House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

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

[rockrr]

Wow, you guys have solved the enigma! Lincoln was secretly working for the Rebel Alliance and on a mission to disrupt the evil forces of the Empire.

*SMH*

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to x: "*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."

If you argued that was *a* motive, perhaps subconscious but not expressed at the time, anyone could say, "sure, *a* motive."
But I ask you again to read their official Reason's for Secession documents (here is one, there were three others).
Tariffs are not mentioned specifically, even once!
Neither are taxes or duties.
So protecting slavery is, by far and away the major concern, mentioned along with "property" over 100 times in those four documents.

So, seriously DiogenesLamp, would a reasonable person reading those "Reasons for secession" conclude that their real reason was the subject they mentioned 100 times (slavery), or the one they never mentioned: tariffs?

Remember, I'm talking about a reasonable person here, not necessarily Diogenes Lamp.

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

But your "launched a war" is a flat out lie, just as it would be if you said, "FDR launched war" against Japan or Germany.
In fact, just like Lincoln, regardless of how much FDR wanted go help the Brits' & French, he couldn't -- because 88% of Americans opposed it -- until Japanese first launched war against the USA, and Hitler declared war on us.

In Lincoln's case, the Confederacy first launched and then declared war on the United States.
Then, and only then were Roosevelt or Lincoln able to call up forces to defeat the military force already at war against the US.

DiogenesLamp: "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..."

Just as Franklin Roosevelt launched no invasion against Japan, regardless of economic reasons, until after Japan started war at Pearl Harbor, the same is true of Lincoln.
Indeed, Civil War could have ended on any day Confederates asked for peace.
But they completely refused until utterly defeated.

So Confederates both began the war and determined the date of its conclusion.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

But never forget that Republicans, from their beginning, were the anti-slavery party.
Yes, Republicans fully intended to abolish slavery gradually, peacefully and lawfully, but abolition was their long-term goal, indeed it was their raison d'etre.
And that's the reason, not tariffs, Deep South Fire Eaters began to declare their secession immediately after Lincoln's election on November 6, 1860.
Bottom line: slavery first launched secession and Confederacy which then launched & declared war against the USA.

DiogenesLamp: "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."

But it's impossible to forget reasons which were never there.
Restoring the Union was their first goal, abolishing slavery eventually became the second.
Both were adequate, by themselves to prevent Confederates from surrender short of complete unconditional defeat.

DiogenesLamp: "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. "

No, the Union narrative, from the beginning, has always been: first restore the Union, second free the slaves.
Tariffs were not mentioned by either Union or Confederates until much later.

[rustbucket]

Wow, you guys have solved the enigma! Lincoln was secretly working for the Rebel Alliance and on a mission to disrupt the evil forces of the Empire.

All we've done is point out what they did. What is your explanation of why Federal ships were painting out ship names, burning foreign coal, and flying colors of another nation? Sounds like various "false flag" measures to mislead the opposition. And some of this was on a so-called "peaceful mission."

As I've said many times over the years, I believe it was Lincoln's intention to provoke a war. Lincoln sending the fleet down with the stated intention to force their way into South Carolina's waters if resisted was an act of war. The US government and the South (Florida at the time) had agreed to a truce that the North wouldn't reinforce Fort Pickens if the South didn't attack it. Lincoln's orders to break the truce at Fort Pickens by reinforcing it with troops and ammunition without telling the other side of the truce was also an act of war. From USLegal.com, my emphasis below:

An act of war is an action by one country against another with an intention to provoke a war or an action that occurs during a declared war or armed conflict between military forces of any origin. The loss or damage caused due to such conflicts are excluded from insurance coverage except for life assurances.

Lincoln's cabinet had told him that Fox's Fort Sumter expedition would result in a shooting war. Anderson (at Fort Sumter) and Meigs and Adams (both at Fort Pickens) had recognized that Lincoln's actions would result in war [Post 54].

Lincoln’s two wartime secretaries, Nicolay and Hay, put it this way after the war in their book about Lincoln:

President Lincoln in deciding the Sumter question had adopted a simple but effective policy. To use his own words, he determined to "send bread to Anderson"; if the rebels fired on that, they would not be able to convince the world that he had begun the civil war.

Some of us can see through Lincoln's ruse. Others on this thread cannot.

With war, Lincoln would become commander-in-chief and could do things he otherwise wouldn't have the constitutional power to do, such as blockading Southern ports to stop their lower tariff from ruining the Northern economy, invading the South. arresting Maryland legislators, overthrowing the elected government of Missouri, and issuing the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln's War cost over 600,000 lives and almost as much money as it would have taken to buy all of the slaves and set them free.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to x: "And of what Military value was Cotton?
It certainly had trade value, but would it have won any victories for the South because people of Europe were wearing clothes? "

First of all, a brief history of naval blockades.
This listing shows dozens of historical blockades going back to ancient Greek & Roman times.
It includes British blockades of American ports during the Revolution and War of 1812.
So by 1860 naval blockades were simply considered a normal part of fighting war or rebellion.

