House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

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

[DiogenesLamp]

I think it makes for a great plot line for a movie.

Funny you should mention that. I was thinking along similar lines. The reason the Liberals keep winning the culture wars is because they make movies that present their ridiculous ideas in the most positive light possible, and they deliberately exclude from consideration the real world consequences of those ideas that cause them to be horrible disasters.

I've been thinking that if a movie (I'm thinking animation) was made showing the pieces of the puzzle of which most people are unaware, it would have a far more effective impact than this arguing with words and old records. We could literally show the truth of what happened, and it would make sense and explain a lot of stuff that some people have found puzzling over all these years.

You know his people rented out civilian ships to carry the troops. The people at the Naval yard painted out the names on these ships, and loaded English coal so that the different smoke would make it appear that these ships were not warships.

I did not know that. That is an amazing effort to conceal activities from the public, but it would not fool confederate agents and sympathizers who would likely be closely watching the docks for Union military efforts.

Again, if this was just a re-supply mission, why go to such great trouble to conceal it? One does not do skullduggery sneaking if one is being forthright and honest.

His men had to pay for these ship rentals at very high rates.

Has anyone asked where the money came from since in several posts earlier it was reported that the Treasury was depleted and departmental expenses could not be paid?

I'm thinking that Lincoln was very much like Obama. A race obsessed Liberal from Illinois who had no problems splurging on other people's money, and didn't mind issuing "executive orders" because he found the constitution too constraining for his tastes.

[DiogenesLamp]

Some time back I saw someone post an exceptionally good refutation for the "Declarations of secessions" that people keep trotting out to push the "slavery is the only reason they left" claim.

It said something along the lines of:

Few states issued them, most made no particular references to slavery, and so forth.

Does anyone know where that refutation is, or does anyone have the pertinent facts on this point?

[HangUpNow]

Sorry FRiend, but Union troops in Fort Sumter "instigated" nothing, and your claiming they did reveals that you have problems sticking to the truth, and nothing but the truth, don't you? Nor is there evidence those troops in early 1861 had anything to do with "customs enforcement".

They sure did "instigate" and bait -- THAT indeed was the mission of Union "troops" -- if that's what you'd prefer to call them. And who do you think inspected and enforced taxation of goods at ports back then? The IRS?

Lincoln maneuvered the South into technically firing the first shot of a war he knew he needed that was essential in the Northern public eye and gain support that in NO way supported a CW; But manipulating opinion was the function of many of the newspapers at the time -- same as today.

Number two, Lincoln and his Northern Industrial Puppetmeisters needed a war waged in order to keep the South subjugated and its tax revenue and agricultural raw material under their thumb.

Btw, the "truth" is relative to whomever controlled the traditional narrative and history books (yes, that would be the Northern victors, wouldn't it? They wouldn't lie outright or by omission, would they? ;-) Nothing has changed on that count 150 years later.

Regardless, you also forget that relative military scales changed dramatically between Fort Sumter and Pearl Harbor.

Firstly, conflating Fort Sumter with Pearl Harbor doesn't apply AT ALL, other than afterward creating the obvious demand for military manpower and equipment.

In early 1861 the entire Union army was only circa 17,000 most scattered in small forts out west. So compared to the entire army of the time, and other forts, Sumter was hugely significant, nearly as significant as was Pearl Harbor in 1941, compared to nearing two million US military already on duty elsewhere.

An entire Union Army of 17,000 in 1861? Let's say I accept that figure. Lincoln then snapped his fingers in a call for 75,000 volunteers for an army to implicitly invade and submit a South while meeting with his industrialist-profiteers, who would manufacture the usual war machine toys.

Pearl Harbor: A distant naval/military outpost created as a firewall between itself and the US mainland and deep Pacific presence.

Fort Sumter: A significant southern SHIPPING hub for importing/exporting goods, of which the NORTH was a prime beneficiary. I'd say that was a good reason for it to become a domestic naval/military outpost. Agreed?

And those two Union troops killed surely died as much from Confederate action as any others in the war.

