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 ...
Catholics Jews the reb Army had them all.
A lot of papers in March 1861 had mentioned repealing the law, which obviously happened after it was signed (duh). And even Lincoln's Treasury Secretary Chase was reported to say that it must be repealed.
With regard to Fort Sumter, perhaps you are forgetting leaks to the press in March that Fort Sumter was going to be evacuated. That was what Lincoln's messenger Lamon had also said to the Governor of South Carolina and to Major Anderson in the fort. The book Lamon wrote after the war said he told them what Lincoln instructed him to say.
Anderson was mad about this when he later learned the expedition was coming:
I trust that this matter will be at once put in a correct light, as a movement made now, when the South has been erroneously informed that none such will be attempted, would produce most disastrous results throughout our country.
It is, of course, now too late for me to give any advice in reference to the proposed scheme of Captain Fox. I fear that its result cannot fail to be disastrous to all concerned. ...
I ought to have been informed that this expedition was to come. Colonel Lamon's remark convinced me that the idea, merely hinted at to me by Captain Fox, would not be carried out. We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced.
[BroJoeK in Post 1,647]: "3.Fact #3: Lincoln himself, on March 3, 1861 addressed collecting tariffs this way:
[rustbucket in Post 1,648]: It sounds like you are using your error filled almanac again. Or perhaps Lincoln said that in his dry run on Sunday, March 3, the day before his inaugural speech on March 4.
[BroJoeK in Post 1,649]: According to this site, that was the speech delivered on March 4, 1861.
Yes, I know. You first said that Lincoln said those words on March 3, 1861. Then I said, March 3 was the day before his inaugural speech on March 4. Why was he saying it on March 3 like you first claimed? That is why I asked about your old error-filled almanac, which for all I know did say March 3.
In early March, 1861 Lincoln believed it [rb: collecting tariff revenue from seceding states without resistence] could be.
Events soon proved him mistaken in that idea.
If Lincoln believed that he could do that without resistence from the seceded states, he was hopelessly naïve. All he had to do was to read editorials about his inaugural speech in Southern newspapers and Northern Democrat newspapers. [Link]
Lincoln wasn't naïve. As you know, I believe he wanted to start a war that would not be blamed on him as his secretaries Nicolay and Hay later said in their book about Lincoln.
Your Civil War education is sorely lacking. I recommend to you the book, "Lincoln Takes Command, How Lincoln Got The War He Wanted" by John Shipley Tilley. It is a good book. It covers a lot of the things we Southern posters have independently discovered and posted on these threads.
Oh, but I forgot. You earlier said: I "get" that you wish to confuse & conflate issues to make Northerners look bad
I am sorry if the historical documents, newspaper articles, quotes from the Congressional Globe and the Official Record, and data from various sources that the Southern posters provide don't agree with Northern posters' preconceived notions and therefore apparently confuse them. Should I put a trigger warning on my posts?
In fact, by Madison's definition and others, Fire Eaters had declared their secessions "at pleasure", which was not considered legitimate.
To justify their 1861 secession, the Virginia Secession Convention used the exact words that Madison and other Federalists had put in (and voted for) the 1788 Virginia ratification document.
As you know, Hamilton and Jay, the other two authors of the Federalist papers, voted for the New York ratification document which said:
... the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ...
The question was put to the people of Virginia, and they overwhelmingly voted to secede.
1.Tariffs protected all US manufacturing and while Southern & Western production was less than Northern, they were also growing rapidly, thanks to tariff protections.
If Southern manufacturing were such a big deal, why did 40 Southern members of the House vote against the Morrill Tariff, while only one voted for it?
A major potential problem for the North was that goods imported into Southern ports could be smuggled into the North without paying a Northern tariff and sold at prices below those supported by the Morrill Tariff.
In the future Southern market, Northern goods would face competition from lower priced, better quality, European goods imported to Southern ports under the lower Confederate tariff. Northern manufacturers could not sell their goods at Morrill Tariff-inflated prices in the South because of that competition and also because the South would place a tariff on goods coming from the North. I think it was Kettell who calculated the value of Northern goods sold annually to the South at 240 million dollars.
The South would have the same problem with Northern goods being smuggled to the South that the North would have for goods smuggled the other way. It perhaps would have been better if the two sides separated peaceably and agreed to no tariff being applied to Northern or Southern goods going to the other region.
Yes, Lincoln attempted to start war at Fort Pickens. He issued verbal orders to General Scott on March 5 to reinforce Fort Pickens. The reinforcement didn't actually take place until April 11th.
