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]

You said: “..... no Unionist Republican is sitting around concocting nonsense when actual history doesn’t serve.”

So someone wrote your post 1342 for you?

[PeaRidge]

Maybe someone should subtract that figure from the total so that BroCanard gets it correct.
...
No wait. Specie was gold or silver. Shipped out to either pay debts, establish a credit account, or buy goods.

But the American shipping companies also re-exported goods and specie for other countries.

So, whose specie is BroCanard speaking about? Mexico? Panama?

He has spent days telling all about specie. He must have a good source of data on who owned it.

Too bad that none of the records I have seen label specie by source. No way of knowing why it was there or who it belonged to.

But wait....it doesn't matter...for two reasons. The dollar percentage was too low to change the ratios and there is no way to say there is a relationship of specie to imported goods.

Another BroCanard rabbit trail.

[PeaRidge]

Do you think we should alert Bro or let him rest in ignorance?

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you think we should alert Bro or let him rest in ignorance?

I think it will make not one jot of difference whether we do or whether we don't. People who know whereof they speak do not bring "Specie" into a discussion about North/South commodities production.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

Are you kidding? They are cheer leading his stream of obfuscation. "Way to Go BroJoeK!" "You really showed them with that message!"

I've been thinking that this business of using words to explain things to them is a waste of time. It lets the subject get diverted to side issues all too easily. I think pictures, especially moving pictures would make the point clearer.

Unfortunately it's a lot of work to create the sort of moving pictures I have in mind, but I'm thinking i'll have to knuckle down and do it anyways one of these days.

[rockrr]

I knew Ed Wood - you’re no Ed Wood.

[DiogenesLamp]

I knew Ed Wood - you’re no Ed Wood.

You must be a fan of Troma.

[jmacusa]

You know Joe, early on here and as often times I’ve always said I found it odd that a bunch of folks(The Lost Causers) who I’m sure ostensibly consider themselves to be conservatives are actually a bunch of Dixiecrats and I’ve called them Dixiecrats many times.

[PeaRidge]

Kettel’s book has lots of data not commonly found or quoted, that could be a good source for you.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "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."

PeaRidge to BJK: "Then you don’t know where 'The Red Badge of Courage' was first published."

More searching did produce data on the Philadelphia Press, including "The Red Badge of Courage" so does look like a legitimate paper, but no searchable text we might use to verify PeaRidge's quote.
Regardless, if we consider PeaRidge's quote on its own merits:

"It is the enforcement of the revenue laws, not the coercion of the State that is the question of the hour.
If those laws cannot be enforced, the Union is clearly gone; if they can, it is safe..."
~Philadelphia Press, January 15, 1861"

The quote itself seems legit because it reflects pretty well President Lincoln's First Inaugural words:

"In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority.
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion -- no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality, shall be so great and so universal, as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object.
While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable with all, that I deem it better to forego, for the time, the uses of such offices."
President Lincoln, First Inaugural Address March 4, 1861

So, even if we can't verify it, PeaRidge's quote "sounds about right".
Lincoln did in March 1861 intend to continue basic Federal functions in secession states.

And that is why many secessionist newspapers called Lincoln's First Inaugural a "declaration of war".
Lincoln intended it to be the opposite, but secessionists were looking for excuses to use battlefields for deciding such issues.

Thomas Chester: "From August 1864 to the end of the Civil War in May 1865, Chester worked as a war correspondent for the Philadelphia Press which was a major daily newspaper at that time."

Will look at those other quotes later.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge quoting: "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 employs 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!"
~Union Democrat (Manchester, New Hampshire), February 19, 1861

This quote is more problematic than the Philadelphia Press quote because:

1. Repeated searches produce no mention of a Manchester Union Democrat newspaper.
   Legitimate 1860 Manchester papers included: from 1839, the Amoskeag Representative and from 1850 the Manchester Daily Mirror.
   In 1863 Manchester got a new paper: the Union Leader.

2. Manchester, New Hampshire is not a shipping port and yet shipping is what this quote complains about.
   But Manchester was a major center for textile manufacturing, and so its concerns would be far less for shipping than for a potential shortage of raw materials.
   And yet, by February 1861, the time of this alleged quote, all the textile manufacturers world wide had grossly overstocked on raw cotton just to protect against any eventualities.
   So even raw cotton supplies would not be an immediate concern in Manchester, New Hampshire in February 1861.

3. Notice the alleged date: February 19, 1861.
   By February 19, Deep-Cotton South states had already declared secession while Upper & Border South states had voted for Union.
   So it was 1/3 of "the South" for secession, 2/3 for Union.
   And while Democrat President Buchanan was still in office there could be no question of "letting the South go."
   Buchanan would do nothing to stop them.

PeaRidge quoting: "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interest....
These are the reasons why these people do not wish the South to secede from the Union.
They [the North] are enraged at the prospect of being despoiled of the rich feast upon which they have so long fed and fattened, and which they were just getting ready to enjoy with still greater gout and gusto.
They are as mad as hornets because the prize slips them just as they are ready to grasp it."
~New Orleans Daily Crescent, January 21, 1861

Here were have a known paper with a seemingly genuine quote, at least part of it, the part I've put in bold.
The alleged rest of the quote is not there in the copy available online.
Further, the context makes clear that the first "They" referred to are not Southerners, but Northerners.