Therefore, the natural question is not "why blockade the Confederacy", but rather, had it been the case: why did the Union not blockade?
Blockades were normal, no blockade would have been surprising indeed.

And, indeed, as a former Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis would have been well aware of such contingency military plans kept in file drawers.

DiogenesLamp: "As I have pointed out, they didn't seem to want for guns or powder in those early battles.
Certainly they seemed to acquire enough despite the blockade."

As I pointed out before, the statistics say 90% of blockade runners made it in 1861.
In 1862 that number dropped to 80% and by 1865 was down to roughly 30%.
Of course, one reason the number was so high in 1861 was that only the lightest, fastest ships even attempted the run, so already Confederate bulk shipping suffered more than these numbers suggest.

DiogenesLamp: "Militarily it served little purpose, but economically, and to prevent the establishment of economic based alliances with Europe, it was very effective."

Like the Anaconda it was named for, blockades do not strangle a country instantaneously, but (economic) death comes slowly, and surely.

DiogenesLamp: "It was pretty much about money.
As Charles Dickens noted, Millions acquired by the North and Lost by the South.
It was only a question of where those Millions would end up."

Dickens had a serious financial beef against Northerners who didn't respect his international copyrights and published his works without paying him.
He also knew nothing specific about either the leaders or motives of Unionists & Confederates.
So his speculations amount to nothing more than picking out a reason which blamed both sides more-or-less equally.

Dickens spoke for nobody except himself.

DiogenesLamp: "Well especially since the President started throwing Legislators in Jail, and locking up dissidents.
Not showing how much you agreed with him could end you up in jail."

By definition of the US Constitution, if you make war on the United States, or give aid & comfort to our enemies, you committed treason.
During the Civil War, punishment for treason related offenses short of murder was normally quite light.

DiogenesLamp: "What demands?
That they not have a foreign power commanding cannons overlooking the entrance to their primary port city?
That seems a pretty reasonable demand to me, and do not forget that it only became a demand long after numerous "requests" and offers of payment were ignored."

Certainly, just as "reasonable" as Communist Cuban demands the US leave Guantanamo Bay.
But regardless of how "reasonable" they might think themselves, if they launch assaults on US troops in a US base, it will be an act of war, just as Fort Sumter was, or indeed, as Pearl Harbor was.

DiogenesLamp: "One does not engage in secrecy for an effort at resupply, especially after you have informed your opposition that 'resupply' is your intention."

But of course they must, and did in this case, since Union ships had been repeatedly fired on by Confederate shore batteries.
Lincoln's mission was to find a way to deliver supplies without opposition, if possible.

DiogenesLamp: "If it were an attack, they would be fools to wait for it.
If it were not an attack, then why were there secret orders?"

Lincoln informed SC Governor Pickens there would be only resupply, not reinforcement, if they met no resistance.
But Pickens had repeatedly demanded Fort Sumter's surrender since December 1860, demands for which Jefferson Davis ordered military preparations in March 1861, even before Lincoln's inauguration.

So on April 12, the Confederacy was fully prepared for war, and did not need Lincoln's ships on the horizon to start it.
They only needed Major Anderson's refusal to surrender, and for that they were prepared to launch Civil War against the United States.

DiogenesLamp: "It wasn't a 'real issue' as to why Soldiers were marched across borders."

But slavery certainly was the "real issue" why Deep South Fire Eaters began declaring their secession in December 1860.
The "real issue" for war was that the Confederacy first provoked war, then started war, then declared war, then sent military aid to Confederates in Union states.
So the "real issue" was Confederate existential threat to the United States of America.

[rockrr]

Some of us can see through Lincoln's ruse.

Must be those special spectacles you're wearing. Say, where does a feller get some of them?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp referring to the Powhattan mission to Fort Pickens, Florida: "This was really a funny sort of "resupply" mission. "

Of course they intended to defend Fort Pickens.
And yet the very piece you quoted clearly says their orders were to "act strictly on the defensive" so as not to provoke Confederate violence.

[rockrr]

davis's War cost over 600,000 lives and almost as much money as it would have taken to buy all of the slaves and set them free.