Perhaps the following would lay out the sequence of events for you: [Link]
Also, the following extensive report by Gideon Welles mentions direct orders to Porter that he enter Pensacola Harbor. It makes reference in a couple of places of the ship "running the batteries", in one instance of running by the batteries of Fort Barrancas (across the bay from Fort Pickens). The Confederates held Barrancas at that point, but probably didn't have it extensively manned. I'm not sure whether Porter was ordered to run the ship by Barrancas flying English colors, fire at the fort, and be fired at, and possibly be sunk as a way of starting the war. That is speculation on my part. I haven't seen Porter's orders.
Here's the Link2.
By the time the Powhatan arrived, Fort Pickens had already been reinforced on the night of the 11th (before Fort Sumter was fired at). There is documentation for that reinforcement on the 11th.
There were two sets of conflicting orders from Lincoln concerning Pensacola Harbor. One to Colonel Brown placing him in overall charge of the Union forces there, and one order, whatever it was, telling Porter what to do. Brown prevailed.
"Belligerant"? No.
No more "belligerent" than US resupply & reinforcement missions today to such places as Guantanamo Bay.
Like Confederates, Commie Cubans claim the US has no right to be there.
But if Cubans threaten our troops, that's a provocation of war and if they attack, that's an act of war.
Just like Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens.
Another historical example is US troops in West Berlin, surrounded by Stalin's Soviet tank divisions who demanded we leave.
But the US refused to leave and so long as Soviets didn't attack them, no war was fought over it.
Just like Fort Sumter or Fort Pickens.
I disagree that physical locations matter much.
As Rush often says while broadcasting from some new location: "so long as I'm here, it doesn't matter where 'here' is."
Most large companies have branches in every metropolitan center, here and abroad.
So, where particular borders get drawn is of no concern to them, only that their customers, employees & investors are near-by.
And even "near-by" is not such an issue when people can communicate instantly and travel quickly around the globe.
Point is, these allegedly nefarious "power brokers" who have you so consumed with rage can live anywhere & everywhere, depending on their mood, or the seasons or some particular activity.
Regardless, they are almost all Big City Democrats.
Small town & rural Republicans are a different breed.
I'm a Forrest fan, my great-grandfather's unit fought two battles against him, lost the first, won the second.
My Dad trained for WWII at Camp Forrest, Tennessee.
Forrest was extraordinarily energetic, innovative & cunning, perhaps the best cavalry commander of the war.
By the end of his life he had come full circle in race relations and since I'm a great believer in redemption, I think we should recognize Forrest's full life, not just the darkest moments of it.
imho, yrmv
But the opposite happened, Morrill rates were soon increased, then increased again.
So who really wanted it repealed, and why?
Well, Democrats of course, since they opposed it to begin with.
Anyone else?
Not that I can specifically find.
Here's an interesting article on the subject, from the Newark Daily Advertiser, April 2, 1861, quite sympathetic to Republicans.
And here's another, from the anti-Republican Pittsburgh Post, April 2, 1861.
Most important to note: neither the pro nor anti-Republican newspapers call for war to solve economic problems.
And this was just ten days before Jefferson Davis ordered Civil War to begin at Fort Sumter.
rustbucket: "With regard to Fort Sumter, perhaps you are forgetting leaks to the press in March that Fort Sumter was going to be evacuated."
Such rumors encouraged by Secretary of State Seward, who wished to avoid war and wanted Fort Sumter surrendered.
And so long as Lincoln had hope of "a fort for a state" deal, the rumors were not false.
And that deal did not completely fail until around April 4, when Lincoln met with Virginia representative John B. Baldwin.
At that point, Lincoln's choices were:
Of the three, only the last was remotely possible or likely to succeed.
rustbucket quoting Maj. Anderson: "We shall strive to do our duty, though I frankly say that my heart is not in the war which I see is to be thus commenced."
You guys love to quote Unionist warnings of war, but ignore the more important warning to Jefferson Davis from his own Secretary of State, Robert Toombs:
The decision to start Civil war at Fort Sumter belonged to Jefferson Davis alone.
rustbucket: "Then I said, March 3 was the day before his inaugural speech on March 4.
Why was he saying it on March 3 like you first claimed? "
Pesky typos, can't catch them all.
rustbucket: "If Lincoln believed that he could do that without resistence from the seceded states, he was hopelessly naïve.
