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.

[PeaRidge]

it’s considered conventional wisdom.

Only by the ignorant.

[PeaRidge]

Actually the mission goal was described as resupply to Governor Pickens, but Lincoln gave different orders to his expedition commanders:

Signed approved: Abraham Lincoln
April 4, 1861
To: Lieut. Col. H.L. Scott, Aide de Camp
This will be handed to you by Captain G.V. Fox, an ex-officer of the Navy. He is charged by authority here, with the command of an expedition (under cover of certain ships of war) whose object is, to reinforce Fort Sumter.

To embark with Captain Fox, you will cause a detachment of recruits, say about 200, to be immediately organized at fort Columbus, with competent number of officers, arms, ammunition, and subsistence, with other necessaries needed for the augmented garrison at Fort Sumter.
Signed: Winfield Scott

[PeaRidge]

Our friend X asks this question:

“If there’d been a Panic of 1861 wouldn't the news have gotten out by now?”

Actually the news of financial problems was out there, both in newspapers and on the floor of Congress.

The Civil War fiscal crisis began before April 12, 1861. The U.S. Treasury tottered in a state of utmost confusion months before the firing on Fort Sumter.

Traditionally the “dynamic center” of government, the Treasury now faced “being placed before the world in the aspect of a mendicant.” The department's secretary, John A. Dix, notified Congress on February 11, 1861 that “little more” than $500,000 remained in the central depository in Washington.

Demands for $2 million “unanswered” requisitions had accumulated in the department, with $6 million more due to public creditors in early March. Dix predicted a $21.6 million shortfall by the end of the fiscal year.

Staff in most executive departments could not draw their salaries that January. Members of Congress had gone unpaid since the start of the session the previous December. Worse yet, according to Dix, “The War and Navy departments have calls for large requisitions [that] have been delayed on account of the exhausted condition of the Treasury.”

A week earlier on February 6, 1861, U.S. Representative Phelps, speaking to the House on this day said:

“At this moment, the outstanding debt of the United States is $69,373,000; comprising the loans authorized by the acts of 1842, 1846, 1847, 1848, 1858, and 1860, the Texas indemnity loan of 1850, together with the outstanding Treasury notes authorized by several acts. ...

“... the existing debt of the United States is nearly seventy million dollars.
“The $10,000,000 Treasury notes recently issued were negotiated, a portion at twelve per cent., and a portion at between ten and eleven. Your ten per cent treasury notes are sold in the market of New York below par; and if you authorize new loans that are not absolutely necessary, you cannot negotiate them except at ruinous rates.

“I have made a computation of the actual debt created and proposed to be created by this Congress.
” The balance of the loan authorized under act of 22nd June, 1860, is $13,978,000. If the amendment of the Senate be concurred in, that loan cannot be negotiated. I am in favor of that amendment.

“The tariff bill, which will probably become a law, authorizes the loan of $21,000,000. The Pacific railroad bill as it passed the House authorized an indebtedness of $96,000,000, and the Senate put on an additional $25,000,000.
“ In other words, the proposed indebtedness of the country is $167,000,000; making with the public debt and the loan already authorized, an aggregate of $250,351,649, With such indebtedness, how can you expect to raise a loan on favorable terms?

“I hope this amendment of the Senate will be concurred in. The Government will then be enabled to raise the loan of $25,000,000 authorized in this bill [a bill authorizing $25,000,000 in loans], and $21,000,000 authorized in the tariff act.

“The Secretary of the Treasury has told you he will need $25,000,000 between the date of his communication and the 1st of July next, in addition to the current revenues of the country.”

2/7/1861 Exports certainly entered into the balance of payments between countries and the value of a currency. Senator Wigfall of Texas had a good take on the situation on the floor of the Senate on Feb 7,

“How will it be with New England? Where will their revenue come from? From your custom-houses? What do you export? You have been telling us here for the last quarter of a century, that you cannot manufacture even for the home market under the tariffs which we have given you. When this tariff ceases to operate in your favor, and you have to pay for coming into our market, what will you expect to export?”

[DiogenesLamp]

Your information is very useful to the debate, but is suited more to the "green eye shade" types to which Limbaugh used to refer.

All of that composite data needs to be presented in a manner that makes it's significance quick and easy to understand.

One of the things I most like about this image is that it instantly shows a massive disparity between tariff's collected in New York and elsewhere.

It shows clearly that New York is intercepting the vast bulk of all European import trade. It is instantly grasped by anyone who looks at it.

I've been thinking that a similar graph needed to be created illustrating the dollar value of exports from the various ports so the contrast between money going out and the money coming in can be made obvious.

