House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

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.

DiogenesLamp: "Well they certainly *PAID* for it, but so far as 'running' it is concerned, you will have to explain to me how the 11 Southern states managed to outvote the 23 Other states, in Congress."

Thanks for that question, since it opens up a key insight as to what was *really* going on.
Let's begin here:

From the time of Jefferson, most slave-holders were Jeffersonian anti-Federalist / Democratic-Republican / Jacksonian Democrats.
Through their political alliance with Northern Democrats they maintained a strangle-hold on Washington DC until the election of November 1860.
Before Lincoln, no US president was openly anti-slavery.
So regardless of political party, slave-holders were welcome in Washington, DC.
From Washington in 1788 through Lincoln in 1860 there were 19 presidential elections.
Of those, only one -- John Adams in 1796 -- produced a President who was neither a Democrat nor slave-holder.
So the alliance of slave-holders with Democrats kept the Presidency continuouisly in slavery-friendly hands.
The 1796 election of Adams vs. Jefferson was also the last time the nation saw a purely Northern Federalist (Whig/Republican) vs. Southern Jeffersonian (anti-Federalist/Democrat).
With one exception (1841-43), from 1800 through 1861 Democrats ruled at least one and far more often both houses of Congress, quite often by overwhelming majorities.
Southern Democrat dominance of the US Supreme Court can be easily seen in its 7-2 Dred Scott decision, drastically expanding the scope and reach of slavery.
As to how thoroughly Southerners dominated the national Democrat party, they were given a huge boost in Congress, despite their minority status, by the Constitution's 3/5 rule, which gave Southerners representation based on their populations of slaves.
In the Deep South, that doubled their white-only representation, and in the Upper South increased it by 50%.
Before "Little Giant" Stephen Douglas separated himself from the views of Deep South Democrats (circa 1858), no Northern Democrat had so openly opposed Southern Democrats on a subject related to slavery.

Bottom line: minority Southerners controlled the majority Democrat party, and through them Washington, DC.
That control only ended when Deep South Fire Eater secessionists walked out of the 1860 Democrat convention, forming their own party and nominating Kentucky born Vice President John Breckenridge, that year's fourth candidate for President.

The result was victory in November for minority Republicans.

The Real Henry Clay: The Corrupt American Architect of Mercantilism and Protectionism

It is well documented that both Henry Clay and Daniel Webster received kickbacks for their service to the agenda of the national bank. Both were in the back pocket of the Second Bank of the United States, and received kickbacks and other compensation from the corrupt bank director Nicholas Biddle. Andrew Jackson rightly saw it as a corrupting influence upon the body politic to be dispensed with.

It should not come as surprise to many that Abraham Lincoln considered himself to be a heartfelt admirer of Henry Clay, and he made Clay his exemplar. During 1852, at his death, Abraham Lincoln eulogized Clay as “the beau ideal of a statesman” and the “great parent of Whig Principles.” Lincoln was conscious in making Clay as his political archetype, in noting: “During my whole political life, I loved and revered [Clay] as a teacher and leader.” When the Whig Party was fractured in the sectional strife, out of the ashes arose the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln.
Lincoln took up the mantle of the American System, and he supported some of the most onerous tariff increases in American history. The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was a protectionist tariff bill passed by the U.S. Congress in early 1861. The main purpose was the protection and encouragement of a cadre of northeastern manufacturing interests. Not surprisingly, 87% of the northern congressmen supported the bill and 87.5% of southern congressmen opposed it. As historian Frank Tausig observes, the schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the war. Whereas tariffs were around rates of 18–20% on average in the 1820s, the Morrill Tariff raised the average rates to 36.2%, and it was subsequently revised upward in 1864, and the average rate stood at 47.56%.

The Real Henry Clay: The Corrupt American Architect of Mercantilism and Protectionism

"a cadre of northeastern manufacturing interests" which we have now come to know as the "Globalist Elite." The Pullers of the GOPe strings.

Henry Clay: National Socialist

But Henry Clay can only be considered to be a "conservative" if conservatives embrace the economics of national socialism, for that is what Clay devoted his entire forty-year political career to.