All he had to do was to read editorials about his inaugural speech in Southern newspapers and Northern Democrat newspapers."
Possibly "hopelessly naïve".
But the more accurate understanding would be to realize Lincoln intended to do everything his Oath of Office required, such as collecting tariffs, peacefully if possible, by force only if absolutely necessary.
Lincoln understood that the only thing which could remove his obligation to enforce the laws was Congressional action to change those laws.
rustbucket; "I recommend to you the book, "Lincoln Takes Command, How Lincoln Got The War He Wanted" by John Shipley Tilley.
It is a good book."
Outside these threads I've actually tried to read pro-Confederate propaganda material, and sorry to say, just can't.
For a comparison, consider: how long can you stand to listen to Hillary screech?
That's about the same length of time I can put up with serious pro-Confederate propaganda.
It is so wrong, so misguided and rooted in historical fantasies I can't read more than a few sentences.
And I get plenty of it here, to which I can always respond, in depth.
rustbucket: "Should I put a trigger warning on my posts? "
Odd that I first heard that term "trigger warning" a few days ago, now it appears everywhere... odd.
All your old quotes are just fine, but you use them as a propagandist would, not like a scholar.
You take them out of context, ascribe meanings not intended and don't show where these particular ideas fit into the overall discussions of that time.
rustbucket: "To justify their 1861 secession, the Virginia Secession Convention used the exact words that Madison and other Federalists had put in (and voted for) the 1788 Virginia ratification document."
Sure, after Fort Sumter, just as intended by Jefferson Davis when he ordered war to begin there.
Literally, Virginia was unable to declare secession "at pleasure" absent conditions recognized as valid by the Founders:
Since neither condition existed before Fort Sumter Virginia was unable to declare secession.
But once war began, then Virginians could declare their own secession, in accordance with their ratifications statements of 1788.
rustbucket: "If Southern manufacturing were such a big deal, why did 40 Southern members of the House vote against the Morrill Tariff, while only one voted for it?"
As we've reviewed before, there were 21 Southern and 12 Northern Democrats who abstained, along with 14 Republicans.
Eight Southerners voted "yes" and 15 Northerners voted "no".
Yes, of Deep South representatives who voted, almost all were "no".
But outside the Deep South itself, feelings were mixed.
More to my point: effective leadership amongst those who opposed Morrill could have produced better results, from their own perspectives.
rustbucket: "A major potential problem for the North was that goods imported into Southern ports could be smuggled into the North without paying a Northern tariff and sold at prices below those supported by the Morrill Tariff. "
No, not a major problem, only a minor issue requiring extra tariff agents in cities, railroads and steamboats connecting North & South.
And they would not have to catch every smuggler, only the major shippers and those were enough to keep that vast majority of Nothern trade flowing through Union, not Confederate, ports.
rustbucket: "In the future Southern market, Northern goods would face competition from lower priced, better quality, European goods imported to Southern ports under the lower Confederate tariff."
Impossible, since all large shipments would be taxed twice, first by the Confederacy then the Union.
So no merchant would want that, and would make certain imports intended for Union citizens landed in Union cities, etc.
rustbucket: "I think it was Kettell who calculated the value of Northern goods sold annually to the South at 240 million dollars."
Remember, that trade did disappear in 1861, gone.
And what happened?
Federal revenues fell by 26% in 1861 then rose by 19%, 37% and 51% in following years.
So sure, 26% is a big problem, but not the end of the world economically.
rustbucket: "It perhaps would have been better if the two sides separated peaceably and agreed to no tariff being applied to Northern or Southern goods going to the other region."
Maybe, but all such discussion ended on April 12, 1861 when Jefferson Davis ordered Civil War to begin at Fort Sumter.
No, in fact, Lincoln merely attempted to repeat resupply missions first sent by President Buchanan in January.
Neither Buchanan nor Lincoln wanted to "start war" at either Pickens or Sumter.
They did wish to hold those forts, indefinitely.
So the decision to use Union resupply/reinforcement missions as excuse to start war was strictly Jefferson Davis'.
[BroJoeK]: Outside these threads I've actually tried to read pro-Confederate propaganda material, and sorry to say, just can't.
For a comparison, consider: how long can you stand to listen to Hillary screech?
That's about the same length of time I can put up with serious pro-Confederate propaganda.
It is so wrong, so misguided and rooted in historical fantasies I can't read more than a few sentences.