Stop the hysterics. The two Union troops died NOT in any heroic exchange of combat action, but accidentally during a salute to the U.S. flag when a pile of cartridges were set off by a spark.

Total complete rubbish, since Lincoln took office on March 4 and ordered resupply of Fort Sumter around April 6, iirc.

NOT "rubbish."

First of all, Lincoln's "re-supply" narrative was just a ruse, an obvious provocation. PRIOR TO this "resupply," Southern reps were dispatched to DC to help negotiate a compromise on disagreements and to tamp down the animus between South and North. Lincoln refused to meet with Southern reps.

One month during which Lincoln's biggest concerns were focused on matters like Virginia's secession convention and resupply of Fort Sumter. So your words here are pure fantasy.

Look, I understand your worship of the traditional CW narrative, but we've NEVER been told the real story from the perspective of both sides. Lincoln's concerns -- as framed by you -- ARE INTER-CONNECTED but far more complicated. Moreover, Virginia's secession convention was legit. There is nothing constitutional about tolerating a fundamentally unfair, tyrannical feral gummit.

Abe Lincoln and his Northern elite quickly operated out of the box out of desperation, with barely any electoral support other than northern pockets; Nevermind support for their plan to tear a nation apart with his subterfuge, collusion with industrialists, un-Constitutional tyranny. Considering the above, Southern States indeed held the right to their own sovereignty.

Aaah -- but then Lincoln played his ace in the hole: THE SLAVERY CARD! (which he was privately indifferent about by his own admission.)

There are obvious parallels between Lincoln and 0blah-blah.

The historical evidence on Pearl Harbor shows clearly that Washington suspected a Japanese attack was coming somewhere and soon, and so all the relevant commanders were sent war-warnings -- from MacArthur in the Philippines to Kimmel & Short in Hawaii. As it turned out, none responded appropriately to these warnings, at least in hind-sight.

Again, of course the winds of war were brewing -- it's war the Japs sent a delegation to DC to help head off the inevitable confrontation. But THE evidence that Japan was indeed going to launch a "surprise" attack on Pearl harbor was *already* known by FDR and his minions. NOT a part of actual "history."

Unfortunately, Pearl would serve as a new "Alamo" or "Remember The Maine!" as America was seen as unquestionably "provoked." Psychological entry into war with Japan would now be far more acceptable.

Support was immediate -- as was hoped in the case of Fort Sumter, the first shot of the war was fired by the *other side*, giving moral and ethic justification for declaring war ((according to Northern Newspapers -- some things still haven't changed.)

But the evidence also shows expectations of attack were the Philippines or Singapore, not Pearl Harbor.

Disinformation and/or misdirection. The Jap code was broken; Pearl Harbor was THE target. It's why only ancient battleships were left in port, and NO carriers. What a stroke of luck, eh?

Point is that blaming Lincoln for Fort Sumter is like saying that Roosevelt "attacked the Japanese" at Pearl Harbor!

In the sense that a provocation was desired in both cases in order to facilitate war, that statement is true. Yet, conflating the Pearl Harbor attack in which thousands of men died with Fort Sumter (two accidental deaths) still does not work at all.

And if that really is your opinion, FRiend, then you've left the world of the sane for a fantasy realm of your own creation.

Wait; You've compared the deaths of thousands at Pearl Harbor in a so-called "sneak-attack" with a full-scale planned bombardment to TWO accidental deaths at Fort Sumter, and *I'M* the one living in La-La Land?

I'd suggest to delve a bit more into historical sources of the Civil War as well as Pearl Harbor.

[rockrr]

Lincoln maneuvered the South into technically firing the first shot of a war he knew he needed that was essential in the Northern public eye and gain support that in NO way supported a CW; But manipulating opinion was the function of many of the newspapers at the time -- same as today.

Aah, the "Linkum tricked us poor, stupid yokels!" defense.

Y'all are beyond pathetic.

[HangUpNow]

Nice rebuttal.

What else should I expect from the same dumbazz "Republican-are-working-for-us!" hallucinations that's gotten us where we are today. Thanks for Poppy Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney, Boehner, McConnell, and now, and Ryan.