FIFY

[rustbucket]

A couple of corrections to my old post 54 I just linked to above. The day after his inaugural speech, Lincoln had told Winfield Scott verbally to reinforce Fort Pickens. When nothing had happened toward achieving that goal Lincoln had his order put in writing. The written order didn't arrive to the Federal ships at Pensacola until late March or early April (I forget which).

Next, the reinforcement of Fort Pickens actually began on April 11th before the bombardment of Fort Sumter began on the 12th. As I remember, the guy in command of those reinforcing troops said that he was in command of Fort Pickens as of April 11, and one of the Federal ship's log book said the troops began the reinforcement on the 11th.

Once adequate men and munitions were in Fort Pickens to withstand an attack by the Confederates, it turned out that the Confederate forces had only one day's worth of ammunition with which to attack the fort. So, the Confederates did not attack at that point, although there were later Confederate raids onto Santa Rosa Island, the island where Fort Pickens is located.

[rustbucket]

FIFY

IDKWTHYMR (mine's easier to figure out than yours)

[rockrr]

Likewise I’m sure.

[rustbucket]

Must be those special spectacles you're wearing. Say, where does a feller get some of them??

Better yet, I have a bridge I can sell you.

[rockrr]

Yea, I bet you bought it at a bargain price LOL

[PeaRidge]

I have said several times that secession ended the slavery issue for the Union.

On the 4th of February, 1861, the Confederate Congress, composed of delegates from the six southern states met at Montgomery, Alabama and completed the secession movement by composing and adopting their own constitution. This ended the slavery problem for the Union states.

The issue of slavery no longer had any political influence or social impact on the Union states or the territories. Those that remained preoccupied with it were needing a rationalization for their personal issues.

[DiogenesLamp]

The issue of slavery no longer had any political influence or social impact on the Union states or the territories.

And that is exactly what started the war. No more slave-produced profit money for them.

New York City, not just Southern cities, was essential to the cotton world. By 1860, New York had become the capital of the South because of its dominant role in the cotton trade. New York rose to its preeminent position as the commercial and financial center of America because of cotton. It has been estimated that New York received forty percent of all cotton revenues since the city supplied insurance, shipping, and financing services and New York merchants sold goods to Southern planters. The trade with the South, which has been estimated at $200,000,000 annually, was an impressive sum at the time.

http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/161/cotton-in-a-global-economy-mississippi-1800-1860

[DiogenesLamp]

Wow, you guys have solved the enigma! Lincoln was secretly working for the Rebel Alliance and on a mission to disrupt the evil forces of the Empire.

Like I said, the Jar-Jar Binks of this discussion. Nothing of any interest or merit emanates from your direction.

[DiogenesLamp]

I also read that the steamers had loaded British coal for the trip. Wondering about the significance of this? Anyone know?

I'm guessing that it is the difference between lignite and anthracite. One burns cleanly and emits little smoke, the other burns very sooty.

I don't know which we used and which the British used, but I would imagine you could tell a ship's origin from it's smoke stacks by the difference in the smoke produced by the coal.

If you were attempting a deception, the difference in the smoke would add to the illusion you were attempting to create.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The point here is that the Northerners DOMINATED the slave Trade, and thereafter DOMINATED the cotton (produce of slaves) trade.
They were up to their eyeballs in profit from slavery, and their main objection was that their profits would stop."

Obviously some confusion on this subject, so let's look at the timeline here:

1. 1794: The United States bans American ships from the international slave trade and prohibits export by foreign ships in the Slave Trade Act.[28]

2. 1800: The United States bans its citizens' investment and employment in the international slave trade in an additional Slave Trade Act.

3. 1806: In a message to Congress, US President Thomas Jefferson calls for criminalizing the international slave trade, asking Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights … which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe."

4. 1807, 2 March: The US makes international slave trade a felony in Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves; this act takes effect on 1 January 1808.[44]

5. 1808: The US makes it a crime to import or export slaves.[48]

6. 1820: Compromise of 1820 in US prohibits slavery north of a line (36°30′).

7. 1822: Liberia founded by American Colonization Society (USA) as a colony for emancipated slaves.

8. 1863: In the United States, Abraham Lincoln issues the presidential order the Emancipation Proclamation declaring slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed.
   Most slaves in "border states" are freed by state action; separate law freed the slaves in Washington, D.C.

9. 1865, December: US abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; about 40,000 remaining slaves are affected.[77]

Point here is: after 1794 no US citizens, period, lawfully engaged in the international slave trade.

Note to those who pretend Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation accomplished nothing, by late 1865 of four million 1860 slaves, only 40,000 remained slaves and needed to be freed by the 13th Amendment.

Bottom line: after 1794 there was no lawful US participation in international slave shipments, whether the ships were Northern or Southern owned.
And 1794 was the very year Eli Whitney patented his cotton gin, and a time when US cotton exports were near zero.

