House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

politico.com ^ | 6/23/16 | Matthew Nussbaum

[DiogenesLamp]

The Union never lost it's "pile of money" in New York or anywhere else.

Then how did they replace that 238 million dollars they lost? Hmmm?

"Borrowing" is not real money. It is in fact how we got into our current mess. Another disastrous consequence of the Civil War.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have no interest in listening to you describe the weather in kookyland.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Borrowing and Spending (The Financial Legacy of the War it seems) is a temporary and long term unworkable solution to a nation's financial troubles."

The US has borrowed huge sums of money for every war, starting with the Revolutionary War.
Indeed, US debt to GDP ratio never again reached Revolutionary War levels (over 35%) until FDR's New Deal and WWII.

No war before 1941 drove US debt back up to levels reached during the Revolutionary War.

DiogenesLamp: "But it did set the stage for all the future corruption and influence peddling.
It also set the stage for eventual financial destruction once the borrowing got out of hand,"

There's no hard evidence that corruption was worse after the Civil War than before, except for the fact that a rapidly growing economy offered more opportunities for some to make a quick buck.

As for "financial destruction", Civil War debt never reached the levels of Revolutionary War debt, nor did any other war before WWII.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off.
The Carolinians have knocked off the chip.
War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished.'
~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861."

The paper seems legit, though nothing available on this quote.
And I think we are still talking about Democrats criticizing Republicans.
What else is new?

More important, the same criticism can be made of President Roosevelt at Pearl Harbor, but it's irrelevant.
In both cases, war was started by the military power which attacked United States forces.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "...he told me that Lincoln had been advised by his military staff of a non confrontational way to resupply the fort, but Lincoln was having none of it.
He said that Lincoln sent a letter to the Confederates informing them that he was going to resupply the fort whether they liked it or not."

Sounds like pro-Confederate mythology to me.

In fact, South Carolina Governor Pickens began demanding surrender, eventually threatening violence in December 1860.
So by April 1861, Major Anderson had been under threat from SC forces for four months.
Outgoing Democrat President Buchanan had already tried, in January, to resupply Fort Sumter but that ship was fired on and fled.
In the mean time both President Buchanan and Major Anderson refused Confederate demands for surrender.

But without resupply, Anderson could not hold out past April, and so Lincoln must either order a resupply mission or surrender Fort Sumter.
After much thought, Lincoln finally chose resupply, it's that simple.

Of course Jefferson Davis would have none of it, so ordered a military assault on Union troops in Fort Sumter, thus launching Civil War.

All the rest of your revisionism is just cockamamie nonsense that must make you feel better, but has nothing to do with real history.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: 12/3/1860 "When Congress convened, several Republicans, especially from the mid-western states, “swore by everything in the Heavens above, and the Earth that they would convert the rebel States into a wilderness."

Source please.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRdige: "You are right about Lincoln Jefferson Davis and his irresponsible manipulations launching of war at Fort Sumter that led to almost three quarters of a million dead people."

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

[DiogenesLamp]

You are so easily baited into your mantra.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "Operating against the advice of his cabinet, military leaders, and the commanding officer at Ft. Sumter who stated that re-supply would bring war, Lincoln commanded that a secret fleet be organized and sent to both South Carolina and Florida."

You know, if you just stop & think about this for a minute, you'll realize that those alleged amorphous "Northeastern businessmen" are not involved in this narrative.

Finally, in all that verbiage you posted, you left out the most important orders:

"The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports.
Should the authorities of Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and, after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington.

Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of this mission -- disposing of your force in such a manner as to open the way..."

This is exactly what Lincoln notified SC Governor Pickens he would do.
But it was too, too much for Jefferson Davis who immediately ordered military assault on Fort Sumter, and the beginning of Civil War.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: "The figures are a total of shipments from each Customs house warehouse, given by region.
If you wish to dispute Customs data, published by the Treasury department, then let's have your reasoning. Otherwise it is indisputable."

First of all, the link you provided showed no data I could find to support those numbers.
So I have no reason to suppose they are accurate for purposes of this discussion.

Second, according to DiogenesLamp's endlessly posted map, over 80% of Southern commerce went through just two cities: New Orleans and Baltimore.
Both cities had strong railroad connections to the North and Midwest, while New Orleans also had Mississippi steamboats bringing product from the North.
So there's no reason to suppose that exports from New Orleans and Baltimore other than cotton were not as likely produced in the North or Midwest as the South.

Third but not least, "Southern Origin" refers not just to the Deep-Cotton South, but also to the Union Border states and the mixed loyalties Upper South.

So, lacking better data on non-cotton production, I conclude that much if not most of what is here called "Southern Origin" in fact came from Union states or loyalist regions of Confederate states and shipped through New Orleans or Baltimore.

PeaRidge: "You left out the data from the North, which was in the post.
You purposefully misrepresented the data to show an erroneous conclusion."

