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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, I should have cc’d you all on Post 1575.

Thank you for your consideration. I am very interested in the discussion, and even BroJoeK occasionally writes something interesting.

:)

[rustbucket]

War is funny economically. It can create boom conditions under certain circumstances, but represent a loss in the long run.

In 1861, the war actually initially made more money for the cotton mills because the price of cotton manufactured goods went up sharply in anticipation of the coming cotton shortage. Ultimately, some cotton mills shut down or operated on reduced numbers of days or hours. A lot of the young girls who worked at the cotton mills simply went back home to their families when they lost their jobs. Some girls were able to get work at the woolen mills where uniforms were being made for the Union Army.

Woolen uniforms reminds me of my days in ROTC in a large Southern public high school. All of the boys had to take Army ROTC, and for most of the year we wore wool uniforms. The uniforms got rather hot as the Southern temperature warmed up. We had a compulsory ROTC requirement at my college too, all apparently dating back to something done by Congressman Morrill, he of the Morrill Tariff.

The Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) was established by the National Defense Act of 1916. Prior to that military training existed on many campuses, due primarily to the Morrill Act or Land Grant Act of July 2, 1862.

My college was a land grant college, and it consequently (up until I was there) maintained a compulsory military training program (since then made voluntary).

[StoneWall Brigade]

Interesting.

Speaking of JROTC I also took it when I was in high school. One of my instructors, was a member of the SCV and also part of Chapman’s artillery reenacting unit.

[BroJoeK]

StoneWall Brigade: "I am going to interrupt the tariff discussion for a second, to tell everyone that the effort to remove the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest has failed."

I've mentioned before one of my great-grandfathers, fresh off the boat, served the Union in the western theater, had encounters with Forrest.
Thank God, both lived to tell the stories.

[BroJoeK]

rustbucket: "You keep saying that tariff revenue went up during the war without mentioning that it went up in inflated dollars that were worth less than 1860 dollars.
You did it again in the post I'm responding to.
The consequence of that inflation you forgot to mention was that the North was able to import less during the war than it had in 1860.
Apocalypse is in the eye of the beholder."

See my post #1521 above.
It and others say one purpose of the Morrill Tariff was to reduce imports, and even more the huge specie transfers needed to pay for them.
From the same NY Times source quoted in #1521:

"It is now just a year since the first of the bills, of which we have spoken, was passed, and we wish to note its effects.
These have been as, during this crisis of our affairs, we most desired to have them, namely:
1. First -- A reduction in the value of articles of luxury imported.
   
2. Second -- The accumulation and retention of specie (the basis of all financial operations) in the country.
   
3. Third -- An increase in the revenue arising from the levy of duty on those articles which would always be imported, in times of peace or war; and,
   
4. Fourth -- A prospective increase in the manufacturing interests and capital of the country."

rustbucket: "You have a valid point that all of the transport of Southern produce and cash, however much they totaled, wasn't entirely lost to the North as a result of the war because not all Southern states seceded for whatever reason (Northern force, voter preference, etc.).
However much the financial loss to the North amounted to after the South seceded, it still had a big impact on various sectors of Northern economy."

Of course, as did two million Northern men serving the Union Army, no question about that.
I'm merely pointing out such changes were not as important, not as apocalyptic, as sometimes claimed.
Instead, most Northern businesses adjusted, adapted and continued to prosper.

rustbucket: "Do you have problems with the economic disruptions that Appleton's says happened in the North as a result of their loss of a significant cross border exchange of goods and services?"

No, merely pointing out they were not as important as sometimes claimed.
For example, our poster DiogenesLamp maintains such economic factors were not just apocalyptic, they drove Northeastern businessmen to demand Lincoln start a war to restore the status quo ante.
I'm saying such Marxist class warfare reasoning exaggerates the importance of economics.
It's just like saying "the US declared war on Japan in December 1941 over Marxist economic factors" while ignoring the huge effects of Pearl Harbor.
DiogenesLamp ignores Fort Sumter, choosing instead to focus on imaginary Northeastern business influences.

rustbucket: "Let’s look at cotton mills in the North, The city of Lowell, Massachusetts had many cotton mills. From Wikipedia:"

Sure, but similar could be said of other wars, wars we don't usually blame on Marxist class warfare reasoning.

rustbucket quoting New York Herald: "The result of this is that manufacturing operations are reduced to about one-fourth of their usual extent.
How long they may be able to continue at that rate is scarcely problematical, should not our troops speedily liberate a considerable amount of cotton."