This source shows US cotton production was:

1. 1790: 1.5 million pounds = 750 tons, if exported enough to fill two small ships.

2. 1800: 35 million pounds = 17,500 tons, when exported enough to fill a dozen large square rigged cargo ships.
   Cotton exports in 1800 were about $5 million, accounting for 7% of total US export revenues.

3. 1810: 85 million pounds = 42,500 tons, enough to fill dozens of large sailing cargo ships.
   Cotton exports in 1810 increased to 22% of US exports, valued at $15 million.

4. 1820: 160 million pounds = 80,000 tons, enough to fill a hundred large ships of that time, worth $22 million and 32% of total US exports.

5. 1830: 331 million pounds = 165,000 tons, enough to fill a hundred larger steam ships, worth $30 million and 41% of US exports.

6. 1840: 834 million pounds = 417,000 tons enough to fill a hundred of the day's increasingly larger steam powered ships, worth $61 million and 54% of total US exports.

7. 1850: one billion pounds = 500,000 tons, enough to fill hundreds of the day's cargo ships, worth $72 million and 49% of US exports.

8. 1860: 2.8 billion pounds = 1.4 million tons, enough to fill many hundreds of larger ocean-going cargo ships, worth $192 million and 57% of total US exports.

I think that figure of 57% is high, because they don't include all US exports, but it's still huge compared to previous decades, especially in 1794, after which US citizens could not legally transport slaves internationally.

DiogenesLamp: "If I can find that info again, and plot their values on the map, I believe it will show the value going out to be upside down of that Map posted above, with the Dominant value going out being exported from the Southern States, while the Northern states with four times the population, were only producing 25% of the total export value. "

Remember first, as a percent of total exports, cotton first approached 50% in 1840, and while cotton exports grew from then on, so did other US exports.

Second, New Orleans reported in 1857 shipping about half the total US cotton crop that year.
That implies Southern producers were not as bound to Northerners as you like to pretend.

Third, New York & other Northern merchants who purchased cotton from small Southeastern ports for consolidation and shipment from Northern ports still had to pay prices competitive with international values.
One guarantor of this was the Southern rail system which linked all major ports to each other:

DiogenesLamp: "To simplify the point, the North was making huge profits off of slavery through their control of the import and export traffic and through their control of the laws."

But after 1800, "the North" never really "controlled the laws", Southern Democrats did, almost continuously from 1801 through 1860.
In 88% of those 59 years Democrats, controlled by Southerners, controlled both houses of Congress, the Presidency and Supreme Court..
So for you to claim that, in fact the majority Democrats were somehow under the thumbs of minority Northerners is just silly, FRiend.

DiogenesLamp: "This book is making it clear that the importation concession was to "New England" interests."

Regardless of who conceded to whom, the historical fact is that Washington, DC began to outlaw US citizens participation in international shipments of slaves in 1794, at a time when cotton was barely 5% of total US exports.
So, by 1860 any alleged "Northern profits from the slave trade" were 66 years in the past.

[BroJoeK]

x to DiogenesLamp: "Southern Wealth and Northern Profits by Thomas Prentice Kettell was a tract that purported to show that Northern wealth depended on the cotton planters.
Stephen Colwell examined the same data in Five Cotton States and New York and came to the conclusion that it was the cotton states that were dependent on New York."

Thank you, sir.

[BroJoeK]

PeaBrain: "Reinforce was the order from the President, herewith documented. April 4, 1861"

Sorry, no, it was "resupply-only, if..."
See links in my posts #853 and #854 above.
You are talking about preliminary orders, my reference is to Lincoln's final orders.

[DiogenesLamp]

You've said Southern exports and the money they generated were at the root of the conflict. What do you think those exports were? Cotton. Southern leaders said Cotton was king and it could win them independence and empire.

It would create them wealth, which over time equates to power.

So why is it suddenly not important?

Hold up. Don't go running off with the cart before the horse. I didn't say it wasn't important. It was very important economically it was of little to no importance militarily.

Interdicting normal trade between Europe and the South would have little or no immediate military effect. The combatants in the South were already there. Sufficient weaponry to fight was already there.

What the blockade did was to make sure that the European Traders were scared away, and not because they would be carrying men or munitions, but because Lincoln did not want them to develop a serious stake in Southern Trade.

He did not want to allow economic competition to become established. Again, that is the *ENTIRE* reason for the war. It is that threat of Southern economic competition and it's commensurate loss of profit and industry that the Union couldn't stomach.

What do you think Protectionists do? They PROTECT! They even implement this protection with Navies, with Armies, and with Guns. It's the same policy, just by other means.