I'm also thinking that some sort of animated movie would do a better job of illustrating what happened and when, and be more capable of moving the minds of rational people, but that is a project for another time.

I think we need to be making graphics that explain the financial crises better.

[BroJoeK]

PeaRidge to rockrr: "Dozens upon dozens of forts across the south..."

US Federal forts in 1860 were still Federal forts in 1861, regardless of which state or other government might claim authority.
Seizures of those forts, plus ships, arsenals & mints, etc., were generally peaceful because President Buchanan did nothing to defend them.
In Buchanan's defense, there may have been nothing he could have done, and in some places where he did, in fact, have Union troops stationed (i.e., Forts Pickens & Sumter) they usually did remain at their posts, and defended them
Texas is a different story.

But each seizure had strong effects on Northern public opinion, which waxed for war, then hoped for peace when rumors of settlement circulated.

PeaRidge: "Others were claimed by the states themselves for the simple reason that they had rightful ownership of the properties."

To repeat: those forts which belonged to the Federal government in 1860, still belonged in 1861, regardless.
Secessionist states were never said to "occupy" their own state forts, but rather to have seized Federal property.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This overlooks the fact that those protectionist tariffs were imposed because the Northern manufacturing did not compete very well with English and European manufacturing in a free trade market.
Congress could not magically wish those economic realities away."

Then, as now, US workers were generally the best paid workers in the world, making US produced goods relatively expensive.
But US tariffs went up & down every few years going all the way back to the beginning, around 1792.
At their highest, tariffs averaged around 35% in the 1830s, under president Andrew Jackson and Vice President Calhoun -- the "tariff of abominations".

At their lowest since then, tariffs reached 13% in 1840 and again 15% in 1860.
Confederate tariffs averaged around 15%.

Point is: for political as well as economic reasons, US tariffs went up & down, without causing major disruptions to either the economy or political alignments.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Rockrr is fond of listing all sorts of examples where Southern forces took over formerly Union installations and assets, but he/she never seems to notice that none of these were deemed sufficient to provoke a war. "

Confederates seized dozens of major properties -- US forts, ships, arsenals & mints -- and countless minor: US customs houses, light houses, etc.
Individually each seizure was a provocation for war, then, just as such behavior would be today.
But President Buchanan did nothing in response.

But the Confederate military assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter was a different category -- like Pearl Harbor, or like a potential Communist Cuban military assault on Guantanamo, Fort Sumter was an act of war, and it did provoke an appropriate response from the new US President, Lincoln.

DiogenesLamp: "Charleston was the primary port through which all European trade would flow.
The reason it was a sticking point, is because *THAT* port represented the dire financial threat to the North.
They simply could not allow regular and profitable trade with Europe to develop."

Your suggestion that fear of Charleston replacing Northern cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston or Baltimore as the "primary port" for European trade is beyond far-fetched.
Had it, in fact, been the number one concern, we would see that expressed far more frequently in, not just anti-Republican newspapers like the New York Herald, but also in pro-Republican papers, and yet we don't.

Further, the reason Fort Sumter was defended, as opposed to many others which were not, is that US troops long stationed in Charleston occupied the fort and remained waiting instructions from Washington.

Washington sent them no new instructions, but did attempt twice -- in January and again in April -- to resupply them.
Confederates fired on the January resupply ship and used the April mission as their excuse to launch a full scale military assault of Union troops there.

[rockrr]

Thanks BroJoeK. It’s such a simple concept - one that millions understand and accept. It’s always made me curious what internal defect one must possess that would induce them to cling to such fringe conspiracies over well-established facts.

Maybe if someone presented it to them in a cartoon? LOL

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The fact that Lincoln was admittedly willing to give it up means that the principle under which he claims to have been fighting (to preserve the Union) is negotiable.
Therefore it isn't really a principle at all, but instead it was merely his price for a deal which would allow Independence for some Southern states. "

That's ridiculous, you have it exactly backwards.
The fact that Lincoln was willing to sacrifice Fort Sumter to secure the state of Virginia in the Union -- and along with Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas -- that proves Lincoln's first concern was preserving as much of the old Union as possible.
The fact that Virginia was not willing to adjourn its secession convention, or promise not to secede, demonstrates that they were just waiting for the right excuse to switch sides and declare secession.
Lincoln's expedition to Fort Sumter provided Confederates with an excuse to start Civil War, which provided Virginians with the excuse they needed to declare secession.

Was any of that wise?
From the Confederate perspective it was extraordinarily fortunate, since it resulted in four more secessions (Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee & Arkansas) more than doubling Confederate white population and military manpower.
From Lincoln's perspective it at least eliminated uncertainty & clarified what the future required: war.

