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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Do you really think Africa is going to become rich from China stripmining the shit out of all their minerals and ores? LOL.

Are you suggesting that in the 1850s, the North East was "stripmining the shit out of" the South?

Certainly there were North Eastern people exploiting them, but not to that extent.

But this sort of problem always arises whenever one group of people own a source of wealth, but do not have sufficient population to defend it from a more populous aggressor.

[DiogenesLamp]

You're forgetting that whole thing about wrestling with a pig...

Or the Truth. I expect many of you are so invested in your narrative that you will continue to wrestle with the truth because you simply do not want to believe things were otherwise than what you had been led to believe.

[Travis T. OJustice]

What you call “exploiting”, most people call providing a value-added service.

The africans get roads and schools in trade, so it’s a quid pro quo deal, but no, they won’t see the wealth as their commodity isn’t worth final cost because of the value-added input by others you somehow confuse as “exploitation”.

[DiogenesLamp]

What you call “exploiting”, most people call providing a value-added service.

The africans get roads and schools in trade, so it’s a quid pro quo deal,

To the Africans, were the roads and schools worth the value of the material being exploited? I very much doubt it. There is probably a great disparity in the value of one thing versus the value of the other.

In addition to that, it is more like the Roads and Schools were ideas which came from the the exploiters who were deciding for themselves what was best for the Africans.

If you are saying the North East was providing a "value-added" service, I'm fine with that so long as it's voluntary. If Southerners had attempted to provide such services to themselves, and it had turned out to be uneconomical for them to do so, they they could have sought those services from whomever could have provided them most efficiently.

But Shouldn't the choice of services be up to the people who were paying for it, rather than being imposed on them by others for reasons of their own self interest?

[rustbucket]

So, 55 abstentions minus 13 Republicans, minus 12 Northern Democrats, minus 13 Southern Democrats, minus 8 Southern Oppositionists & Americans = 9 paired abstentions.

The Congressional Globe cites 11 pairs of delegates, nine of which were Republicans pairing with Southern Democrats or American Party members. I need to redo my table of paired House members because I didn't recognize that the Congressional Globe used a different way of designating American Party Members (first letter large capitalized, the rest of the word small capitalized letters). I had assumed they were Democrats since they weren't italicized like Republicans were. Here is the redo of my paired House Members:

- George Pendleton (D-OH, no) paired with Boteler (AM-VA, yes)
- Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) paired with Craig (D-MO)
- Kilgore (R-IN) paired with Maynard (Opp or AM-TN)
- Curtis (R-IA) paired with Barrett (D-MO)
- Dunn (R-IN, for) paired with Vance (D-NC)
- Longnecker (R-PA for) paired with Harris (D-VA, no)
- Perry (R-ME, for) didn't name who he was paired with
- Porter (R-IN) paired with Hill (AM-GA)
- Theaker (R-OH, for) paired with Davidson (D-LA)
- Wilson (R-IN) paired with Pryor (D-VA)
- Harris (AM-MD, for) paired with Rust (D-AR)

Now, that makes a little more sense. Boteler of Virginia, who voted yes, was not a Southern Democrat, he was an American Party member.

So, we have 22 Representatives paired. That adds 11 to each side of the vote. That brings the total to 116 to 75. Assuming all 25 abstaining Democrats voted no (unlikely because when they voted, the Northern Democrats split their votes), that would bring the total to 116 to 100. Let's add in the 8 Southern Oppositionists and American Party Representatives to the no column. That makes the vote total 116 yes to 108 no.

Just ask yourself, why would a Republican abstain on a vote so strongly pushed by his leadership?
The only possible explanation is: the abstainer opposed the bill but didn't want to buck his "powers that be".

Wow! How about the explanation that their votes weren't needed by the Republican House leaders? The Morrill Tariff would and did pass without those abstaining Republican votes. Republican leaders had no need to lean on those members to vote. Some of the abstaining Republicans may have been in districts where their elections had been very close, and they didn't want a controversial yes vote on their record that would energize their Democratic opposition in the next election.

It is a waste of my time to respond to your absurd arguments.

DiogenesLamp: I have simply lost interest in your opinion. I’ve taken to skipping pretty much everything you write. I don’t feel it is worth my time to wade through your mass of chaos, dubious assertions, and interconnected irrelevancies.

Amen.

[rustbucket]

Oops. In my list of abstaining Representatives, Vance from North Carolina would have voted no, but he was American Party, not Democrat.

[PeaRidge]

I took a few days off for a small trip.