A book that presents information (letters, quotes, things from the Official Records and the Congressional Globe, economic data published by the US Government) is not Southern propaganda although it might not be comfortable for you to read. Toughen up. You are not a snowflake, BJK.
In addition to the book above, I recommend "Days of Defiance, Sumter, Secession, and the Coming of the Civil War" by Maury Klein. Klein is a professor of history at the University of Rhode Island. The Washington Post Book World said, "Splendid ... A riveting story and Klein has retold it surprisingly well." The Orlando Sentinel said, "Vivid ... dramatic ... informative ... fast paced ... This is the clearest exposition so far of why America took those last, fatal steps to war."
I need to go through my county training program for election day poll officials today. That takes hours. I have been doing this election day poll work for the last few years as a Republican poll official. I am not looking forward to election day. We start at 6 AM, and I likely won't get through until 9 PM.
On a good note, the suburban area where I live is largely Republican. There were a huge number of early voters the first few days. I don't work in the early voting - only on election day. The place I'm working on election day is a grocery store that had a line of voters snaking all over the store in the 2012 election. Maybe I won't get home until 10 PM.
From the introduction of my training program:
“This module offers uniform training covering election laws and procedures to help ensure that poll workers are able to perform their duties correctly. The interactive training includes information about qualifying voters, issuing the proper ballots, opening and closing procedures, how to process voters with special needs and how to recognize special situations that should be handled by the Election Judge.”
God forgives Joe. I don’t. Not a man like this.
[BroJoeK]: No, Congress does not need a President to call it into session, it can convene whenever it wants.
So Lincoln called Congress back to Washington DC months earlier than it would have convened on its own.
You are mistaken. Both houses of Congress adjourned sine die -- The House on March 2, 1861, and the Special Session of the Senate on March 28, 1861. Both adjourned without setting a date to reconvene.
Here is the impact of that sine die adjournment:
The United States House of Representatives adjourned sine die [1] on March 2, 1861, and under parliamentary law, ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body. An adjournment sine die closes the session, and if there is no provision for convening the assembly again, the adjournment dissolves the assembly.
With both the House and Senate adjourned without setting a reconvene date, they could not reconvene on their own initiative. They were dissolved. The date set by the Constitution for the next session to begin was December 2, 1861. The only other way Congress could reconvene before then was if Lincoln reconvened them, which he did at a date of his choosing, July 4, 1861.
This was consistent with the Constitution.
From Article I (Legislature), Section 4:
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.From Article II (Executive), Section 3:
... [The President] may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them ...
Once both houses of Congress had adjourned sine dei, Lincoln started planning his secret expedition to Fort Sumter and did all of the various unconstitutional things which I've listed above after the attack on Fort Sumter without having to worry about any Congressional interference.
A salute to your research
Deo Vindice
That ends another BroCanard crusade of misrepresentations.
Inherent in your post is the fact that it is obvious that the Republican Party/Congress/Supreme Court failed in its responsibility to restrain Lincoln in his effort to use the military to control a Federal financial crisis.
At their feet and his lies the responsibility for the most horrible war in this country's history.
Spoken like a true committed leftist.
Yes, of Deep South representatives who voted, almost all were "no".
But outside the Deep South itself, feelings were mixed.
I've been able to identify the eight Southerners you mentioned who voted for the Morrill Tariff. One was from Tennessee, four from Kentucky, two from Maryland, and one from Virginia (paired as a yes vote). So, there were actually two from the Deep South.
If you look at the background of those eight they were all either Opposition Party, Independent Republican-Democrat, or American Party. Five of the eight were officially former Whigs, one of whom was even a Whig Presidential Elector. The Whig Party (by 1860 essentially defunct) had been in favor of high tariffs. In the past, Whigs had filed a resolution in favor of impeaching President Tyler because he vetoed a high tariff bill. Kind of hard to flip those guy's votes on the Morrill Tariff, I imagine.
Hmm, the Deep South doen’t usually include Virginia, so there was then only one Representative from the Deep South who voted for the Morrill Tariff. He was Emmerson Etheridge, from a Tennessee county on the border with Kentucky.
Obviously Captain Porter thought he was engaging in some act that might get him sunk. It's hard to characterize it as anything but a deliberate act of belligerence. It was apparently Lincoln's backup plan to make sure a war started.
It was a war the North badly needed to stop economic competition from the South. It was Rome and Carthage all over again.
And in 1861 they were Big City Republicans. You say they can live anywhere, but for some reason they chose to live in or near very wealthy cities like New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Washington DC and Chicago.
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.