Lincoln was the first Republican president and considered himself the political heir to Clay, whom Lincoln eulogized in 1852 as "the beau ideal of a statesman" and the "great parent of Whig Principles." "During my whole political life," Lincoln stated, "I have loved and revered [Clay] as a teacher and leader."
"From the moment Lincoln first entered political life," writes Lincoln biographer Robert W. Johannsen, "he had demonstrated an unswerving fidelity to the party of Henry Clay and to Clay's American System, the program of internal improvements [i.e., corporate welfare for railroad and steamship businesses], protective tariffs, and centralized banking."
Clay was a corrupt statist who spent his political career promoting mercantilism, protectionism, inflationary finance through central banking, and military adventurism in the quest for empire. Upon entering Congress in 1811 he helped persuade the government to attempt to conquer Canada, which it tried to do three times. He waged a thirty-year battle with James Madison, John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson, and other defenders of the Constitution over federally funded corporate welfare.

https://mises.org/library/henry-clay-national-socialist

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was a protectionist tariff bill passed by the U.S. Congress in early 1861. The main purpose was the protection and encouragement of a cadre of northeastern manufacturing interests.

Not surprisingly, 87% of the northern congressmen supported the bill and 87.5% of southern congressmen opposed it.

As historian Frank Tausig observes, the schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the war. Whereas tariffs were around rates of 18–20% on average in the 1820s, the Morrill Tariff raised the average rates to 36.2%, and it was subsequently revised upward in 1864, and the average rate stood at 47.56%.

The Real Henry Clay: The Corrupt American Architect of Mercantilism and Protectionism

OUT-STANDING research and historical indictments! The Morrell Tax was legalized extortion. The voting of northern Congressmen vs. Southern Congressmen says volumes.

DL, for whatever reason, FR's pro-Lincoln historical revisionists absolutely ignore "The-Game-Within-The-Game" within historical context. Even when you do the math for them.

Why won't they admit that they just may just be wrong about the motivation and reason for Lincoln and his cadre of northern/Yankee industrialists facilitating the un-necessary brutality of Civil War? My guess is "Santa Claus Syndrome".

The more facts unearthed and revealed, the more evil and compromised Lincoln becomes. Sure -- he could be extremely articulate, compassionate and even sincere at time as we've seen. But I truly wonder whether he was in a proper state of mind.

Was he greedy? Was it possible that he'd found himself "compromised" thus blackmailed in certain respects? WAS Abraham Lincoln bi-polar? I think we can all agree he as a tortured soul.

"a cadre of northeastern manufacturing interests" which we have now come to know as the "Globalist Elite." The Pullers of the GOPe strings.

No question that there's been a line of secession maintained by these very same original "Elites"; They are indeed the ancestral root of today's GOPe pro-illegal immigration/cheap labor express and NAFTA/TPP/UN supporters.

Why won't they admit that they just may just be wrong about the motivation and reason for Lincoln and his cadre of northern/Yankee industrialists facilitating the un-necessary brutality of Civil War? My guess is "Santa Claus Syndrome".

More like it is "My side cannot be the bad guys." Syndrome. Nobody wants to believe that they or their ancestors supported something brutal and evil without a just cause for doing it.

The economic and political information that keeps being brought out is ripping the mask off of this illusion.

Yes, the Union fought the war over money. No, they didn't fight it over slavery, and they only cared about "Preserving the Union" for the sole purpose of preventing economic loss and competition.

Had the Southern States not been an economic threat to them, they wouldn't have given a sh*t about their secession.

I believe you mean "succession", not "secession." :)

And yes. New York is the "Empire State" for a reason. And they are in favor of cheap labor and slave labor for a reason.

More like it is "My side cannot be the bad guys." Syndrome. Nobody wants to believe that they or their ancestors supported something brutal and evil without a just cause for doing it.

The economic and political information that keeps being brought out is ripping the mask off of this illusion.

Yes sir. I understand the mentality; No one wants to believe the worst of man or men they regarded so very highly. Same phenomena occurred with respect to George W. Bush by many who were eventually compelled to re-assess their previous high regard for him. Hidden truths were 15 years late in exposing him and that mask of illusion foisted upon us.

I commend and thank you for your determined diligence and focus on the specific historical facts and truth of the matter. The evidence is irrefutable. ANY one who put Lincoln up on America's Mount Olympus (never mind Mount Rushmore) can only be viscerally disappointed and hurt by the factual dot-connecting historical revelations.

Yes, the Union fought the war over money. No, they didn't fight it over slavery, and they only cared about "Preserving the Union" for the sole purpose of preventing economic loss and competition.

Had the Southern States not been an economic threat to them, they wouldn't have given a sh*t about their secession.

Bears further emphasis AND repeating. "Official" historians are not about to stir that pot. Bottom Line: Lincoln endorsed cold-blooded tyranny and used federal troops to enforce it.

And yes of course: "succession." ;-)

“We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless.”

Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

And who would know better than the very person who let that monster out of the box? Yes, High levels of corruption did indeed follow. This is known as the era of the "Robber Barons" by Critics, and the "Gilded Era" by admirers.

“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people’s money to settle the quarrel.”

speech to Illinois legislature, Jan. 1837. See Vol. 1, p. 24 of Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln

Which is how the Civil War occurred. Northern Power Brokers didn't want to lose the money and trade created by Southern Power Brokers' slaves, and so they got Lincoln to launch a war with the "people's money" to protect their financial interests.

DiogenesLamp speaking of Gilded Age "robber barons": "When you own the lawmakers, you can tailor make laws to support your businesses... And they did."

Today there are 100 or 1,000 times more laws regulating business than during the Gilded Age.
The result is more uniformity in standards of business practices, but also vastly less freedom to experiment & grow new types of business.
So those old-time giant "captains of industry" are now replaced by little corporals of corporate bureaucracy, more committed to following minute rules than to innovating new & better solutions to customer needs.

Point is: a more balanced view of the Gilded Age would note the US economic growth rate then rivaled that of, for example, China in recent years.
Those "captains of industry" dramatically transformed for the better both the landscape and standards of living of tens of millions of Americans.
The fact that "robber barons" didn't follow all new laws written in years since doesn't mean they were necessarily unethical by standards of that time.

By the way, if you are not yet a fan of Ayn Rand, I highly recommend her to you.
She has a brilliant analysis of exactly your concerns here, of which my words are but a poor reflection.

DiogenesLamp speaking of abolition: "It would have happened in the border states before it got to the deeper South, but the social dynamic were impossible to stop.
Many of the Slaveowners had become wealthy enough to feel guilty over their source of income. "

In a more normal course of events, Border States like Maryland, Delaware and even Missouri could well have faced abolition movements and followed their Northern cousins in gradual peaceful abolition.
Among the reasons for that is: absent cotton in those Border States, slavery was nowhere near as profitable as in the Deep South.

But slavery's extreme profitability is part of what made Deep Cotton South slave-holders adamant in opposing any whiff of suggestions regarding abolition.
Under no circumstances would they "go gentle into that good night" , period.

Anyway, my feelings about those old-time slave-holders is akin to that towards those Gilded Age "robber barons" you condemn so quickly.
Both categories lived under the laws of their time and really should not be so condemned for not obeying laws which had not yet been written.
See Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution regarding ex post facto laws.

DiogenesLamp speaking of peaceful abolition: "But Slavery was not the proximate cause of the war.
It was Slave produced money that was the cause, on both sides.

Again, my analogy is Pearl Harbor, about which you might argue the "proximate cause of war" was economics, since FDR had embargoed shipments of oil and other raw materials to Japan.
But there was no war, and indeed could have been no war because in 1941 88% of Americans opposed it, before Pearl Harbor.
So Pearl Harbor is the proximate cause of US entry into WWII.

The same logic applies to Fort Sumter.
Neither slavery nor economics, nor any other reason sometimes mentioned, was the "proximate cause" of war.
Confederate assault on and seizure of Fort Sumter was.

DiogenesLamp speaking of possible negotiations: "After the first year or so, the economic cause of the war became irrelevant.
Too much blood had been shed, and it had become a war of Domination and Revenge on the part of the North, and a war to get away from oppression on the part of the South."

But economics was never the cause of war, proximate or otherwise.
And, by the end of the first year of war, freedom for slaves was becoming a huge issue for the Union.
Regardless, my key point here still stands: Confederates could have stopped the war on any day of their own choosing, and could have negotiated much better terms than they received at Appomattox Court House in April 1865, but they refused and instead continued fighting until the bitter, bitter end.

Who is to blame for that?
Who is to blame for the fact it took A-bombs to convince Japan to surrender, "unconditionally"?
President Roosevelt, or Truman?

Nah.

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln had neither the power to give away states, nor to hold them.
His attempt to "Make a Deal" would have exceeded his authority whichever way it would have worked out."

No, you are either utterly confused or simply lying about this.
Which is it?

Yes, in fact, Lincoln had no authority to negotiate with "emissaries" or agents sent by Jefferson Davis on issues like ownership of Federal properties, because the Constitution assigns such matters to Congress.
But Lincoln certainly could, and did, negotiate with pro-Union Virginians over adjourning their state's secession convention.
He offered them "a fort for a state", but they declined, end of negotiations.
No force threatened or applied, do you not "get" that?

So why do you keep saying Lincoln wanted to "give away" or "hold" seceding states?
The issue was actions by Virginia's secession commission, would they adjourn after voting not to secede?