Betcha you still have your Dubya poster still adorning your wall -- you know -- the one of "The Adults In Charge."

[HangUpNow]

Lol — Lincoln and his “history” scribes bamboozled YOU. Geez — there’s NO excuse for anyone with a computer to still buy ANY fraudulent version of history. And they call Dems bots??

[HangUpNow]

Yes, Lincoln came to office in peace and turned it into war within five weeks.

His problems were caused by the wealthy elites in Boston and New York who were forcing him to block trade between Europe and the South, and reestablish the money flow from tariffs.

Yup. Definitely a large part of the problem.

Thanks for a sane and educated perspective of the truth of the matter.

[PeaRidge]

Our old friend GopCapitalist had many excellent posts on that topic.
I think Rustbucket may have some of them in his files.

[HangUpNow]

I'm thinking that Lincoln was very much like 0bama. A race obsessed Liberal from Illinois who had no problems splurging on other people's money, and didn't mind issuing "executive orders" because he found the constitution too constraining for his tastes.

Amazing parallel, ain't it? But "obsessed with race" ONLY when it became politically expedient to frame the issue as moral imperative NOT out of any principle. THEN he used it as a sledgehammer.

I'm still trying to catch up on some of your respective responses and "history" that's flown under the radar for too long. Good job.

[DiogenesLamp]

Aah, the "Linkum tricked us poor, stupid yokels!" defense.

He didn't trick the Confederates. They knew he had loaded up ships with soldiers to reinforce the Fort. Had they allowed it to continue, they would have had an even more entrenched union presence in a fortress that commanded the approach to the harbor.

If they had decided to fight this reinforcement, the guns of the fort would have been trained on them. The only rational thing to do militarily was to prevent those guns commanding the high ground from aiding in the landing of those troops.

Lincoln had put them in a D@mned if you do, D@mned if you don't situation, but he didn't "trick" them.

He tricked the Northern public. That's who got tricked.

[HangUpNow]

Lincoln had put them in a D@mned if you do, D@mned if you don't situation, but he didn't "trick" them.

He tricked the Northern public. That's who got tricked.

But...but...that's not what we've read in our history books and been taught! ;-)

Rock's rebuttal ought to be...entertaining.

[DiogenesLamp]

I'm still trying to catch up on some of your respective responses and "history" that's flown under the radar for too long. Good job.

What opened my eyes to the real reason Lincoln launched the war was this image created by a website called "Dead Confederates", which I think suggests where they fall on the discussion of the civil war.

They created this image to assert the idea that the Southern economic output was trivial compared to the North, because the vast majority of the tariff money was collected in New York.

I instantly realized this image was proof that New England was somehow monopolizing the European trade, and basically intercepting much of the money produced by exports from the Southern States which produced around 3/4ths of the value of all exports.

It was the smoking gun for why the Empire City needed to force the South back under Washington D.C. Control.

Most of the trade represented by those tariffs would have moved to Charleston and Savannah, and it would have put a massive hurt on New England shipping, factories, Banks, Insurance, warehousing, and many other industries as well.

Lincoln launched that war because it served the interests of the New England Robber Barons who held his strings.

[DiogenesLamp]

But...but...that's not what we've read in our history books and been taught! ;-)

I didn't even learn about much of this stuff until this year, and many details I have only learned about this week.

I've been thinking that a good animated movie would clarify these events in such a manner that it becomes apparent who started it and why.

Rock's rebuttal ought to be...entertaining.

He/she/it generally rebuts me with silence, which is just about as good of a job as it is possible for him/her/it to do.

[DiogenesLamp]

Does anyone have, or know where I can find the orders given to Union General Irvin McDowell when he was sent to invade on July 12, 1861?

I want to see if the word "slavery" is mentioned anywhere in his orders, you know, as in the context "to abolish it."

I'm betting it isn't, but I would like to know for sure.

After all, if you are claiming that a war was fought over slavery, then something about it ought to have been mentioned in the orders, don't you think?

[Pelham]

Don’t know where to find that.

