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.

[BroJoeK]

x: "Hinton Rowan Helper was a white Southern critic of slavery who addressed his book to 'To the non-slaveholding whites of the South generally...' "

Thanks, rustbucket cites Helper's book as an example of Republican perfidy supporting Fire Eaters' demands for secession.
But in fact it demonstrates the lengths Fire Eaters went to exaggerate Northern opposition to their "peculiar institution."
Of course, Northerners were opposed to slavery, had always been, that's why they gradually outlawed it in their own states.
And many Northerners saw no reason why gradual emancipations should not continue as before, starting in Border States like Delaware or Maryland.

But most Northerners fully understood that "abolition" was a fighting word to many Southerners, and so in the case of Helper's book, they took the anti-slavery words of a Southerner, sanitized them for sake of political correctness and used them to demonstrate that even in the South itself, abolition was not impossible.

But Fire Eaters took Helper's original words and hung them on Republicans who, being at heart cowards, went squealing off like stuck pigs.
Helper who? Never heard of him, they'd claim.

Regardless, Helper's book went into Fire Eaters' arsenal of weapons to launch against Union and support secession.
As indeed, pro-Confederate posters like rustbucket use it to this very day.

[rustbucket]

Of course, South Carolina was particularly troubled by the 1830s "tariff of abominations", but it only happened with support from Tennessean President Jackson and South Carolinian Vice President Calhoun.
Point is: not all Southerners were always of one mind on these issues.

Nor all Northerners. From the book, "Economic History of the South" by Emory Q. Hawk (1934):

After 1816, the South seemed to realize its mistake [rustbucket: of supporting protectionism early in the nation's history], and the section soon became a unit against protectionism.

Here is a map showing how states voted in the House on April 22, 1828 on the 1828 Tariff of Abominations bill: [Link]. Notice the stark difference in Southern and Northern votes.

You mentioned Jackson and Calhoun. Perhaps you don't understand their objectives concerning the 1828 Tariff of Abominations. From Hawk's book again:

According to Professor F. W. Taussig: "The Southern members openly said they meant to make the tariff so bitter a pill that no New England member would be able to swallow it." As conceived by the Jackson men, the plan was to draw a tariff bill which would satisfy the protective demands of the West and which, at the same time, would be so obnoxious to New England on account of the high duties on raw materials that this section, in combination with the South, would defeat the bill and thereby allow the followers of Andrew Jackson, without having offended the South, to pose as the friends of infant industries. ... Although the bill met with strong opposition from the South, New England, after modifications in the Senate, supported it in the final vote ..."

That political strategy did not work. The House vote was something like 105 for to 94 against.

In 1833, after South Carolina had voted for nullification over the tariff issue, a bill was passed in 1833, the so called "Compromise Tariff of 1833" that gradually reduced tariffs over a period of ten years.

Then came the Tariff of 1842, championed by Whig President Tyler, a Virginian. The Tariff of 1842 brought the tariff rates back up to the level of the 1833 tariff before all the gradual reductions that had occurred after 1833. Tyler had previously vetoed two high tariff bills and a bill establishing a national bank. Whigs were in favor of protectionist tariffs and the national bank. After Tyler vetoed the national bank bill, Whigs expelled him from their party. After one of Tyler's vetoes of a high tariff bill, Whigs introduced an impeachment resolution in the House, the first against a president. The impeachment resolution didn't pass. Tyler would later vote for Virginia's secession in 1861.

The 1846 Tariff was sponsored by Democrats and significantly lowered tariff rates. It was later followed by the Tariff of 1857, that lowered Tariff rates even more.

Even in 1859, that Morrill tariff over which such a fuss was raised, only passed the House (but not the Senate) because 55 Democrats & others friendly to the South abstained.
So why would they abstain, if so passionately opposed?

Here is a breakdown of the 1860 House vote that passed the Morrill Tariff [Link]:

The vote was on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.

The vote was largely but not entirely sectional. Republicans, all from the northern states, voted 89–2 for the bill. They were joined by 7 northern Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Five of these were "anti-Lecompton Democrats" (dissident Democrats who opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas).

14 northern Democrats voted against the bill.