You remember, don't you, the Herald was an anti-Lincoln, pro-Democrat organ?
So the Herald is here mocking Republican policies, in the same way Democrats mocked George Bush's Iraq war as "all about the oil."
Now Trump says is should have been about oil, but the fact is, for Bush, it wasn't.

Now do you "get" it?

rustbucket quoting NY Herald: "From extended inquiry we find that the contraction of manufacturing has released about seventy thousand operatives from the mills.
About one-third of these are males who have mostly walked out of the factory and into the camp, and are doing good service in endeavoring to wrest cotton from the grasp of the rebels."

Just like recent years Democrats claimed Bush sent troops to Iraq to take their oil.
Neither Bush nor Lincoln were motivated by such Marxist thinking.
But of course, Democrats are all about such thinking.

rustbucket mocking slave-holders: "Sounds like Gollum in Lord of the Rings on slavery, "We wants it, we needs it.
Must have the precious slaves.
They Abols stole it from us.
Sneaky little hobbitses rebelses abolitionists.
Wicked, tricksy, false!" (/gollum voice)"

See, anybody can play silly mocking games.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp letting his wildest fantasies to run wild:

"But in the run-up to war, it didn't really matter how many eventually seceded, what mattered is how many the "shadow government" thought would secede.
[We fantasize] people make plans based on what they think will happen, and they generally plan for the worst.
Take it as a given [by insane Lost Causers] that the war demands were based on worries of the maximum possible losses for the businessmen of New York."

DiogenesLamp expanding his fantasies to today: "I sometimes think pretend that is what they have planned to deal with the Social security crises.
I used to think imagine they were stupid (for not recognizing the math involved) I now think make-believe they are just plain evil. "

[DiogenesLamp]

BroJoeK wrote:
DiogenesLamp expanding his fantasies to today: "I sometimes think pretend that is what they have planned to deal with the Social security crises. I used to think imagine they were stupid (for not recognizing the math involved) I now think make-believe they are just plain evil. "

Let us focus on this for a moment, because I know you cannot discuss anything related to the Civil War without letting your bias control your thoughts, but this social security thing is not directly connected to the war.

The math does not work. One must either conclude it's proponents are stupid, (unable to understand the math) or they are evil. (They understand the math just fine, they simply don't care that the Social Security system will collapse.)

So I have offered two alternative explanations for why we have this social security mess, if you disagree with either of my explanations, how about you suggest one?

What do you expect to happen with Social Security financing, and what do you think was the motivation behind it's proponents?

[DiogenesLamp]

I've mentioned before one of my great-grandfathers, fresh off the boat, served the Union in the western theater, had encounters with Forrest. Thank God, both lived to tell the stories.

Irish? Poor saps. Dragooned into fighting a war against people who had done them no wrong.

And they say the Union was against slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

A lot of the young girls who worked at the cotton mills simply went back home to their families when they lost their jobs. Some girls were able to get work at the woolen mills where uniforms were being made for the Union Army.

Starting a war with the South certainly kept a lot of people employed on borrowed money who would not otherwise be employed.

The uniforms got rather hot as the Southern temperature warmed up.

No doubt it was equally uncomfortable for the Union soldiers during the war. They endured a lot to do their master's bidding.

But what matter human suffering to invaders?

We had a compulsory ROTC requirement at my college too, all apparently dating back to something done by Congressman Morrill, he of the Morrill Tariff.

Sometimes bad pennies keep turning up.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The 'tariff' is merely the means by which massive amounts of wealth were channeled to the North.
The actual fight was over the disposition of the trade wealth, which was actually being steered by the tariff or the lack thereof."

The fact is those tariffs protected all manufacturing, North, South or West.

Now compare to this map of US population densities:

So the reason US industry was mostly Northern is that's where the people lived.
Those people would not begin to seriously migrate South until air-conditioning and medicine improved life in hotter climates.

DiogenesLamp: "New York would have acquired devastating losses and competition in the subsequent decades, and New York had the President's ear.
New York was having none of it.
Thus, War."

Pure fantasy since Northern calls for war were not based on economic factors, but on Confederate aggressions against Union properties, officials & troops, especially Fort Sumter.

[PeaRidge]

It is not northern businessmen who controlled the US Army and Navy.

It is known that the recession of 1857 impacted the approval voting of the Morrill tariff.

Just as important to the business community as was the protectionist tariff, so was the tariff to the federal government.

In discussions of the Morrill Tariff, the condition of the US Treasury is forgotten.

Public Debt of the Federal Government 1857-1860

(Source: Historical Statistics of the US, Series Y-493-504, page 1118)

1857 ........$28,701,000

1858 ........$44,913,000

1859 ........$58,498,000

1860 ........$64,844,000

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I know you cannot discuss anything related to the Civil War without letting your bias the facts and reson control your thoughts"

Fixed it for you, no problem, you're welcome.

