Posted on 06/23/2016 2:04:08 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Is that you, Hillary? Sound like it is.
We've discussed these subjects before. I've discussed with you the Republican intent to destroy slavery, the basis of the Southern economy. Remember that the majority of Republicans in the House endorsed Helper's Book that said they were going to destroy slavery, so help them God, or words to that effect? I've also posted about the decreasing US tariff revenue during the war when expressed in constant 1860 dollars -- even though the northern tariff rate kept increasing.
In our earlier discussions you could not seem to understand that the Morrill Tariff imposed a higher tariff rate on imported manufactured goods than on most other imported goods, such as raw materials. You kept wanting to apply the average tariff rate under the Morrill Tariff to manufactured goods rather than the higher rates that the Morrill Tariff actually imposed on imported manufactured goods.
At that point, I despaired of ever getting through to you. Or, if it was just an unyielding position you were insisting on in a debate, I didn't want to waste my time arguing with you over such obvious matters. The Morrill Tariff imposed higher than average tariff rates on imported manufactured goods in order to protect (and enrich) US manufacturers, in other words, the manufacturers who were supporting the Northern politicians and urging that they increase the tariff rates.
In fact the new Morrill Tariff soon doubled Federal receipts, and provided protections for US industry to pay its workers more than any others in the world.
As I said above, in constant 1860 dollars, tariff revenue decreased during the war. Wartime iflation and the Morrill Tariff actually reduced real tariff revenue to well below what it had been in 1860. Runaway inflation hit the South very hard. They were deprived of tariff revenue by the Northern blockade.
The book, "Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation" by Mark Thornton and Rovert B. Ekelund, Jr. page 71, citing Atack and Passell's earlier work, reported that Northern worker wages in constant 1860 dollars declined all during the war. I don't know whether that the US worker still remained the highest paid in the world during the war. It could be that they still were, but the average worker no doubt felt the decline in what their wages could buy due to inflation.
Here is an unexpected item I found in the Lancaster Intelligencer (Pennsylvania), March 26, 1861:
PROTECTION
The Morrill tariff act, passed by the late Republican Congress under the spur of protection to domestic manufactures, and the promise of better times for the laboring man, goes into operation on the first of April next. As an earnest of the great and glorious benefits that tariff promises, we notice that the Phoenix Iron Company, doing business at Phoenixville, and one of the largest iron manufactories in the United States, have given notice to their employees, numbering from 1,200 to 1,500 men, that their wages would be reduced from ten to twenty five per cent., on the day the tariff goes into effect.
One possible reason for decreasing the worker pay was that Phoenix's exports to the South were going to have to pay the Confederate tariff.
Sorry, BJK, but I think I will go back to just ignoring your posts.
No! You don't say! So why the message about the army traveling on it's stomach? What did that have to do with stopping European trade with the South? Why do you throw out obfuscation?
But the Confederacy certainly could have used major imports for many purposes, just to mention a few: rail, railroad engines & telegraph wire. Those would have made a huge difference to Confederate armies and in the end rendered them far less mobile than their Union opponents.
I would think that those Blockade runners could have gotten them all the Telegraph wire they could have used. As for shipping a Locomotive from Europe (Did they even make them in Southern Gauge over there?) that sounds like an impressive feat.
Perhaps they could have shipped it in pieces, but assembled? What did those things weigh? A Hundred tons perhaps? Never mind. I found a list. The smallest Steam locomotive was 491,000 lbs, and the biggest was 856,000 lbs.
Maybe they would have shipped locomotives, but this seems like a stretch. Makes far more sense that they stopped trade to prevent Europeans from making the larger profits and thereby giving them a reason to back the South with Military support. (Men, Warships, etc.)
;-)
I see -- so now you're out of real ammo and are reduced to throwing rocks.
That's because you mind is corrupted by pro-Confederate propaganda.
If you'd take the time to read & learn, you'd know that Fort Sumter had the same effect on Americans as, say, Pearl Harbor or 9/11.
If you don't want to be treated like a carny show, don't act like a carny show.
My mind has overcome the effects of Pro-Civil War propaganda. When looked at objectively, it becomes clear that those seeking independence were in the right, and those who invaded them to stop their independence, were in the wrong.