DiogenesLamp: "One does not need, what was it? 1,800 armed men to "resupply" a fort."

If that were remotely true, then President Buchanan's January mission sending the Star of the West to resupply Fort Sumter would have accomplished its purpose.
But Star of the West was driven off by Charleston secessionists' cannon fire.

Lincoln's commander, Gustavus Fox, believed he had adequate forces to get through that level of expected Confederate fire.
He didn't, of course, beginning with the fact that most of his ships did not arrive on time, or were diverted elsewhere.
So, at the beginning of the battle for Fort Sumter, Fox had only the small Revenue Cutter, Harriet Lane (95 officers & men), supporting a large civilian steamer, SS Baltic, transporting supplies, plus about 200 US Army troops.
The small sloop Pocahontas (558 tons) arrived too late, while the larger sloop Pawnee (1,533 tons) was ordered to stay well away from Charleston.
In the mean time, the largest warship, frigate USS Powhattan (2,415 tons), was diverted to Fort Pickens, Florida.

So, bottom line, Lincoln's force was just enough to resupply Fort Sumter, not to break through Confederate guns, and brought only a couple hundred reinforcement troops, which were ordered not to land if not resisted.

DiogenesLamp: "Of course that was not nearly sufficient to take the area by force, so it appears the only purpose of loading so many men and arms aboard ships was to convince the Confederates that he was going to deliberately violate the existing armistice."

But there weren't "so many men and arms" on the morning of April 12, when Confederates began their military assault on Fort Sumter.
Instead, there were just the Revenue Cutter, Harriet Lane, with 95 sailors and the large civilian steamer, SS Baltic, with supplies and about 200 troops.

Bottom line: Lincoln in April was attempting to do nothing more than what President Buchanan had tried in January, to resupply Fort Sumter.
Yes, the original idea was one large and three small warships supporting a civilian steamer, but as it happened, when the battle began there was only a revenue cutter and civilian steamer available to the commander, Gustavus Fox.

So the Confederate decision to assault Fort Sumter had nothing to do with the size or number of Lincoln's ships, but rather with their own judgement that war was better than the alternatives.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I'm not even going to entertain the argument that Pearl Harbor and Ft Sumter have any resemblance.
That is a fever swamp idea which is unworthy of any serious consideration."

Hardly a "fever swamp", since they had precisely the same effects on United States' public opinion and leadership decisions: each began the largest wars in United States history.

And beyond their effect on public opinion, they were remarkably similar in other ways, which I've spelled out on this thread in some detail.

So, "entertain" what you wish.
Facts are still facts.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "Speaking of strawmen, did you happen to see DegenerateLamp’s post #385?"

DiogenesLamp from post #385: "Don't see any instructions regarding slavery anywhere in those orders.
Funny that.
If they were fighting a war for that reason, you would think they would mention it."

No, sorry, somehow I had missed post #385.
It's an astonishing argument, breathtaking in ignorance or dishonesty, can't tell which.
Or imagine which would be worse -- to be truly ignorant of Civil War events, or to know but misrepresent?

[rockrr]

DegenerateLamp commonly presents a strawman that purports that the north engaged the south in a war against slavery. I know of no one who argues for the union who claims that. What we argue is that the union went to war in response to the south waging war against us. We fought to preserve the union.

It was the slavocracy-led south who went to war to preserve the Peculiar Institution.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "None of which maintained an array of cannons pointed at the incoming ships attempting to trade at any Primary port."

First, regardless of your current fantasies, in 1860 Charleston was far from a "primary port".
Today Charleston ranks as the #34 US port on this list, while in 1860 it was 22nd on this list -- behind even such Southern cities as Baltimore, New Orleans, St. Louis and Louisville, KY (river ports).

Also, remember that in 1860 major Southern port cities were interconnected on a network of railroads, such that goods & passengers arriving in any one port could quickly transport to any other.

Third, Fort Sumter, as manned in 1861, was useless for any serious military purpose.
It served only to protect Union troops sheltering there.

By contrast, British forts on US lands after the Revolutionary War controlled important trade and travel routes among the Great Lakes.
This at a time when water transport was the key method for moving goods from point A to point B.

Further, Brits had specifically promised, in the Treaty of Paris, to abandon those forts, then refused to do so, for over 14 years!
By more contrast: no promise was ever made regarding Fort Sumter, and Confederates gave up attempts to negotiate after less than 14 weeks!.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "You’re stretching.
Even the NPS lists it as an accidental death and not a battle casualty."

Sure, just as civilian deaths in Hawaii were certainly "accidental", since they resulted from ordnance Americans fired at Japanese planes falling back to earth.

