Battle of Appomattox: Understanding General Lee's Surrender

Ammo.com ^ | 7/26/2021 | Sam Jacobs

[ammodotcom]

The Battle of Appomattox Courthouse is considered by many historians the end of the Civil War and the start of post-Civil War America. The events of General Robert E. Lee’s surrender to General and future President Ulysses S. Grant at a small town courthouse in Central Virginia put into effect much of what was to follow.

The surrender at Appomattox Courthouse was about reconciliation, healing, and restoring the Union. While the Radical Republicans had their mercifully brief time in the sun rubbing defeated Dixie’s nose in it, they represented the bleeding edge of Northern radicalism that wanted to punish the South, not reintegrate it into the Union as an equal partner.

The sentiment of actual Civil War veterans is far removed from the attitude of the far left in America today. Modern day “woke-Americans” clamor for the removal of Confederate statues in the South, the lion’s share of which were erected while Civil War veterans were still alive. There was little objection to these statues at the time because it was considered an important part of the national reconciliation to allow the defeated South to honor its wartime dead and because there is a longstanding tradition of memorializing defeated foes in honor cultures.

[x]

Yet you complain about what's being done now and apparently defend what was done then.

The rest of us probably oppose both cheap illegal immigrant labor and slavery.

And you still refuse to write in paragaphs.

[zaxtres]

Man you were done as yesterday’s news. Just STFU and go away already.

[ealgeone]

Ah yes, the feeble mind continues to try and express itself. This is really not a fair fight as you’re at a tremendous disadvantage as you’ve demonstrated. Tell you what , I’ll let you have the last word. This has become tiresome and I have much better things to do than waste more time on you.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Don’t be an utter fool.

The democrats HAD BEEN IN CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT until Lincoln was elected!

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp to DoodleDawg: "Even BroJoeK has admitted that at least 50% of US revenue came from Southern trade.
Once I got him to even admit it was as high as 60%."

DiogenesLamp learns & remembers only what he wishes were true, not any actual facts.
In this case what's true is that in 1860 Deep South cotton accounted for roughly 50% of US exports -- about $200 million of the $400 million total exports.
This in a US economy whose GDP totaled ~$4.5 billion.
So Deep South cotton exports represented about 5% of total US economic activity.
Estimates of "the South's" total contribution to total US GDP run in the range of 15%.
And, indeed, when the Confederacy was eliminated from the US economy in 1861, then 15% is roughly the decline in Federal tariff revenues which resulted.

One reason Southern cotton exports of $200 million (50% of total exports) did not translate into 50% of Federal tariff revenues is because Southerners in 1860 did not spend their own revenues on foreign imports -- rather they "imported" about $200 million worth of manufactured goods from the North, and that's how Northerners earned the money to pay for foreign imports.

When the Confederate economy was removed from the United States in 1861, there was a temporary decline in the Union of around 15%, but within a year those losses were made up and total Union revenues soon doubled, then doubled again without any Confederate inputs.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows, but refuses to acknowledge because it doesn't support his pro-Confederate narrative.
Typical Democrat.

DiogenesLamp: "Fort Sumter is more akin to a slap.
It never had a chance of seriously hurting the North other than ego."

Jefferson Davis well knew he was starting Civil War when he ordered CSA General Beauregard to "reduce" Fort Sumter.
Davis was warned:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[19]
CSA Secretary of State Robert Toombs to Davis after reading Lincoln's message to SC Gov. Pickens, April 1861

The result of Davis' ordering his assault on Fort Sumter was analogous to Pearl Harbor in 1941, to 9/11, or even, if you prefer, to sinking the USS Maine in 1898.
These events aroused Americans in anger & determination to defeat the enemy who attacked us.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows, but as a pro-Confederate propagandist he refuses to acknowledge.

[DoodleDawg]

All the economic data for that time period backs it up. You just don't want it to be true, because it puts a different light on the relationship between the North and the South.

I don't want to to be true because it isn't.

[DoodleDawg]

The North was running up the bills, the South was paying for them.

Nonsense.

[DiogenesLamp]

Clearly Johnny Reb was not as confident that slavery would always be legal.

Do you know what "circular reasoning is"? Here is your version.

"Johnny Reb went to war to protect slavery."

When it is pointed out to you that not only did slavery need no "protection" but all the main players were offering them even greater protection for it, you respond:

"Johnny Reb didn't believe it."

You are still stuck on that brainwashed position of the only reason for the war was slavery, and you reject any other explanation than the one you have been taught all your life.

You advance your premise of "it is only about slavery", and then when evidence is shown to you that it really wasn't about slavery, you dismiss it because you must insist the war was only about slavery.

Your mind goes round and round in a circle with one part justifying the next part which justifies the previous part.

The war was not about slavery. It was about economics and hatred for the other side.

[SoCal Pubbie]

It isn't circular reasoning. I can read what secesh wrote. Or are you saying they were lying?

As usual, you present false arguments that the South had no fears regarding the end of slavery because there was no specific move to outlaw it in 1861, completely dismissing the concept that political realities change over time.

As I recall, the 18th amendment outlawed the production, distribution, and sale of alcohol. Thirteen years later another amendment reversed that. That was after the Civil War, but it isn't hard to understand that nothing in politics is ever permanent. The slave owning class in the South simply didn't trust Northerners, and particularly hated the Republicans. Just like the Democrats do today.

The Republicans controlled Congress for the first time in 1861. Lincoln position was clear:

“Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again. The dangerous ground—that into which some of our friends have a hankering to run—is Pop. Sov. (i.e., popular sovereignty). Have none of it. Stand firm. The tug has to come, & better now, than any time hereafter.”

