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 ...
No, sorry, but the "kooks" here are the ones who use Marxist Alinskyite tactics to attack ideas they cannot address rationally.
Those would be some of our Lost-Causers.
But there's no evidence or statistics to back up such a wild assertion.
In reality, it's nothing more than Marxist anti-capitalist teachers in our public education system imprinting their opinions on young minds full of mush.
When you grow up, you should outgrow such crap.
Roughly 50 million people live along the 400 mile corridor from Boston to Washington DC.
That's about 15% of our total population on about 2% of the land, it produces 20% of the nation's GDP and is home to 1/3 of the Fortune 500 headquarters.
That makes the Northeast Megalopolis important in many ways, but other areas are also important.
For example, California also has about 2% of the US land area, but holds 40 million people producing 15% of US GDP, while Texas with 3% of the land area has 30 million people producing 11% of GDP.
All of these regions have powerful economic and political "special interests".
That's how the world works.
Point is, neither New York nor the "Northeast Megalopolis" is now or has ever been the only game in town.
Sorry, but it's simple fact, that exclusive focus on economics, economic determinism, is a distinguishing feature of committed Marxists.
Of course, if you are one, that's your right, but then why pretend to be "conservative"?
And exclusive commitment to total lies, such as Lincoln "launching...the attack against the Southern states", is a distinguishing feature of delusional Lost Causers.
Why would anyone want to be either of those, let alone both?
But you actually "pointed out" nothing! -- zero, zip, nada -- except your totally unsupported claim of "most corrupt era in history", as if such wild accusations proved themselves and needed no further data.
I'll say it again: these are the tactics of a Marxist Alinskyite, not a rational human being, much less conservative.
I'll say it again: until the November 1860 election, and really until March 4, 1861 with Lincoln's inauguration and the 37th Congress meeting, the South generally ran things in Washington DC.
Southern Democrats controlled the normally majority party in Congress and elected Southerners or "Doughfaced" Northerners to the presidency, who appointed overwhelmingly sympathetic Supreme Court Justices.
So all this talk about Washington DC "tyranny" or "jiggered" laws is just rubbish & nonsense, lies.
Yes, some of it is propaganda Fire Eaters told themselves and others to justify secession declarations.
So, in that sense it could be historically important.
But it's still lies.
More rubbish & nonsense.
In fact, neither Democrat President Buchanan nor Republican President Lincoln abandoned any fort which had US troops to defend it and could be resupplied.
Of those, there were three: Pickens, Jefferson and Sumter.
Both presidents attempted to resupply all three forts and were successful in two cases, Pickens & Jefferson.
But at Sumter in January, Buchanan's unarmed resupply ship, Star of the West, met with secessionist cannon fire and withdrew.
Lincoln's resupply ship, SS Baltic escorted by a revenue cutter USS Harriet Lane, met a major military assault on Fort Sumter, resulting in its surrender.
The decision to launch that assault on Fort Sumter, and thus start Civil War, was made by Jefferson Davis, not President Lincoln.
Of course, I "get" that you don't like the truth.
But it remains true nonetheless.
That is just one of several Big Lies used by Fire Eaters to propagandize for secession.
The truth is that by 1860 Deep South exports were hugely important, but they weren't the 75% to 87% we see claimed.
50% to 60% is more realistic, and helps explain why the Northern economy was able to quickly adapt to life without Confederate states' products during the Civil War.
Further, in the 1850s about half the cotton crop shipped from New Orleans and of that 85% went directly to Europe.
So all this nonsense about "jiggered laws" and unfair trade practices is just that: nonsense.
You should remember Lincoln's words:
Nobody ever comes on these threads to start conflicts with pro-Confederates, or criticize the South -- ever.
We only come here to defend against the Big Lies you people keep posting against the United States in general, and Lincoln's Republicans in specific.
We neither "divert attention" nor "draw attention" to anything!
We simply respond to whatever lies you are posting today, and try to point attention to the truth of that particular matter.
DiogenesLamp: "You only want to talk about it until I show you how much money the Northern Power Brokers were making from it."
Nobody on these threads denies that the US benefitted enormously from slavery, as evidenced among other things by the record high prices for slaves in 1860.
But only pro-Confederates deny that slavery was central to Deep South Fire Eaters' reasons for declarations of secession.
DiogenesLamp: "So you are just going to ignore their attempts to negotiate a peaceable settlement over that Fort for which the Union no longer had any legitimate use?"
No Confederate "emissary" or "delegate" or "agent" ever approached Congress, which has constitutional authority over such matters.