But this is interesting:

http://www.americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/Lincoln-Instigated-War/The-Buried-Fact-Record.html

[PeaRidge]

War over slavery? Of course not.

War over the use of the Mississippi?

The extraordinary system of rivers flowing through the Midwestern states allowed merchants, miners, planters, and hunters to ship their surplus to the rest of the world. All of the rivers flowed into one — the Mississippi — and the Mississippi flowed to the ports in and around one city—New Orleans.

The original levees surrounding this city below sea level were erected in 1718, the date of the foundation of the city, and they were vastly expanded to accommodate trade. It was in New Orleans that the barges from upstream were unloaded and their cargoes stored, sold and reloaded on ocean-going vessels. New Orleans was, in many ways, a key pivot of the American economy.

By 1860, New Orleans in terms of tonnage had become the forth largest port in the Union. The port city was a series of docks and warehouses stretching for miles that served as the staging and organizational point for the flow of wheat, flour, furs, corn, tobacco, minerals, and cotton flowing from Southern and Mid-western states and territories to the European markets.

A simple way to measure the value of the New Orleans port to the Union is that it was where the bulk commodities of Midwestern and Southern agriculture went out to the world and the bulk commodities of industrialism came in. The commodity chain of the global cotton and European food industry largely started there, as did that of Southern industrialism. If these facilities were gone from the Union, more than the price of goods shifted: The very physical structure of the Union economy would have to be reshaped.

If the Mississippi River was shut to Midwestern traffic, then the foundations of the Union economy would be shattered. The industrial minerals needed in the factories would not come in, and the agricultural wealth would not flow out under Federal control.

Compared to overland shipping, river transport was cheap, and most of the agricultural products had low value-to-weight ratios. The U.S. transport system serving the Midwest of the 1860s was built on the assumption that these commodities would travel to and from New Orleans by barge, where they would be loaded on ships or offloaded. If Louisiana left the Union, there were not enough wagons or rail cars to handle the long-distance hauling of these enormous quantities — assuming that the economics could be managed, which they could not be.

The United States historically depended on the Mississippi and its tributaries for transport. Barges navigate the river. Ships go on the ocean. The barges must offload to the ships and vice versa. There must be a facility to empower this exchange. It is also the facility where goods are stored in transit. Without this port, the river could not be used. Protecting that port has been, from the time of the Louisiana Purchase, a fundamental national security issue for the United States.

[PeaRidge]

Maybe this is what you want. Let me know.

With regards to secession conventions, there were a total of 12 state legislatures or conventions, 1 rump state convention (Kentucky), 1 territorial convention (Arizona), and 2 Indian tribes that published one or more secession documents of some sort during the civil war. In total they published at least 21 documents declaring or otherwise affirming their secession. 12 were ordinances officiating the secession act itself adopted by the 12 state conventions, legislatures, or popular referendum. The conventions of 4 of those 12 states adopted an additional “Declaration of Causes” as a nonbinding legislative resolution. The convention of South Carolina also adopted a letter of causes addressed to all the other southern states outlining why they were seceding and urging others to join them (interestingly enough half that document is a list of grievances against the north for tax hikes and tariffs).

Out of the 21 total declarations, ordinances, and other secession documents only 6 mention slavery in any context beyond a geographical reference (and only 5 of them mention it at substantial length - the sixth is in a single brief clause). 14 of those documents specify other causes, either in addition to slavery (as in the 6) or without mentioning it at all. The remaining 7 do not list any causes.

204 posted on 12/30/2004 12:45:16 AM EST by GOPcapitalist

[DiogenesLamp]

If that is not it, it is close enough for my purposes. Thanks.

[DiogenesLamp]

The convention of South Carolina also adopted a letter of causes addressed to all the other southern states outlining why they were seceding and urging others to join them (interestingly enough half that document is a list of grievances against the north for tax hikes and tariffs).

I have been unable to find a document which lists grievances about tax hikes and tariffs. Do you have a source for this?

[rustbucket]

Thanks for posting that. I’ve been going through my archive ofposts. I was surprised to find that I didn’t save that post or similar ones by GOPcap. He used to post a table of them by state.