Regardless, even if we accept the quote as genuine, it still represents only a highly distorted Deep South view of Northerners, and an exaggerated opinion of their own value to the Union.
The actual Southern contribution was half the amount listed, certainly significant but not as important as Southerners may have wished.

Finally, if you read that opinion piece from its beginning, at the link above, you'll see that slavery was indeed the stated bone of contention between North and South, and these alleged Northern economic interests are not established as facts.
They are unfounded accusations.

[BroJoeK]

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

Found it, but nothing confirming your alleged quote.

"... the mask [of protecting slavery] has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence.
They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports.
The merchants of New Orleans, Charleston, and Savannah are possesed of the idea that New York, Boston, and Philadelphia may be shorn, in the future, of their mercantile greatness, by a revenue system verging on free trade....
The government would be false if this state of things were not provided against."
~Boston Transcript, March 18, 1861

Suppose, for sake of discussion we assume it a valid quote:

Here we see the reverse of your previous quote.
In your previous quote we saw New Orleans speculating on Northern motives, and here we see Boston speculating on Southern motives.
Both are likely exaggerated, but regardless, in neither case does the editorial opinion call for war against the other.
This editorial merely asks for government "provisions against".
Note the date is March 18, 1861 -- newly inaugurated President Lincoln has called for peace but promised to maintain minimum Federal duties.
Word is spreading that Lincoln intends to surrender Fort Sumter, the threat of war has seemed to recede.

So, the suggestion that a Boston editorial recognizes potential economic problems does not change the fact that Jefferson Davis ordered war to begin at Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861.

[BroJoeK]

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

Yes, I did eventually verify the Philadelphia Press existed at the time, but not the quote in question.

I also verified the New Orleans Daily Crescent plus a part of the posted quote, and the Boston Daily Transcript, but not the alleged quote from it.

Other quotes can not be verified in terms of either the publication itself or its alleged words.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I am pointing out the math, and you people want to argue about everything but the math. "

But you ignore math that matters in favor of "math" which makes no sense.

[DiogenesLamp]

But you ignore math that matters in favor of "math" which makes no sense.

That $238 million is a far greater number than $77 Million? What about that makes no sense?

The South produced more than 3 times the North in financial trade with Europe.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The truth was economic, but that sounds unethical, and so they had to find a substitute truth to make them feel good about invading and murdering people.
They knew they had to invade and murder people to rescue their economics, but this wouldn't play in the moral society that existed then, so they had to rationalize other 'moral' explanations for why they were invading and murdering people.
Initially they advanced 'to preserve the Union', but that really wasn't a very morally compelling cause, so they had to up the hyperbole and claim they were doing it for the slaves. (18 months after the war had started.)"

Sorry, but slavery certainly was the stated reason given by Deep South Fire Eaters for declaring secession and forming their own Confederacy.

Later, slavery certainly was not the reason Jefferson Davis ordered war to begin against the United States on April 12, 1861, nor was it the reason the Confederacy formally declared war on May 6, 1861.

Nor was slavery the reason President Lincoln called for troops to put down the rebellion on April 15, 1861.
Indeed, on nearly any date before April 9, 1865 the Confederacy could have asked for peace and either preserved slavery itself or received compensation for their freed slaves.
And so protecting slavery remained a major issue for Confederates.

For the Union abolishing slavery eventually became the test of victory and one reason they could accept nothing short of Unconditional Surrender.

Of course, you guys know all this perfectly well.
You simply refuse to say it truthfully.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, but slavery certainly was the stated reason given by Deep South Fire Eaters for declaring secession and forming their own Confederacy.

The reasons why the South left are irrelevant to why there was a war. There was a war because the Union invaded them, and that invasion had not a D@mn thing to do with Slavery.

Your side keeps dragging up slavery as a justification for the war, but you keep ignoring the fact that in order for it to be a justification for sending 35,000 men to invade, the invasion had to have something to do with slavery.

It didn't.

[BroJoeK]

DiopgenesLamp: "It was about Railroad money, it was about Shipping money, it was about manufacturing money, it was about government revenue money,
It was about banking, warehousing, insurance, and trade.
About the only thing it wasn't about was freedom for the slaves. "

But Civil War didn't start for any of those reasons, and you well know it.
War started in April 1861 because Jefferson Davis ordered it on Fort Sumter -- just as Japanese started war at Pearl Harbor and Islamic terrorists on 9/11.
Civil War became official when the Confederacy formally declared it, on May 6, 1861.
All those other reasons had nothing to do with immediate Confederate decisions starting war.

For President Lincoln those issues were also far less important than his Oath of Office to the Constitution and his understandings of constitutional words like, "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion" and "treason".
In Lincoln's considered opinion, he could not do otherwise, regardless of economic reasons.

DiogenesLamp: "It didn't become about that [slavery] until the bloodshed had become so bad that revenge became a greater motivation than greed."

Actually many Northerners understood from the beginning that rebellion would create constitutional conditions where the Union Army could declare slaves in rebel states "contraband" and thus emancipate them.
It had happened before and they knew it could happen again, though that was not their goal in April 1861.

Preserving the Union was their first goal.
Freeing slaves became an objective as the war dragged out.

[jmacusa]

Well, the South certainly didn’t go to war to free the slaves. They sure seemed bound and determined to preserve slavery. Their constitution made that clear.

[DiogenesLamp]

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

.

.

. "Pay no attention to that pile of coins sitting on New York."