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.

[ladyjane]

Your pictures are from the early 20th century.

Could you explain why you think they are related to the War Between the States or any financial motives of the northerners.

[rockrr]

They are every bit as valid as your comment about “New England textile mills and learn about child labor in those mills”

You’re welcome to post your tu quoques but I gotta tell you that they’re weak.

[Pelham]

Perhaps DL believes that because President Lincoln himself states the inability to collect revenue as his reason for ordering the naval blockade in his proclamation of April 19, 1861. It’s in the first paragraph:

“Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue can not be effectually executed therein conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties to be uniform throughout the United States; and

Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas and in waters of the United States; and

Whereas an Executive proclamation has been already issued requiring the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine thereon:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, with a view to the same purposes before mentioned and to the protection of the public peace and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizens pursuing their lawful occupations until Congress shall have assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings or until the same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the United States and of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will indorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port she will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port for such proceedings against her and her cargo as prize as may be deemed advisable.

And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended authority of the said States or under any other pretense, shall molest a vessel of the United States or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for the prevention and punishment of piracy.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 19th day of April, A.D. 1861, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State .

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "You’re welcome to post your tu quoques..."

"tu quoques"?
Thanks so much, had to look that one up, so I learned something new today!
I'll add that to my growing list of colorfully named common false arguments:

1. Straw men
2. Red Herrings
3. ad hominems and now
4. tu quoques

:-)

[BroJoeK]

ladyjane: "You will find it interesting to google New England textile mills and learn about child labor in those mills."

Which leads to the logical question: what was worse, Southern slavery or Northern "wage slavery"?
Well, seems to me we should be able to find some data to answer the following questions:

1. By 1860, of the four million Southern slaves, how many tried to escape to freedom in the North each year?
   Was it not at least thousands?

2. Of the half million freed-blacks in 1860, how many voluntarily returned to slavery?
   Was that number not zero?

3. Of the millions of Northern "wage slaves", many of them immigrants, how many found conditions so bad they returned to their "old country"?
   The answer here is, yes, some did, maybe 10%, maybe 20%, but the vast majority worked as hard as they could until they had improved their standard of living enough to move on to a better life, sometimes even farming or ranching.

4. Of the millions of Northern "wage slaves", including blacks how many voluntarily gave up "wage slavery" for real Southern slavery?
   Is that answer not also zero?

Finally we should note that often children working in factories came from large families who depended for their standard of living on wages from their working children.
As the family's living standard improved, children could be withdrawn from factory work and sent, for example, to schools.
Point is: the decision to force children into "wage slavery" came not from the factory owners, but rather from the families who felt the need for extra income.

Bottom line here is that from our earliest days, Americans have always enjoyed a higher standard of living which made us the envy of the world, and drew immigrants from many poorer countries -- immigrants who started off on the bottom rung, but slowly worked their ways up the ladder of success, each generation building on the achievements of those going before.

So, yes, "wage slavery" was a tough row to hoe, but it was voluntary (for the families), often temporary and totally unrelated to race, unlike permanent Southern black slavery.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "Perhaps DL believes that because President Lincoln himself states the inability to collect revenue as his reason for ordering the naval blockade in his proclamation of April 19, 1861.
It’s in the first paragraph:"

Sure, that was the beginning of General Scott's "Anaconda Plan", to strangle the Confederacy economically.
It came a week after Confederate military assault on Fort Sumter.

But the question on the table has nothing to do with that.
The question on the table is: did Lincoln send resupply ships to Fort Sumter, in early April, in order to protect Federal revenues from tariffs mostly collected in large Northern ports?
The obvious answer is: no, that had little or nothing to do with it.
Instead, Lincoln tried to send supplies to Fort Sumter in April for the same reason President Buchanan had tried in January -- because Union troops there needed them.

[rockrr]

“But...but...what will become of my lost cause narrative?”

LOL

[Pelham]

If that is the case wouldn’t Lincoln have stated that his purpose was the need to protect the Fort and its troops rather than saying it was because of the inability to collect revenues?

We should go on what he wrote in his proclamation. It was important enough to him that he leads with it in his opening paragraph.

[HangUpNow]

Ok — I’M on Planet Earth; YOU are...elsewhere.

[HangUpNow]

You too? Keep on kneeling at the Lincoln Memorial and slinging your "North-Saved-The Republic-and-Ended-Slavery" fairy tale.