In the Border States, 4 "Opposition" Representatives from Kentucky voted for it, as did its co-sponsor Winter of Maryland, a Maryland "Unionist", and a Democrat from Delaware. 8 Border state Democrats and an "American" from Missouri voted no.

35 southern Democrats and 3 Oppositionists voted against it; one Oppositionist from Tennessee voted for it. Thus the sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border, and 1–39 in the south.

There were 55 abstentions, including 13 Republicans, 12 northern Democrats, 13 southern Democrats, and 8 southern "Oppositionists" and "Americans". (The remaining Representatives were mostly "paired" with opposing Representatives who could not be present.

The link's regional and party breakdowns total to 103 or 104 yes votes to 63 no votes. The actual total final vote they provided was 105 to 64. However, their breakdown figures are close enough to disprove your statement above.

Using the figures the link provided, if all of the abstaining Democrats and Southern Oppositionists and Americans had voted against the bill, that would make a total of 96 or 97 against the bill (the sources figures don't add up exactly to the final vote, as I said). That was not enough to defeat it. In the cases where Northern Democrats voted, one-third of them were for the bill, so assuming all of them would vote against the bill, like I assumed to get to the total of 96 or 97 above, means there would probably have been less than 96 or 97 against the bill.

To get a no vote that exceeds the yes vote, you would have to assume all abstaining Democrats and Southern Oppositionists and Americans would vote "no" and about 13 of the 15 abstaining Republicans would vote no. The 13 of 15 is approximate because the source's vote breakdowns don't match the final 105 to 64 total exactly.

This should put an end to your claim that "only passed the House (but not the Senate) because 55 Democrats & others friendly to the South abstained.

You are assuming that the 15 abstaining Republicans were "friendly" to the South. I sometimes feel like I am debating with someone from a high school history class.

[PeaRidge]

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

Now you have Brojoker. All of this is from the "Official Records" as well as various biographies.

April 1, 1861
To: Commandant, Brooklyn Navy Yard

You will fit out the Powhatan without delay....She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.

Signed: Abraham Lincoln

April1, 1861 by General Scott
April 2, 1861 approved by Abraham Lincoln
To: Brevet Colonel Harvey Brown, U.S. Army

You have been designated to take command of an expedition... without delay proceed at once to your destination. The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.

April 1, 1861 To: Lt. D.D. Porter, USN

You will proceed to New York and with least possible delay assume command of any steamer available.

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever...

[DiogenesLamp]

...and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out.

...The object and destination of this expedition will be communicated to no one to whom it is not already known.

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no person whatever...

And I say again, what possible use does a "re-supply" mission have for secret orders?

[DiogenesLamp]

Who you mean "us" Kemosabe?

I mean "Conservatives." Who do you think I mean? This is a conservative website isn't it?

Just stop with your "Southron" and "Marxist" nonsense. In case you missed it, Liberal morality never stops moving. According to the book "Leftism Revisited" (Preface by William F. Buckley)

the one constant of leftist movements is the need to change the existing social structure and challenge existing morality.

[PeaRidge]

Regarding Lincoln's intentions at Ft. Sumter, Brojoker said “These orders exactly match what Lincoln told South Carolina Governor Pickens.”

Pickens was advised of a resupply by a low level clerk with no written evidence. Lincoln ordered reinforcement.

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.

Winfield Scott
Approved by A. Lincoln

[PeaRidge]

“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.”

So, next time I say I know something is certain because of a newspaper article reporting something after the fact...well you are just going to have to accept it.

What you report is a communication from the Secretary of the Navy to a commander that was instructed to turn over authority to another man under different orders. It says nothing about Fox. You made that up.

Lincoln's documented direct orders to the mission commander Fox was for reinforcement.

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.

If you want to continue to argue with the Official Records, have at it.

[PeaRidge]

Did you know that they painted out the name “Baltic”?

[PeaRidge]

Brojoker making things up again: “50% is more realistic for 1860.”