I'm not going to indulge your Ft. Sumter/ Pearl Harbor comparison. The "Gulf of Tonkin incident" is a far closer analogy.
Where are these networks headquartered?
And in the air, now also in missile defense, outer space and cyber-space.
Add to that political ideology, religious perspective and cultural identities.
So war can have many theaters, any one of which might cause a loss of all.
This is not the place to debate WWII.
The key point to remember, for this discussion, is that WWII began for US when Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, just as Civil War began when Confederates attacked Fort Sumter.
Very similar situations.
And this is why I have a hard time taking you seriously.
So, do you finally see that your position is untenable?
What I say now is what I've said from the beginning: half of US 1860 era exports were Deep South produced cotton = ~$200 million of ~$400 million total exports, including specie.
As for your claim that the Southern 20% of whites produced multiple times more than the Northern 80%, I've said that's ludicrous, since cotton was produced by 3 million slaves.
Southern whites produced basically nothing for export.
As for "slave money" going through New York, of course, and New York Democra businessmen were political allies of Southern slavocrats.
But remember this: those Northeast Democrat businessmen didn't care how cotton was produced -- by prewar slaves or post-war share croppers, it was all the same to them.
DiogenesLamp: : "So what I have been saying all along is right.
What is worse than slave owners are people who murder hundreds of thousands just to get back the money created by slaves."
No, it makes what you've been saying all along total lunacy.
That's because Democrats in New York favored giving Southern slavocrats whatever they wanted to keep good relations, including surrender of Fort Sumter.
Yes, after Fort Sumter they supported the war, but totally half-hearted just as Democrats usually are.
For a good example of your typical Civil War Democrat, consider Union General McClellan.
DiogenesLamp: : "I think this makes them the most evil human beings in American History."
Naw... I think, for our purposes here we should consider people like DiogenesLamp, who lie and distort history for nonsensical reasons as the "most evil human beings".
Of course, I have no special love for Civil War era Northern Democrats, but the real villains of this history are Fire Eater slavocrats who declared secession at pleasure, started war without adequate reason or preparation and then refused to end their war on any terms better than "Unconditional Surrender".
Only slightly less wicked are those pro-Confederate propagandists who continuously lie and distort anything necessary to defend the indefensible.
Just one opinion, YRMV
Bottom line, PeaBrain is that you have no clue what you're talking about.
The fact is that specie is money, and is listed along side other exports because it effects the balance of trade.
Specie helps explain how the U.S. continuously ran large trade deficits, year after year -- specie balanced the books.
And it matters not who owned the specie, just as it matters not who owned cotton or any other export.
For purposes of **THIS** discussion, it only matters that specie helped pay for those tariffed imports which provided Federal revenues.
Otherwise, we wouldn't care.
PeaBrain: "You are just tossing that amount in to try to prove another point that is not anywhere near being true."
No, my point is not only 100% true, it's also important to this thread: that Deep South cotton exports did pay for roughly 50% of US imports, but not the 75% or 87% sometimes claimed.
And the reason that's important is because it helps explain why & how Union states were able to so quickly adjust, adapt & prosper in 1861 even with zero, zip, nada cotton.
Cotton was just not as important as Fire Eaters then and pro-Confederates today believed.
I did look at the "source" you claimed supported your summary data.
That "source" had nothing, zero, zip, nada.
So it appears that you are making up numbers out of thin air.
Typical.
Barry, is that you? Sounds like it is.
rustbucket: "Remember that the majority of Republicans in the House endorsed Helper's Book that said they were going to destroy slavery, so help them God, or words to that effect."
I remember learning that a minority of Republicans signed a highly sanitized version, which even that they didn't read.
Regardless, your basic point that Republicans were anti-slavery and Democrats pro-slavery is certainly true, just as it is today.
But just as today, most Republicans then we're gradualists far more interested in preserving the Union than in abolition.
rustbucket: "I also posted about the decreasing US tariff revenue during the war when expressed in constant 1860 dollars -- even though the northern tariff rate kept increasing."
Not that I recall, and I'm beginning to wonder if you haven't conflated me with somebody else -- Michelle perhaps, Barry?