Lincoln did attempt to negotiate over Fort Sumter with Virginians, but they turned down his offer.
DiogenesLamp: "Apart from that, the Southern reasons for leaving are not germane to the Northern Reasons for attacking.
It was Lincoln who decided that there would be a war, and it was he who decided for how long it would continue."
The decision for war after Fort Sumter was no more Lincoln's than was the decision after Pearl Harbor President Roosevelt's.
In both cases war was brought to the United States by military power which represented a major existential threat.
So neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt had any choice except to defeat the forces attacking us.
DiogenesLamp: "He is the only man that had the power to start it or stop it, and it mattered not at all what the Southern people did, so long as someone wanted war with them, they were obliged to participate in it."
In fact, Lincoln promised and kept his promise that secessionists could only have war if they themselves started it.
Which they soon did, and soon after formally declared war on the United States, thus sealing their fate: unconditional surrender.
DiogenesLamp: "Well sure, since Lincoln rigged that outcome and controlled what they were being told. Hearst did something similar in the Spanish/American war."
I notice how that word "rigged" is suddenly more popular...
It used to be Lost-Causers said Lincoln "maneuvered" Jefferson Davis into starting war, which is just as ridiculous, but now "rigged" is a popular word, so applies to more than before.
Of course it's all nonsense.
Lincoln neither "rigged" nor "maneuvered" Davis.
Instead, Davis one fine morning put on his big-boy pants and made -- all by his-self and despite warnings from his own people -- the momentous decision to start war against the United States.
His reasons were at least explainable, and his chances of long-term success at least 50-50.
But he didn't know "Ape" Lincoln and Davis thought all Northerners were more like Doughfaced Democrat President Buchanan.
And so Confederacy's fate was sealed.
But the fact is there was no "despotism" in Washington, DC, none, certainly from the Southern perspective because the South had always run things there.
The only new element was the November 6, 1860 election of the first ever "Black Republican" President, "Ape" Lincoln.
But nothing had changed, Lincoln was still in Springfield Illinois when Deep South Congressmen & Senators started walking out of Congress.
DiogenesLamp: "If you insist on staying when it has been made very clear to you that you are not welcome, you don't get to call them the aggressor when they toss you out of their home."
Forts Jefferson, Pickens & Sumter, were all Union property with Union garisons on November 5, 1860.
They remained Union property regardless of how many Confederates with cannons surrounded them, or what demands Confederates made.
DiogenesLamp: "When you come back to their home with a big crowd of rowdies to whip their @$$ for tossing you out, you are still the aggressor."
Exactly.
Ditto
Yet again you jabber anti-factual nonsense, word-salad meaning nothing.
And regardless of how often you repeat such gibberish, it's still gibberish, and makes no sense.
So why do you do it?
I can grant you this much: a number of posters have found reports where some Northern newspapers expressed such concerns.
But none called for war to redress the concern.
Just as today, economic concerns are a major focus of politics, and the Chinese or Mexicans are blamed for "stealing our jobs".
Actually, our own leaders are blamed for negotiating such bad deals.
But regardless of these heart-felt concerns, nobody suggests we go to war against anybody to bring our jobs back.
So in early 1861.
Economic concerns are one thing, war is something else entirely.
The story of asking a state not to secede for a fort is newspaper fodder.
Lincoln did visit the Virginia Peace Conference, but as the President-elect. The Conference adjourned before he took office.
Therefore, he did not have the vested authority to make any offer. It was a dare on his part to avoid compromise.
Brojoke tried to offer up a conundrum but failed miserably.
“But none called for war to redress the concern.”
He must have missed this one.
3/22/1861 The economic editor of the New York Times said,
“At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States.”d
Sounds like calling for war to me. How about you?
How does one "debate" delusion and cognitive dissonance?
Btw -- if was YOU who tried (and failed) to "Alinsky-ize" your opponents in this debate. You are indicted by your OWN words but now you're trying futility to spin your way OUT?? You should be embarrassed.
Others on this thread have ably and convincingly re-calibrated THE truth of the matter on the motivation and dynamics of the CW from beginning-to-end; Frankly, droning on over your insane obsession that advances politically select memes and historical narratives of a false truths and myths that have been dismissed and dismantled have become quite boring.
Lincoln's North did everything they could to connive, bait, and antagonize the South. He finally got his False Flag event at Fort Sumter and got his war. As documented, even many in the North conceded the South's right to independence and secession. No, but NOT Lincoln and his totalitarian cohorts. They personally affected and risked the lives on MILLIONS (Mostly the poor)...for WHAT?? How pathetic.