50 books would support *your* version* of "history"; 50 would support MINE.

[HangUpNow]

Your pictures are from the early 20th century. Could you explain why you think they are related to the War Between the States or any financial motives of the northerners.

*snicker*

Uh, because...because...

[PeaRidge]

You said: "I'm not certain of the historiography here..." Yes, that is evident.

So, exactly what were the circumstances facing Linooln as he took office in March?

The finances of the Federal Government had been in a very disordered condition due to business downturns beginning with the massive recession in 1857. Northern business interests were in a downturn resulting from the political disturbances, and which by reducing the imports of overseas goods, had reduced the customs income, the chief source of revenue for the Treasury.

In June, 1860, a loan of twenty million dollars had been authorized by Congress. Of this amount, ten million was offered in October in a five per cent stock, and it had been taken by investors at a small premium.

Before any installments were paid up, the panic that attended the election had affected credit, and many bids were withdrawn.

This so seriously affected the Treasury Department, that as the New Year approached, it seemed likely there would be no funds with which to meet the interest on the National debt.

By the Act of December 17th, 1860, an issue of ten million dollars, in treasury notes, was authorized, to bear such a rate of interest as might be offered by the lowest bidders, but so shaken was credit, few bids were made, and some of them at a rate of thirty six per cent interest per annum.

The investors interested in the Government credit finally took one million five hundred thousand dollars of one year treasury notes, at twelve per cent per annum (the amount was subsequently raised to five million dollars), on condition that the money should be applied to paying the interest on the national debt.

This was certainly a dark day in the Capitol, when the Federal Government, which had earned the honor of being the only nation that had ever paid its debts in full—principal and interest—and which in 1856, with an overflowing treasury, had paid twenty-two per cent premium for its own stock, was now reduced to give twelve per cent interest, for a few millions, and to engage to protect its credit with the money.

This, combined with the specter that as soon as the primary cotton and tobacco producing states seceded with the subsequent massive loss in exportable products, that the US Treasury was in great jeopardy.

Brojoke, let's think clearly here for a moment.

You said: “...since the vast majority of Federal revenues came from tariffs collected in Union ports, they could not have an immediate impact on Lincoln's actions of March & April 1861.”

You persist in quoting the tariff revenues coming from New York. Do you think money was being printed there and handed over to Treasury?

Of course not. That money had been collected from the importers on the goods they had purchased from Great Britain.

And remember that the “currency” they used to buy their goods was Southern grown and produced goods. You have been shown dozens of times that the value of this “currency” was almost 70% of total exports.

Would the tariff revenue be anywhere the same if the Northern exporters only brought in 30% of previous years’ taxable goods?

And don't you believe that Northern business interests would NOT wait for Congress to convene?

Do you?

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "If that is the case wouldn’t Lincoln have stated that his purpose was the need to protect the Fort and its troops rather than saying it was because of the inability to collect revenues?"

No, we are talking about "before Fort Sumter" versus "after Fort Sumter", meaning the Confederate military assault on April 12.

Before April 12, Lincoln's mission was strictly to resupply Union troops there.
After April 14, everything changed and Lincoln's mission became what his public messages said -- to suppress the rebellion and collect tariffs, etc. Really, this is not rocket science, if you simply remember that the Confederate military assault on Fort Sumter was just as much a Game Changer as was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.

[PeaRidge]

You said: “If Congress seriously believed those (Morrill Tariff rates vs. Confederate rates) were a major threat to US trade.....

If they did not, they were already learning.

From the New York Herald of March 2, 1861:

“The effect of these two tariffs [Morrill Tariff and the Confederate Tariff], then, upon our trade with the best, and most reliable part of the country will most disastrously be felt in all the Northern cities. We learn that even now some of the largest houses in the Southern trade in this city, who have not already failed, are preparing to wind up their affairs and abandon business entirely. The result of this as regards the value of property, rents, and real estate, can be readily seen. Within two months from this time it will probably be depreciated from twenty to forty percent."

Southern exports had vanished just two months before.

You may ignore DiogenesLamp or others on this, but you are wrong, and unwilling to think. Add ignorance to your list of logical fallacies.

You said: "But there's no actual data suggesting this potential problem ever materialized."