Regardless, Morrill Tariff revenues doubled during the war, inflation or no.
Of course, they were far short of enough to pay for the war, but they helped, along with bonds & income taxes.
rustbucket: "In our earlier discussions you could not seem to understand that the Morrill Tariff imposed a higher tariff rate on imported manufactured goods than on most other imported goods, such as raw materials.
You kept wanting to apply the average tariff rate under the Morrill Tariff to manufactured goods rather than the higher rates that the Morrill Tariff actually imposed on imported manufactured goods."
But average rates certainly do matter, because for every increased rate there were others much lower.
In fact the Morrill Tariff was especially designed to put the highest tariffs on exactly those luxury products most likely to be imported by wealthy people.
Regardless, Morrill was not mentioned by Deep South secessionist as a reason for secession.
Protecting slavery was their reason.
rustbucket: "The Morrill Tariff imposed higher than average tariff rates on imported manufactured goods in order to protect (and enrich) US manufacturers, in other words, the manufacturers who were supporting the Northern politicians and urging that they increase the tariff rates."
No, you are laboring under fundamental misunderstandings.
Morrill was originally intended to protect ALL manufacturers, North, South, East & West.
Those included foundaries near Richmond VA, Cumberland TN and Charleston, SC.
Morrill protected the immigrant workers in those factories who nearly always voted Democrat as well as the factory owners who only occasionally voted Republican.
Then as now, most Republicans were farmers and small businessmen who would most likely pay the higher tariffs without feeling any direct benefits.
rustbucket: "As I said above, in constant 1860 dollars, tariff revenue decreased during the war.
Wartime inflation and the Morrill Tariff actually reduced real tariff revenue to well below what it had been in 1860."
I'm not certain how true that is, but do know a method for checking it out.
Will get back to you on it.
rustbucket: "One possible reason for decreasing the worker pay was that Phoenix's exports to the South were going to have to pay the Confederate tariff."
I'd be pretty certain they were all rehired after Apil 15, 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.
You were also given the data on products of Northern and Southern origin.
If you want to compile that data yourself, go:
http://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970.html
gives extensive data on trade: imports, exports by value
http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/agriculture/1860b-07.pdf
gives agricultural production by state
Or you can go toDebow’s Review: Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial Progress ..., Volumes 32-33.
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.
You were also given the data on products of Northern and Southern origin.
If you want to compile that data yourself, go:
http://www.census.gov/library/publications/1975/compendia/hist_stats_colonial-1970.html
gives extensive data on trade: imports, exports by value
http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1860/agriculture/1860b-07.pdf
gives agricultural production by state
Or you can go toDebow’s Review: Agricultural, Commercial, Industrial Progress ..., Volumes 32-33.
All...excuse the double post.
It was announced about a month later. Immediately after, all sorts of newspaper outcries began...mostly calling for force to be used against the seceded states.
Thanks, PeaRidge. In checking my records I see I have posted something from a book about the Confederate Tariff before:
From The Confederate States of America, 1861-1865: A Financial and Industrial History of the South During the Civil War, by John Christopher Schwab, 1901, page 240-241:
The first distinctive Confederate tariff was enacted on March 15, 1861, and levied a 15% ad valorem duty upon the importation of coal, iron, paper, and lumber. This was soon elaborated into the tariff of May 21, 1861, which, slightly amended on August 8, and put into force on August 31, expressed the tariff policy of the Confederate States during the war. As was to be expected, the Confederate Congress perfected a revenue measure from which almost every trace of protective motives was removed. In fact the protective principle was discountenanced by both Confederate Constitutions, for under the old regime the South always felt that the burden of the tariff had fallen chiefly on its own shoulders.
… As in the case of the old tariffs of 1846 and 1857, each rate was avowedly aimed at deriving the largest possible customs revenue from the particular articles to which it applied. In carrying out this principle, the Confederate tariff lowered the former rates of 1857, especially the leading 24% rate to 15%, coal and coke, raw hemp and tobacco, leather, iron ore, and pig iron, from 24% to 10%. The duty on sugar and molasses, however, was but slightly reduced, from 24% to 20%, perhaps from lingering protectionist motives, which we shall see were not wholly absent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.