foreign goods into them, or to put another expensive guard upon the frontiers to prevent smuggling into the United States.

[PeaRidge]

By the way, BroCanard tries to make some sort of issue about specie and imports....claiming percentages that reduce the power of whatever.

Here's the data from the US Treasury for 1860:

IMPORTS..............Specie.........Goods...........Total.

.............. $8,551,135 ...$353,645,119 ...$362,166,254

Can somebody run the numbers and give him the percentage of specie to imports so that he can see what the actual number is???

[PeaRidge]

Another example of the canards from the neighborhood apologist.

You said: “Near as I can tell, none of those are legit, certainly not important enough to be recorded in histories of newspapers.”

OK, here we go.

The Philadelphia Press

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Philadelphia Press (or The Press) is a defunct newspaper that was published from August 1, 1857 to October 1, 1920.

The paper was founded by John Weiss Forney. Charles Emory Smith was editor and owned a stake in the paper from 1880 until his death in 1908. In 1920, it was purchased by Cyrus Curtis, who merged the Press into the Public Ledger.

Before being published in book form, Stephen Crane's 1895 novel The Red Badge of Courage was serialized in The Philadelphia Press in 1894

Notable contributors

Thomas Morris Chester, African-American Civil War correspondent
Benjamin De Casseres, proofreader, theatrical critic and editorial writer
Elisha Jay Edwards, investigative journalist
John Russell Young, chief Civil War correspondent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Press

NEW ORLEANS DAILY CRESCENT: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn82015378/

Union Democrat

https://www.historians.org/teaching-and-learning/teaching-resources/sixteen-months-to-sumter/newspaper-index/manchester-union-democrat/let-them-go

I hate to use the term lying, so I won't, but you continually make things up.

Remember your "Harriot (sic) Lane" debacle from last year? You went on and on for days in spite of irrefutable proof of you ignorance. Just can't man up and tell the truth?

I would think even rockrr and the rest would get fed up at some point.

[PeaRidge]

The Boston Evening Transcript was a daily afternoon newspaper in Boston, Massachusetts, published from July 24, 1830, to April 30, 1941.[2]

Look it up.

[DiogenesLamp]

IMPORTS..............Specie.........Goods...........Total.

.............. $8,551,135 ...$353,645,119 ...$362,166,254

Can somebody run the numbers and give him the percentage of specie to imports so that he can see what the actual number is???

Well, if the specie is $8,551,135 and the Total is $362,166,254, then specie is 2.4% of the total.