On your first point, Northern exports are not in question here, they are given.
The issue is whether everything called "Southern Origin" really did originate in the Confederate-South.
I think much of it did not, and that means our pro-Confederates have exaggerated the importance of "Southern exports" to the overall US economy.

On your second point: no, nothing of the sort.

PeaRidge: "You said: 'The balance could just as easily come from Upper South, Border States and Northern Midwestern States.'

"Which it did not."

Which you don't know because you don't have the raw numbers to review and confirm.
Logic says that because 80% of Southern commerce shipped through New Orleans and Baltimore, much of that originated in the North and Mid-west.
What it means is that our pro-Confederates have exaggerated the overall importance of Southern exports.

PeaRidge: "Real total was $400 million??
Cite your source for that."

Sure, I've cited the link several times already on this thread alone.
And I think it originally came from somebody like PeaRidge or DiogenesLamp, don't remember for sure...

See page 605 here for summary data on 1860 exports, imports and specie

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m sorry, but every time I think of looking at what you have said, I think “Pearl Harbor” and afterwards I just can’t bring myself to take you seriously.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "One result of the South's 'disastrous course of action' was to launch a war with virtually no navy to speak of.
One of the Norths first actions was to blockade Southern ports."

I've long thought, if we put ourselves in Jefferson Davis' shoes and attempt to devise a more successful strategy, what might that be?

The only thing I come up with is he should delay the war until the Confederacy is much better prepared.
But that too is fraught with its own dangers, especially since without war Upper South states of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas remain in the Union.
So I can't see how it would play out.

Also, a basic rule of ahistorical reimagining is that you can't ask people to do things which were not in their nature to do.
For example, in 1861 the Confederacy was chock full of hotheads, and reimagining such folks to have kept the peace for a year or two longer is just not realistic.

[PeaRidge]

PeaRidge: “From the Treasury records of 1861’

BroCanard said: “I did check out your link here and found nothing resembling the numbers you posted, allegedly, from it.
Can you tell me which pages those numbers came from?”

Yes, both import and export data is found on pages 48 and 49.
Reconfirmed on page 222.

You didn't bother to check, did you.....

[PeaRidge]

PeaRidge: “From the Treasury records of 1861’

BroCanard said: “I did check out your link here and found nothing resembling the numbers you posted, allegedly, from it.
Can you tell me which pages those numbers came from?”

Yes, both import and export data is found on pages 48 and 49.
Reconfirmed on page 222.

You didn’t bother to check, did you.....

[PeaRidge]

“But the remaining $46 million of alleged “Southern exports” cannot be verified as even “Southern” produced, much less products of the Deep Confederate South.”

Wrong and yes it can.

In the Historical Statistics of the United States, section Department of Commerce, there are records of shipment of goods
by port. Each port lists shipments out by type.

From that data, and the US Census, both DeBow and D. Green produced the following data on export product source:

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
Imports consumed . . . . . 336,380,172

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "So what "military" purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?
Not much of anything.
What economic purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?"

All wars, without exception include both military and economic components.
For example, you may have studied the Napoleonic Wars, the greatest wars in history before the 20th century World Wars.
In those wars armies marched all over Europe "on their stomach" as Napoleon famously quipped.
When they ran out of supplies -- as Napoleon did in Russia -- they soon starved and were quickly destroyed.

That's why in such wars, one of the first things the Brits did was set up a naval blockade of France, in an effort to slow France's economy down as much as possible.
In the short run such blockades had not so much effect, but in the longer run they helped eventually defeat the greatest land-force of the age.

Brits also used naval blockades against the United States in both Revolutionary and War of 1812.

Point is: blockades were always used in war by nations which could afford the Navy necessary to impose them.

If you are interested in the subject of blockades, here is a listing of several dozen throughout history.

Map showing British blockade of Napoleonic Europe:

[jmacusa]

Before any battle is won on land it must first be won at sea. In all of WW2 Winston Churchill confessed that his single greatest over riding fear was the U-boat threat and the distinct possibility that if it were not defeated England would be blockaded by it and starved into submission.

[DiogenesLamp]

I wrote:
What economic purpose was accomplished by blockading ports?"

To which you responded:
In those wars armies marched all over Europe "on their stomach" as Napoleon famously quipped. When they ran out of supplies -- as Napoleon did in Russia -- they soon starved and were quickly destroyed.

So you are sorta claiming that the South was needing food imports from Europe or something?

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

Before any battle is won on land it must first be won at sea. In all of WW2 Winston Churchill confessed that his single greatest over riding fear was the U-boat threat and the distinct possibility that if it were not defeated England would be blockaded by it and starved into submission.

Well sure... if you are fighting for an Island.

:)

[jmacusa]

Dude, you really are too stupid to be an idiot. You don’t think blockading ports is militarily effective? Check out just how terrified Winston Churchill was in WW2 at the idea of German U-boats successfully blockading all of Great Britain. The Germans came very close to doing just that.