But the simple fact is that without the forced surrender ceremony, those two Union troops would have lived and the four wounded would not have been.
So, to blame those casualties on anything other than the Battle of Fort Sumter is, well, "stretching".

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "most people who discuss this topic go immediately to the "They deserved it because of SLAVERY!" argument."

Every school child is taught that Civil War was fought to 1) preserve the Union and 2) free the slaves.

Those reasons, in that specific sequence, are 100% accurate.
All your other fantasies about it are just nonsense.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "Firing on Sumter wasn’t a sneak attack.
Lincoln was well aware of the previous attack on the Star of the West and knew he was provoking a similar response."

"Sneak attack" makes no difference.
What matters is that it was a direct military assault, not accidental, not unintentional and not by disorganized militia.
It had a military commanders, a military objective and was fought on military terms.

The only difference I would acknowledge, but you would certainly deny, is that Pearl Harbor was "state on state" military while Fort Sumter was "rebellion" or "insurrection".

Indeed, if you ask the question, "why in the world would the Confederacy go to the trouble of formally declaring war on the United States?", May 6, 1861, one answer is to gain recognition that they were, indeed, a "state" not just some insignificant rebellion.
So, if for these purposes we acknowledge the Confederacy's "statehood", then Fort Sumter was, like Pearl Harbor, a "state on state" military assault, and each began the greatest wars in American history.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Because everyone knows it takes 1,800 men with guns to unload food."

But, of course, there were not 1,800 men or anything close to that.
Instead, on the morning of April 12, 1861, when Confederates began their bombardment of Fort Sumter, Union ships near Charleston consisted of exactly two: the revenue cutter, USS Harriot Lane with a crew of 95, plus the civilian steamer SS Baltic with the provisions and around 200 troops.

But the truth is it didn't matter how many ships of troops Lincoln sent -- it could have been a rowboat with a pop-gun in the bow -- South Carolina Governor Pickens had been demanding for months that Fort Sumter be forced to surrender, and Confederate President Davis had ordered preparations for the bombardment in early March, even before Lincoln's inauguration.

So the only thing Lincoln's resupply mission did was provide Confederates with the excuse they needed to start a war, a war which was a necessary precondition for secession declarations by Virginia and after her, by North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas.

[HangUpNow]

So, if for these purposes we acknowledge the Confederacy's "statehood", then Fort Sumter was, like Pearl Harbor, a "state on state" military assault, and each began the greatest wars in American history.

I reject your entire desperate self-serving premise as so utterly absurd, it's not even worth a mild rebuttal. Conflating Pearl Harbor with Fort Sumter is Mad Magazine satirical revisionism run amok.

The planned domestic political and military coercion and tyranny of Northern aggression was met with a stout defense and resisted with force. Lincoln: Heads we win; Tails you lose.

Like any other Victor, Northern "historians" were tasked with portraying slan and spin that was required to completely shut down and censor any inconvenient and abbiguous truths.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I have recently been informed of an analysis that makes a pretty good argument that Lincoln never was going to attempt to land them.
Their purpose was only to serve as compelling evidence that he was intent on violating the armistice and his own agreement. "

Sorry, I missed this one...

Of course, Lincoln had no intention to land those 200 troops onboard the SS Baltic, and that's exactly what he told South Carolina Governor Pickens.
So long as they were not opposed by Confederate force, those troops were ordered to stay aboard their ship.

Lincoln did imply that if they were opposed -- meaning if the Confederacy started war against them -- then the 200 troops would land at Fort Sumter.

We cannot know today how realistic Lincoln considered Gustavus Fox's plan to resupply Sumter.
My guess is Lincoln thought it would bring clarity, one way or the other.
And just as at Pearl Harbor in 1941, that certainly did happen.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln had already been advised by his Military experts that it would take a force of 20,000 men to reinforce that fortress.
A token force of 1,400 could serve no other purpose than a provocation."

Like President Buchanan before him, Lincoln was not willing to surrender Fort Sumter, unless he could achieve something major for it, such as "a fort for a state", Virginia.

The force Gustavus Fox requested was intended to go in & out, assuming no opposition or only minor opposition.
It was not intended to conquer all of Charleston, which as you say was estimated to take 20,000+ troops.

Lincoln attempted to insure Fox's success by offering Governor Pickens no reinforcements if there was no opposition.
But Pickens didn't care a whit for Lincoln's offer, nor did Jefferson Davis.

In the end, the force which arrived at Charleston harbor the morning of April 12, 1861 consisted of only two ships -- the revenue cutter USS Harriot Lane, crew of 95, and the civilian steamer SS Baltic with supplies and about 200 troops.

But it didn't matter.
The Confederacy had long before decided to go to war, and this was as good an excuse for them as any.