In my absence, I see that Rust had completely destroyed whatshisnames’ argument about the Morrill tariff and its supporters

I also see that diogenes has arranged for us to see an excellent graphic representation of the movement of goods.

One of our posters here kept providing a link to a document that he believes shows the “true” amount of imports in 1859.

Just for your interest, I researched and found that not only is that document out of print, the author manipulated the data. I will hold on to that for future use.

[DiogenesLamp]

I also see that diogenes has arranged for us to see an excellent graphic representation of the movement of goods.

I do not argue that my graphic has a high degree of accuracy, only that it shows a more realistic view of what the economic differential would have been if the South had been allowed to be an independent nation not shackled by laws which favored existing monopolies in the North East.

After creating it, it occurred to me the point might be made clearer by simply creating a map showing piles of Gold coins on both the Union and the Confederacy to illustrate the economics of before and after with an independent confederacy.

The point here that the Union apologists are not grasping is that the economic benefit of Independency for the South goes way beyond the direct impact of ridding themselves of protective tariffs.

They would also lose the 40% "vigorish" charges that New York was imposing on them, and they would have seen increased trade as middle man costs were eliminated.

The consequence would be creating more profits for the Europeans as well as the Southerners at the expense of New York/New England. This would increase trade over what it already was between Europe and the Confederate states.

The Astute New York businessmen who had the President's ear could see these dangers all too clearly, and that is why they exerted pressure on this already Mercantilist President to intervene on their behalf.

The Bloodshed and upheaval of the Civil War was the consequence of certain power blocks in New York/New England trying to keep their income streams from slavery produced money.

They and their Mercantilist President sold the public relations as if they were doing something noble.

Always follow the money. It will point to the truth, despite the lies of men.

[DiogenesLamp]

Also, Charleston South Carolina used to make their own Ships. Here is one.

According to the Registry Entry, "The Horizon" had the following characteristics.

It was a "Ship" as distinguished from other naval vessels, such as a sloop or a brig.
It's Master was a man named "H. White".
It was 310 feet long in 1801. It was Single Deck with Beams.
It was Manufactured in Charleston South Carolina. It was sheathed with copper over boards.
It was 1 year old when it was inspected by Llyod's.
It's original Owner was a man named "Mackler" and apparently Co-Owned by a man named "McClure."(edit: I have since come to believe that "Mackler" is merely "McClure" misspelled.)
It draughted 16 feet when heavily loaded.
It's Ports of survey were London and St. Vincent.
It's condition (at time of examination) was classified "A-1".

I learned of this ship while researching the Natural Born Citizen issue, which I have discovered is riddled through and through with the issue of slavery.

I have come to the conclusion that most of our modern misunderstanding of the issue was because abolitionists were deliberately trying to obfuscate the meaning of citizenship to create a legal loophole through which they could abolish slavery.

Asserting that English law applied, helped them in this endeavor. Vattel based Natural Law gave them no purchase upon which to build such a legal argument.

This ship "Horizon" was broken on the rocks off the North West coast of France in 1807, and it's cargo was seized by French Authorities. This incident represents the first time that the Napoleonic government applied the "Berlin Decree" to a U.S. Ship, and it caused a very major stir in our Government at the time.

[DiogenesLamp]

Anybody who expects even-handed coverage of this election is a naif. You won’t get it, especially now that the Ruling Class and its Ruling Party of Republicans and Democrats are united in fear and terror of the coming of Trump, and will do anything they can to prevent it, even to the destruction of the United States of America itself.

They don’t want to Make America Great Again, because they are terrified (rightly so) that in a Great America their iron gravy bowls would be greatly at risk, and their Donor Class owners equally fear a loosening of their iron grip on the Ruling Party.

Same dynamic as before.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr post #900: "You're forgetting that whole thing about wrestling with a pig..."

Sorry, I've been, ahem, hogtied by other demands, and was starting to feel guilty for letting my monthly Free Republic donations lapse.
So today I fixed that, and now have a little time to finish this thread.

DiogenesLamp to rockrr, post #902: "Or the Truth.
I expect many of you are so invested in your narrative that you will continue to wrestle with the truth because you simply do not want to believe things were otherwise than what you had been led to believe."

But there's no real truth coming from you or your side, FRiend.
It's all just cockamamie nonsense invented, some of it, by Confederates themselves, once it became clear their war was lost.
Other claims are just now being concocted, a century and a half later.

So truth is our weapon, falsehoods & nonsense yours.
That's why you always lose your Lost Cause defenses.

rustbucket post #905: "The Congressional Globe cites 11 pairs of delegates..."