BroJoe, as I have told you several times, you are not understanding your own data or correctly using it. You have confused export products, specie, and re-exports while failing to quote the entire export picture. Here is the information on export contributions:................................U. S. Department of Commerce
................................Agricultural Production of the South
........................................Yearly Detail 1859

Value of Total U.S. Exports ..........$278,902,000

Value of Raw Southern Products:

....................Cotton .....................$161,435,000
....................Tobacco .....................21,074,000
....................Rice ............................2,207,000
....................Naval stores .................3,696,000
....................Sugar ..........................197,000
....................Molasses ........................76,000
....................Hemp .............................9,000
....................Other ........................9,615,000
________
Total ( 71% ) $198,309,000

Value of Southern manufactured Cotton exports ............4,989,000
Value of cotton component of Northern Manufactured cotton exports (60%) ......3,669,000
___________
Total ( 74% ) $205,459,000

74%

U.S. Department of Commerce, U. S. Treasury, Report of L. E. Chittenden, Howell Cobb, Treasurer, Annual State of the Union Address, James Buchanan, J. D. B. DeBow, Charles Adams, Thomas Kettel, W. F. Taussig, Thomas Huertas, Historical Statistics of the United States Department of Commerce, pg. 106,432.

[DiogenesLamp]

Did you know that they painted out the name “Baltic”?

I think I saw something about that, either in the material that you and others have presented, or in some of my own reading on the topic.

Again, why secrecy for a "re-supply" mission?

A shrewd man would know that there was no way he could hide his shipyard doings from Southern spies or sympathizers, but he could leave them guessing as to what were his intentions, knowing they would assume the worst.

That the name "Baltic" would be painted out before the ship sailed, would be noted. The reason why it was painted out could only be conjectured, but it would most definitely leave the impression that someone was up to no good.

[DiogenesLamp]

Saw this today on Instapundit.

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: “I started giving quizzes to my juniors and seniors. I gave them a ten-question American history test… just to see where they are. The vast majority of my students – I’m talking nine out of ten, in every single class, for seven consecutive years – they have no idea that slavery existed anywhere in the world before the United States. Moses, Pharaoh, they know none of it. They’re 100% convinced that slavery is a uniquely American invention… How do you give an adequate view of history and culture to kids when that’s what they think of their own country – that America invented slavery? That’s all they know.”

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/239847/#respond

What did anyone expect when such propaganda is constantly spouted by Union Apologists?

[x]

No. It's because they don't know anything about the Bible or about ancient history or the rest of the world.

"Union apologists" don't have anything to do with it, and in fact today's racial rhetoric really doesn't have much to do with Abraham Lincoln or the Civil War.

However much you guys may cheer on Lee or Jackson or Davis, there isn't much enthusiasm for Lincoln or Grant or Sherman in Black Lives Matter (whatever that is) or on college campuses.

But heaven help us if you guys get your own way. You'd have kids thinking the tariff was worse than slavery and Lincoln the worst and only racist president.

[rockrr]

So, apparently according to the lost cause losers the “Union apologists” are propagandizing with revisionist history while simultaneously not teaching it at all.

Makes no less sense than the other silliness they spout

;’}

[DiogenesLamp]

"Union apologists" don't have anything to do with it, and in fact today's racial rhetoric really doesn't have much to do with Abraham Lincoln or the Civil War.

You kid yourself. Most people have so little understanding of History that they don't recognize the connection.

But heaven help us if you guys get your own way. You'd have kids thinking the tariff was worse than slavery and Lincoln the worst and only racist president.

That is a complete misstatement of our position. No one is arguing that slavery is/was good. What we are arguing is that it was legal during that time period, and much of the money being produced was the consequence of it.

*I* am arguing that the Southern States seceded to get away from what they thought was economically unfair laws and tariffs created by the voting block of the Northern States and against their interests.

I am further arguing that the Northern Power blocks, having realized how much money they would lose from an Independent South trading directly with Europe, therefore launched a war against Southern Independence to prevent that massive loss of money.

The moral disagreement between the North and South over Slavery did indeed exist, but it was not the primary reason for which the Northern States launched an invasion of the Southern states. It was the ominous threat to the North's existing trade income represented by an Independent South, which was their primary motivation to wage war. It is why one of the first things they did is attempt to stop that same European trade, which had no obvious military value that I can see.

The war was fought over who got the benefit of that slave money, not over how it was produced. It was primarily an economic war regarding which the morality of slavery was only tangentially involved.

After enough blood had been spilled, the economic reasons for commencing it were forgotten, and it became a hate war between invader and defender with the Invaders having the vastly upper hand.