Predictably, once again --you indeed have ignored the Big Truth: Coercion of Lincoln and his fellow fascists overlords and dismissal of the simple principles of a Confederacy's God-given RIGHT OF FREEDOM to maintain their rightful, legal, personal and State sovereignty. A Confederacy of southern States roundly REJECTED Lincoln's totalitarian overreach and economic manipulation on behalf of northern interests.
The damage is done -- the blood of 700,000 husbands, brothers, sons cry from soil from PA to Louisiana. Hundreds of thousands of maimed should also not be forgotten. Nor will the brutality and Scorched Earth policy authorized by Lincoln & Sherman.
It's been said: You are entitled to your own opinion, but NOT your own facts (culled from the annals of post CW propagandists of history as written by a victorious, opportunist North.)
3/22/1861 The economic editor of the New York Times said, “At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce, and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States.”
Sounds like calling for war to me. How about you?
THAT just left a mark. To BroJoeK, that NYT economic editor was only joking. To Diogenes' point that this war was in large part an issue over economic factors, WHICH "editor" wrote this ed-op? AN ECONOMIC EDITOR.
BJK misses EVERYTHING but his stock "history" of myths and fairy tales. I'm waiting for his post where northern "historians" claimed, "Lee would have nuked Washington DC IF he had one."
3/27/1861 The Cincinnati Enquirer as reported in the Memphis Daily Appeal of March 27, 1861:
"The New York and all Eastern Republicans are getting clamorous for an extra session. They now admit that, critical and extraordinary as the condition of the country is, the President is without power to take any effectual step toward its relief. He can effect no fixed and decisive policy toward the seceding States, because no laws give him authority to carry it into effect."
"He cannot enforce the laws, because no power has been put at his command for that purpose. He cannot close the ports which refuse to pay Federal duties, nor has he the authority to enforce payment except through the local authorities.
"These, moreover, are the least of the difficulties which embarrass the action of the Government. This loan is called for, but there is no prospect of revenue to render it safe.(The loan referred to was called by the Treasury Secretary to pay the monthly bills of the government.) The seceded States invite imports under the tariff of 1857, at least ten per cent. lower than that which the Federal Government has just adopted.
"As a matter of course, foreign trade will seek southern ports, because it will be driven there by the Morrill tariff. It has been stated that Secretary Chase has been heard to say that the tariff bill must be repealed.
In 1842 Charles Dickens & his wife made their only visit to the US before Civil War (there was a second visit afterwards).
Apparently it was not a happy time for him, as he objected most strongly to the money-grubbing US capitalists who refused to honor his international copyrights, and published his very popular works without paying him.
Since then, Dickens didn't like Americans, North or South.
When it came to Civil War, much as Dickens didn't like slavery, what he didn't like even more were those money-grubbing Northerners who'd cheated him out of a nice profit.
So, of several possible motives Dickens could have ascribed to Americans (Union, secession, slavery, etc.) he chose the one that best matched his own previously held views of Americans: money.
In fact, Dickens had no special knowledge -- none, zero, nada -- of either US & Confederate leaders or their motives and so likely took his comments straight off pro-Confederate propaganda, such as your link here.
It suited his mood and avoided any need to take sides.
By the way, DiogenesLamp, if you admire Charles Dickens then you're in good company.
So did Karl Marx and George Bernard Shaw, heros of yours, aren't they?
;-)
The birthing of the Civil War (or rather, 'War of Northern Aggression') seems to expose the notion of Lincoln knowingly executing an end-around on behalf of his industrialist overlords with which to circumvent the Constitution. Fort Sumter lit a fuse that Lincoln and his fellow totalitarians *knew* would give them the opportunity to claim "SEE?? THEY STARTED IT!!"
Interestingly enough, The Posse Comitatus Act -- enacted in 1878 -- was a response to and subsequent prohibition of the military occupation of the former Confederate States by the United States Army during the ten years of the so-called Reconstruction (1867–1877) following the CW. (Yes -- the American SOUTH was a nation-within-a-nation that was OCCUPIED and its assets plundered.)
As has been reinforced (DiogenesLamp has painstakingly illustrated and demonstrated the case), economic reasons and insider monkey-business was THE driving force of the CW. "Freeing the slaves" was merely the public mask, aided by a willing, compensated media, lending the much needed moral reason for the amazingly amount of bloodshed, rape of the South, and raw abuse of unconstitutional federal power.
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.