PeaBrain to rustbucket, post #907: "In my absence, I see that Rust had completely destroyed whatshisnames’ argument about the Morrill tariff and its supporters"

Let me make this as simple as I can for you:
The 36th US Congress had 235 total members.
Of those, only 169 voted at all on Morrill -- 105 for and 64 opposed, a margin of 41 votes.
But 235 minus 169 means 66 didn't vote at all.
Of those 66 not voting, rustbucket tells us that 11 pairs = 22 votes, cancelled each other out.
So, if for sake of argument we take rusty's number of 22 from the 66 non-voters, we still get 44 potentially persuadable, three more than the 41 needed to defeat Morrill.

But even those 44 net abstentions were not the only potential "no" votes.
In addition there were 7 Northern Democrats and 5 Southern Opposition (Americans) voting "yes" who could potentially be flipped, had there been the political will.
So the total potential was 56 votes, of which just 41 were needed to defeat Morrill.

Again, I'm saying if Southern Democrats really opposed Morrill as strongly as now claimed, they could have done more to defeat it.
But they didn't, and a possible reason is they expected the Senate to kill the bill anyway, which it did.

rustbucket post #905: "It is a waste of my time to respond to your absurd arguments."

It's only a waste because you continually respond with false arguments in support of a cockamamie narrative that was nonsense when first concocted, and remains so today.

PeaBrain to rustbucket, post #907: "One of our posters here kept providing a link to a document that he believes shows the “true” amount of imports in 1859.
Just for your interest, I researched and found that not only is that document out of print, the author manipulated the data."

This link, page 605, references a 1960 study of US exports, imports and balance of payments.
Its export numbers are slightly higher than reported elsewhere, but it's key value is in showing how balance of trade deficits were made up with large specie transfers.

And the point all this makes is: by 1859 Southern cotton accounted for much closer to 50% of total US exports than the 75% to 87% sometimes claimed.
That higher range (75%-87%) suggests that Northern states would be ruined economically without Southern cotton exports.
But the lower number (50%) is closer to reality in explaining how, despite Civil War, the Northern economy quickly adjusted and continue growing without Confederate cotton.

DiogenesLamp to x post #896: "At the time, hiring ships outside of that Northern Coastal monopoly, you would pay 55 cents per ton in taxes/penalties. (Because of that Navigation act of 1817.)"

So here's how you know for certain your argument is rubbish:
According to this source, you're talking about the Navigation Act of 1818, passed by the 15th US Congress, which was controlled by Southern Democrats in the Senate (70%) and House (79%) and signed by a Southern Democrat President, James Monroe.

In both 1817 and 1818 Southern Democrats had absolute control over Washington, DC, so nothing happened which they didn't want, which means your total argument is total garbage, FRiend.

So it's you who are attempting to defeat Truth with lies, and I'm here to tell you, that will never happen, FRiend.

[DiogenesLamp]

But there's no real truth coming from you or your side, FRiend.

The one salient truth to which you have yet to respond is the fact that fully 3/4ths of all European trade was produced by that 1/4th of the total citizens, who lived in the South.

This places 3/4ths of the burden of paying for the government on this same 1/4th of the Nation's citizens. (Really, the burden was on the slaves, but why quibble?)

You also ignore the fact that the money produced by that 1/4th of the citizens, mostly ended up in New York, instead of coming directly back to the Southern companies who produced it, as would happen in a non-artificial economic environment.

[DiogenesLamp]

You need to read this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3457989/posts

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The one salient truth to which you have yet to respond is the fact that fully 3/4ths of all European trade was produced by that 1/4th of the total citizens, who lived in the South."

First of all, in fact, I and others responded directly and at length, most recently in posts #788, 800, 810, 815, 857, and notably 877, plus 845, 889, 894 and 911.

Second, cotton exports were less than 10% of total US exports in 1800, rose to about 50% by 1840, and remained in that range through 1860.
By 1870 cotton was just below 50% and in 1880 less than 1/3 of total US exports, even though cotton production in 1880 was 1/3 higher than 1860.

Third, in 1860 cotton was not produced by 1/4 of the US population, but rather by fewer than 10% = roughly 2.5 million Deep South slaves.
Those 10% slaves made their "owners" wealthy and helped the nation prosper.

DiogenesLamp: "This places 3/4ths of the burden of paying for the government on this same 1/4th of the Nation's citizens. (Really, the burden was on the slaves, but why quibble?)"

Why quibble?
Well, for starters, "the government" obviously owed far more to those Deep Cotton South slaves than it did to their owners, and once you grasp that, you'll begin to see where "the government's" priorities lay.