To justify what they had done, the victors spun the narrative that they were fighting against slavery and they have been loudly repeating that ever since.

They focus on Slavery because if you focus on the real issues, the North does not look so very good regarding what they did.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are the Jar-Jar Binks of this discussion. Irrelevant and mindless babble is about all you contribute.

[rustbucket]

I wonder if Common Core had a hand in making that impression on students.

Here is a link to lesson plans consistent with Common Core [Slavery in America].

Apparently, they do talk about the beginnings of slavery. Hopefully, they do give a good introduction to slavery in World History in the first unit, but maybe I'm just naive. What is clear though is that the most emphasis of this course is placed on what happened in America. Well, it is entitled Slavery in America. If this course is all the students get exposed to about slavery before hitting junior and senior history classes, it might not be surprising that they got the idea that slavery was only or mainly here in America. I'm glad some high school teachers correct that impression.

[x]

You kid yourself. Most people have so little understanding of History that they don't recognize the connection.

So most people don't know what we're saying, but it determines what they think anyway. Oh to have such power!

Of course, you're just being stupid here. For today's young radicals, Lincoln, his party, and his union aren't heroes. They do know that much.

It was the ominous threat to the North's existing trade income represented by an Independent South, which was their primary motivation to wage war. It is why one of the first things they did is attempt to stop that same European trade, which had no obvious military value that I can see.

Nonsense. When there's a war, you cut off the resources that enable the other side to fight and win the war. In that sense, cotton did have "obvious military value." The Confederate leadership certainly thought it did and could win the war.

The war was fought over who got the benefit of that slave money, not over how it was produced. It was primarily an economic war regarding which the morality of slavery was only tangentially involved.

Idiocy. That's your Marxist whiny baby slight of hand: "They told me it was all about slavery. Waaah. Actually it was all about money." Actually it was neither.

The fire eaters very much did see their slave money threatened by the election of a Republican. That was what drove the secession movement. Northerners resented what they saw as an unconstitutional secession and an assault on American forces and on the flag. Once the fighting started people rallied to one side or the other.

Lincoln -- or any president -- couldn't simply collapse before secessionist subversion and Confederate demands. Any president who didn't want to betray his oath and become a complete disgrace had to try to hold the line a little against secession -- had to prevent the capital, for example, from being cut off from the rest of the country.

If Davis had thought it was all about money for Lincoln and the North, he had only to resist the impulse to attack and let the Northerners' "real motives" become clear. If Lincoln attacked Davis, it would reveal that Lincoln had intended war all along. If he didn't there was potential for a negotiated settlement. But Davis couldn't help starting a war. Maybe it was all about the money for him.

They focus on Slavery because if you focus on the real issues, the North does not look so very good regarding what they did.

Meaning slavery wasn't a "real issue." Your words.

Confederates were trying to ban abolitionist books. People who owned and read such books were hanged. How could slavery possibly not be a "real issue"?

[rustbucket]

[PeaRidge]: Did you know that they painted out the name “Baltic”?

Then there was the case of the Powhattan flying "English colors" when she first approached Pensacola (site of Fort Pickens) [Link].

[DiogenesLamp]

I am reading through this book written in 1860 by someone whom I believe to be a Northerner, probably from New York.

.

.

It has some very interesting observations that dovetail quite well with my theory. I did not know that it was for New England interests that the Slave trade was continued till 1808. I had always assumed it was a concession to the South.

Very interesting read so far.

[x]

Doesn't everybody know by now that Northerners participated in the slave trade? So did the other maritime powers of the Western World. So did Southerners, though they weren't building and sailing their own ships to the extent that Northerners, or Britons, or French or Dutch or Spanish or Portuguese were. Don't be the person who pretends he's just discovered what everybody else has known for years.

The vote at the Constitutional Convention was on whether the slave trade could not be abolished until 1808. It was intended as a concession to Georgia and South Carolina (and some sources say North Carolina). The New England states voted for the measure. So did most of the Southern states. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia voted against it because they wanted Congress to have the right to abolish slavery before 1808.

G. Morris from Pennsylvania, on August 25, was rather blunt: why not say that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with… North Carolina, South Carolina & Georgia.”