DiogenesLamp: "this social security thing is not directly connected to the war.
The math does not work.
One must either conclude it's proponents are stupid, (unable to understand the math) or they are evil.
(They understand the math just fine, they simply don't care that the Social Security system will collapse.)"

Plenty of other obvious explanations closer to the real truth.
For example: Social security cannot possibly "fail" unless Congress refuses to vote it enough money.
If & when that day ever comes, I'm pretty sure you will count the number of "no" votes on the first two fingers of your right hand as they curl around to touch each other.
Budget deficits?
They don't care, as witness Obama's doubling the national debt in eight years.

Trump says, and I agree, that all financial problems in Social Security go away when the economy is growing at more normal rates.

DiogenesLamp: "What do you expect to happen with Social Security financing, and what do you think was the motivation behind it's proponents?"

I expect Congress will take the easiest way out, politically.
If Trump does increase economic growth to adequate levels, then the whole issue goes away for many more years.

Regardless, to your point here: Social Security is an important economic problem which will never drive anyone to declare real shooting war on anybody else.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Irish? Poor saps. Dragooned into fighting a war against people who had done them no wrong.
And they say the Union was against slavery."

No, not Irish, but one irony is the parents brought their boys here to avoid the draft in the Old Country -- they were draft dodgers.
Once here the boys soon enlisted, volunteered for infantry and served throughout the war, my great-grandfather both captured & wounded, nearly died.
After the war he used his pay to buy a farm in Kansas, raised a huge family...

The American dream in a nut-shell.

[DiogenesLamp]

It is not northern businessmen who controlled the US Army and Navy.

No more so than the New York media currently control the elections.

The New York businessmen had influence with Lincoln, and *HE* controlled the Army and the Navy. In regards to Southern independence, the primary necessities of both groups aligned.

Lincoln's government needed the import tariff money caused by Southern exports, and Northern Eastern Businessmen not only wanted the revenue stream from Southern exports they had been enjoying for decades, but they wanted to prevent competition created by millions of dollars worth of capitalization which would occur in the South if it were allowed to remain independent.

The answer to both concerns was war to reestablish control of those revenue producing areas.

In discussions of the Morrill Tariff, the condition of the US Treasury is forgotten.

In the larger scheme of things, the loss to the Federal Government of tariff revenue was the lesser issue. Far more money than that was at stake if the South remained independent.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Starting a Responding to the Confederacy's declared war with the South United States certainly kept a lot of people employed on borrowed money in the war effort who would not otherwise be employed in other pursuits."

Lots of pesky typos, but I fixed them for you.
No problem, you're welcome.

[DiogenesLamp]

No one is impressed by your juvenile insistence on trying to force reality to confirm to your preferences.

Money. Money is the reason. Nothing but money. Greed is at the root of this. Greed is responsible for the deaths of 750,000 people.

[PeaRidge]

..............US Government Spending for 1857-1860
...............(Historical Statistics of the US, pg. 106)

Year..........Total Fed.Spending..........Total Fed.Spending on military,interest on ............................................................Public Debt., and pensions

1857...............67,796,000...............35,400,000

1858...............74,185,000...............34,300,000

1859...............69,071,000...............29,700,000

1860...............63,131,000...............33,100,000

[PeaRidge]

I think you have heard quite a few historians push the theme that President Buchanan was such a poor president because.........(list your reason)!

Some criticized him because of the massive debt his administration accumulated.

Yes, debt did increase dramatically, but in the other table above, the data says that with an exception in 1858, that federal spending was declining.

If Buchanan and his people are at fault, then they are responsible for declining federal spending.

But debt was increasing!! Why?

[PeaRidge]

......Income of the Federal Government 1857-1860
(Source: Historical Statistics of the US, Series Y 493-504, pg. 1114)

Total Income of the Treasury (Tariffs, public land sales)

Year..........Total Income..........Income from Tariffs

1857............68,965,000............63,876,000

1858............46,655,000............41,790,000

1859............53,486,000............49,566,000

1860............56,065,000............53,188,000

[PeaRidge]

I think those three charts show that debt was increasing drastically, spending was declining, and revenue was declining.

This shows the impact of the recession of 1857. Northern and Western manufacturing and agriculture was curtailed to such an extent that their exports declined and negatively impacted the imports that they would have produced.

Much lost tariff revenue showed up in much lower government revenue.

It is likely the Northern politicians used the situation to foster support for the sectional control of the Morrill tariff.

When secession began, US Treasury revenue declined rapidly. And the government was not ready for it.