DiogenesLamp: "You also ignore the fact that the money produced by that 1/4th of the citizens, mostly ended up in New York, instead of coming directly back to the Southern companies who produced it, as would happen in a non-artificial economic environment."

False again, on different levels:

First, half the US cotton crop shipped out of New Orleans, not New York, and 85% of that went directly to European customers.
The remaining 15% purchased by US Northerners certainly sold for the same prices as Europeans paid.

Second, New York claimed to earn 40% of the revenues on cotton, but we are not told how much went for what services.
Presumably shipping & warehousing costs were a large part, interest on loans and insurance relatively small.
And we are not told if that 40% included goods & services purchased in New York by Southern planters from the profits of their cotton sales.
Regardless, your claim that New York merchants had some kind of legal monopoly on cotton is belied by the fact that about half of all US cotton exports shipped from New Orleans.

Third, to reference your claim of a Northern legal monopoly -- of "jiggered" laws -- you cite as "the Navigation Act of 1817" (sic) but in fact, that particular law said nothing of the sort.
Look it up yourself.

Fourth, I remind you that Southern Democrats dominated Washington, DC, almost continuously from the founding of the Republic until the end of 1860.
Nothing important happened there which they did not approve of, especially commercial laws which you falsely claim to have been "jiggered" against the South.

Bottom line: you have created a fantasy in your own mind which has little or nothing to do with real history and therefore everything to do with promoting some otherwise indefensible propaganda.

You should move on to something else.

[DiogenesLamp]

Another article regarding the Crony Capitalism of New York which you ought to read.

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/08/09/real-reason-msm-hates-trump/?singlepage=true

It's the same force at work now that was at work then.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Another article regarding the Crony Capitalism of New York which you ought to read."

Sure, I "get" that you wish to change the subject.
But the important point to remember is: for nearly all of 72 years, from 1788 until the end of 1860, Southern Democrats ruled in Congress, in the Presidency, the Supreme Court and US military.
Of course, they did not rule alone, but with the willing, subservient & corrupt cooperation of their Doughfaced Northern Democrat allies.
These are the people you now pretend were their masters, but that's just rubbish.

The reality was that for nearly all those 72 years, Southern slave-holders dominated Southern Democrats, and Southern Democrats dominated Northern Democrats who together dominated Washington DC.

Until you grasp that basic fact, all the other nonsense you've been spewing out is just, well, nonsense.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sure, I "get" that you wish to change the subject.

I am not changing the subject. This current abuse of power by New York Crony Capitalists with powerful connections to the government is exactly the same subject.

You just haven't figured it out yet.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "This current abuse of power by New York Crony Capitalists with powerful connections to the government is exactly the same subject.
You just haven't figured it out yet."

Sorry, but it's you who are totally confused here.
For 72 years before 1860 those corrupt New York Democrat politicians were the political allies of Southern slave-holding Democrat politicians.
Such Northerners were known at the time as "doughfaced" because they were utterly subservient to Southern slave-masters, and willing to do anything demanded.

So, those "powerful connections to the government" you mention were to the Southern Democrats who ruled in Washington, DC.

How can such a basic fact utterly escape you?

[DiogenesLamp]

So, those "powerful connections to the government" you mention were to the Southern Democrats who ruled in Washington, DC.

Which is why Richmond is the Center of Finance and Power instead of New York.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Which is why Richmond is the Center of Finance and Power instead of New York."

No, but it is precisely why Washington, DC -- on the Potomac between slave-state Virginia and slave-state Maryland -- is the United States Capital, instead of Northern cities like New York or Philadelphia.
Those cities were capitals, but Southern politicians insisted on a city where slaves were not just temporarily tolerated, as in Philadelphia, but permanently welcomed.

What you seem to have forgotten is that overwhelmingly, antebellum Southerners loved their life-style and disdained crass Northern commercialism & industrialization.
The hustle & bustle of big cities was not their ideal, while idyllic rural plantation life was.
Even those who had no slaves, such as the Scots-Irish of Appalachia, did not want big cities, what they wanted most was to be left alone in their hidden mountain redoubts.

So it's no coincidence that the archetypal antebellum Southern politician -- President Andrew Jackson, born in the Carolinas, lived in Tennessee -- hated more than anything the Second National Bank of the United States.
He had it destroyed in 1833.
Point is: most antebellum Southerners hated crass commercialists, and certainly didn't want to become like them.

So that a real reason why Richmond is not the US center of finance, and why Washington, DC is its center of political power.