Wrong again BroJoker:

Value of imports into the city of New York for 1861 showing percent losses compared to the previous (pre-secession) year.

.....Month ... % change from 1860 to 1861

.....Jan ........ 23.5

.....Feb ...... -15.6

,,,,, Mar ...... -22.8

..... Apr ...... -12.3

..... May ..... -11.5

..... Jun ....... -34.0

..... Jul ........ -40.0

..... Aug ..... -65.7

.....Sep ...... -55.1

..... Oct ...... -49.2

..... Nov ..... -37.5

..... Dec ..... -54.8

The next year showed a drop of more than 55% over 1860.

To say that there is no actual data means that you do not have the data to support your contentions.

"What will become of my tariffs?" Abraham Lincoln.

There is the data. Two days later Lincoln ordered the warships to Charleston.

[HangUpNow]

Really, this is not rocket science, if you simply remember that the Confederate military assault on Fort Sumter was just as much a Game Changer as was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941.

No. You did NOT go there. Wait...you DID. Geez.

You ought to be writing copy for MSNBC.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: “The finances of the Federal Government had been in a very disordered condition due to business downturns beginning with the massive recession in 1857.”

---

At home I have numbers of actual Federal revenues in every year, including this time period.
From memory now I’ll say they were in the neighborhood of $80 million per year, and rose a couple of million each year.
National debt at the time was near to zero, iirc.
So, when you are discussing a problem of $20 million, that is a squeeze on about three month’s of revenue.

Compared to today’s massive Federal debt, those are mere pittances.
So nobody denies that in early 1861, federal coffers were slim and money tight.
After all, declarations of secession and seizures of major Federal properties, along with threats and firings on Union ships — and the total lack of effective response from Doughfaced Democrat President Buchanan — had the country roiling.

I merely point out that all these economic matters were quickly addressed by Congress in July 1861, Federal finances were put on a much sounder basis, and funds found to pay for a TWENTY FOLD increase in wartime defense spending.

So I don’t think we should exaggerate the financial problems of early 1861.
They were merely a part of the larger failure of Buchanan’s administration to deal with the overall situation.

[PeaRidge]

All of you post was incorrect, and not based in truth.

You said:

“At home I have numbers of actual Federal revenues in every year, including this time period.
From memory now I’ll say they were in the neighborhood of $80 million per year, and rose a couple of million each year.”

Wrong. Tariff revenue for 1860 was 52.7 million.

Tariff revenue for 1861 was 39 million.

You said: “National debt at the time was near to zero iirc.

You do not recall correctly. Federal debt in 1860 was 64.8 million.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: “...the ‘currency’ they used to buy their goods was Southern grown and produced goods.
You have been shown dozens of times that the value of this ‘currency’ was almost 70% of total exports.”

---

And you have just as often been corrected, showing that number was much closer to 50%.
Which is still huge, not trying to minimize it, but Deep South cotton was not the US’ only export.
Nor did the loss of 100% of those exports during the war years cause the Union irreparable economic damage.

My point is that for you, like 1860s Confederates, and indeed similar to OPEC in our times, it’s easy to exaggerate the importance of a raw material like cotton, and fail to see how quickly others can adapt to its absence.

Bottom line: in early April 1861, when Lincoln ordered resupply ships to Fort Sumter, solving the treasury’s financial squeeze was not his purpose.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge: “The next year showed a drop of more than 55% over 1860.”

---

Meaning 1862, right?
So it **proves** my point that Deep South cotton, at least in New York, accounted for roughly half of US exports, not 70% or more.

Plus, at the same time that these imports were falling, Federal revenues were dramatically increasing, enough to pay for the huge expense of Civil War.

Bottom line: facts are not so much in dispute here as interpretations of those facts.
I’m merely saying that, considering everything, this early 1861 treasury problem was not as all-important as you wish us to believe.

[BroJoeK]

HangUpNow: “No. You did NOT go there. Wait...you DID. Geez. “

---

So let’s see if I understand correctly: you are the official Free Republic PC police, authorized to call out anybody that doesn’t speak your officially sanctioned language?

Sorry, but the truth of this matter is: that analogy is almost exact, including the fact that both Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt were warned that sending naval forces to Sumter or Pearl could “provoke” an enemy attack, and both ignored the warnings.

My point is that we never blame FDR for Pearl Harbor and should not blame Lincoln for Fort Sumter.