DiogenesLamp: "Who are *YOU* to tell other people that their desire for independence must meet with your approval?
A cause sufficient to want independence is entirely in the eyes of the beholder."

Again you misunderstand.
I'm not saying their cause was insufficient for me, I'm saying they had no cause, period -- not on November 5, 1860 when there were no actions for secession, and still not after November 6, 1860 when their actions began to declare secession.

I'm saying nothing happened on November 6, 1860 that could move Deep South states from their previous political "happiness" to "unhappiness", nothing except the voting for a new President.
But mere voting cannot turn happiness to unhappiness, and so, by definition when politically "happy" people declare secession, that is secession "at pleasure".

Again, I'm not saying their reasons were insufficient, I'm saying they had no reasons, period, after November 6 that they didn't have before, and we know those reasons for unhappiness before November 6 were insufficient to declare secession.

DiogenesLamp: "King George III did not think the colonists were so put upon that it justified their independence, but they thought otherwise."

No, you totally misunderstand.
Well over a year before the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, well over a year earlier King George had already declared Americans to be in a state of rebellion -- a declaration of war -- and had launched war against them!
So there was no "choice" in the matter, certainly no "at pleasure" about it, but rather as the Declaration clearly says: total necessity.
But no similar conditions existed after November 6, 1860 when Deep South Fire Eaters began organizing to declare their secessions.

DiogenesLamp: "You seem to have that grain of Liberal Fascism running through you where you think you get to pass moral judgement on other people who do not live up to what you believe is correct or proper."

Rubbish and nonsense.
I am arguing that since there was no cause for secession on November 5, 1860, neither was there a cause after November 6, none, zero, nada.

I am arguing that Deep South Fire Eaters declared secession not with "mutual consent" and not "for material cause", but rather "at pleasure".

DiogenesLamp on alleged "secret orders" to the Fox mission: "If they did not, then why would they be kept secret?
Why keep secret something that says the exact same thing as something which is not secret? "

Your unsubstantiated claim of "secret orders" is just that unsubstantiated.
I've neither seen nor heard of such.

What I know for certain are Lincoln's orders to all his mission ship commanders, including Fox in SS Baltic and commanders of Powhattan, Pocohantas, Pawnee and Harriet Lane, because they were later published in the New York Times.
Those orders said, in part:

"...The primary object of the expedition is to provision Fort Sumter, for which purpose the War Department will furnish the necessary transports.
Should the authorities of Charleston permit the fort to be supplied, no further particular service will be required of the force under your command, and, after being satisfied that supplies have been received at the fort, the Powhatan, Pocahontas and Harriet Lane will return to New York, and the Pawnee to Washington.

Should the authorities at Charleston, however, refuse to permit or attempt to prevent the vessel or vessels having supplies on board from entering the harbor or from peaceably proceeding to Fort Sumter, you will protect the transports or boats of the expedition in the object of this mission -- disposing of your force in such a manner as to open the way for their ingress, and afford, so far as practicable, security to the men and boats, and repelling, by force if necessary, all obstructions to provisioning the fort and reinforcing it; for in case of resistance to the peaceable primary object of the expedition, a reinforcement of the garrison will also be attempted..."

These orders exactly match what Lincoln told South Carolina Governor Pickens.

PeaBrain: "...the purposes of consummation of war time issues, the United States government itself affixed the beginning on Lincoln's actions, with no transactional relationship to Charleston Harbor. "

The US Supreme Court constitutionally neither declares the start of war nor its end.
So the ruling you cite was strictly for administrative purposes in a statute of limitations case, in which the Court itself admitted war could be said to have started and ended on many different dates.
But the fact remains that, just as WWII for America started with Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, so also Civil War started for the Union at Fort Sumter.

However, one notable point the Supreme Court ruling does imply: despite Confederates' military assault, the Union committed no act of war at Fort Sumter!
By sharp contrast, from Day One the Confederacy committed many provocations for war and at Fort Sumter (similar to Pearl Harbor) the first genuine act of war.

Lincoln's call-up after Fort Sumter and his announcement of a blockade do not by themselves make a war, as such actions have happened in history without resulting in war.
That's because throughout history, nations can bluff or bluster short of war to improve their negotiating positions, or for example, in Kennedy's blockade of Cuba, to prevent Russian missiles from arriving there.

So, a call-up of troops, by itself, is not an act of war.
And a blockade of ports, by itself, is not an act of war.
War is war, meaning actual fighting between military forces, and that's what Confederates began in their assault on Union troops in Union Fort Sumter, just as Japanese began at Pearl Harbor.

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.