Of course it was about economics and hatred for the other side. Slavery was the building block of the Southern economy. The fire eaters hated what they perceived as a threat to their more genteel and superior way of life. It wasn't just about slavery in the South. Slavery had to grow, or die. That's why there was bloodshed in American territories like Kansas and Missouri. That's why nutty Southerners tried to invade areas of Mexico and other parts of Latin America to establish new slave territories.

And yes, the Southerns didn't trust Northern offers of compromise on the issue of slavery.

“The argument is exhausted. All hope of relief in the Union, through the agency of committees, Congressional legislation, or constitutional amendments, is extinguished, and we trust the South will not be deceived by appearances or the pretence of new guarantees. The Republicans are resolute in the purpose to grant nothing that will or ought to satisfy the South… the honor, safety, and independence of the Southern people are to be found only in a Southern Confederacy… the sole and primary aim of each slaveholding State ought to be its speedy and absolute separation from an unnatural and hostile Union.”

Manifesto of a group of Southern Democrats delivered to Congress just before paving the Union, led by Senators Louis T. Wigfall of Texas and James L. Pugh of Alabama

Notice it read slaveholding states, not specie holding or tariff opposing states.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.“

Alexander Stephens, Vice President CSA, 1861

Damn dirty liar! Scurrilous jackanape! Feeble tool of the tyrant Lincoln! I do declare sir that had DimLamp been afoot in those heady days of our noble cause, this scalawag would have been brought to heel forthwith!

[SoCal Pubbie]

“ … A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”

That's from the secession document proclaimed by the State of South Carolina. Seems they weren't as convinced of the permanent legality of slavery when debating the issue in 1860 as you are posting from your computer in 2021.

Perhaps it's you who engage in circular reasoning. You always begin with what you wish to end up with. No matter how many facts prove the contrary to be true, you cling to the lost cause like a flat earther shutting his eyes when shown a photo of our planet from space.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m game. Who gave the order, Abe Lincoln?

No. You just don't want to look it up, do you?

[DiogenesLamp]

Reading the link you gave, Porter could have been referring to the original orders signed by Lincoln. These orders were in fact “confidential” and signed by the President. It you have sources, other than Porter, for “secret orders by Lincoln to Porter” would appreciate links to them.

I am trying to grasp your quibble about the difference between "confidential" and "secret." Is there some distinction here that i'm unable to understand?

But while i'm at it, let me post something that reinforces what I have already told you.

WASHINGTON CITY, April 1, 1861

SIR:—Circumstances render it necessary to place in command of your ship (and for a special purpose) an officer who is fully informed and instructed in relation to the wishes of the Government, and you will therefore consider yourself detached. But in taking this step the Government does not in the least reflect upon your efficiency or patriotism; on the contrary, have the fullest confidence in your ability to perform any duty required of you. Hoping soon to be able to give you a better command than the one you now enjoy, and trusting that you will have full confidence in the disposition of the Government toward you, I remain, etc.,

A. LINCOLN.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hmmm, it had already been outlawed in several states without one. How was that possible?

Well in the case of Massachusetts, Liberal courts saw a meaning in the newly written Massachusetts constitution that was not intended when the document was written, so they "interpreted" it to mean slavery was abolished. (Massachusetts sure loves themselves some dictator judges telling them what the law "means" in contradiction to what it actually means.) Other states' legislatures voted for laws to gradually abolish slavery, though many of them claimed to have "abolished" slavery, but had not actually abolished it because slavery was still going on in those states even though they claimed to have abolished it.

But the 15 slave states (16 when West Virginia became a state) still had slavery, meaning the United States still had slavery, and would continue to do so indefinitely.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln did what he had to do to save the union and keep the capital from being surrounded and overrun.

I had never heard of this before. You are telling me that Lincoln sent a fleet of warships to Charleston with orders to force their way in... because the confederates were planing to surround and overrun Washington DC?

Why has this never been mentioned before? I've read a lot of civil war history, and i've never heard of a plot to takeover Washington DC. Where did you get this information?

but when Governor Faubus directly challenged federal authority, Ike called out the National Guard. In this too, he was following in Lincoln's footsteps.

Using the military force of the United States against the people of America is indeed a Lincoln like tactic, but unlike Lincoln, Ike did it to support the rule of law in the US, instead of to force his own control on the people.

Lincoln did not believe in equality, and he very much wanted to induce and encourage black people to leave the United States. But this is the sort of stuff people nowadays do not talk about because it makes Lincoln look bad by modern standards.

[DiogenesLamp]

So Deep South cotton exports represented about 5% of total US economic activity.

73% of US Government revenues.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't want to to be true because it isn't.

Show me your source of economic data from this time period.

Don't just tell me, show me.

[DiogenesLamp]

As usual, you present false arguments that the South had no fears regarding the end of slavery because there was no specific move to outlaw it in 1861, completely dismissing the concept that political realities change over time.

You were thinking that 8 states or so were suddenly going to switch sides on the "abolish slavery" issue? How likely was that?

Slavery had to grow, or die.

People keep claiming that, but the question I would put to you is "Where was it going to grow?" It couldn't "grow" in the territories, because they were unsuitable to growing cotton, and there wasn't enough money in anything else to "grow" slavery in the territories. So again, "Where was it going to grow?"

Maybe that claim is a lie? Or at least a misdirection. I think slavery was going to go away anyway, and it was only a matter of time before it happened naturally.

[DoodleDawg]

Show me your source of economic data from this time period.

You've shown the tariff collections numerous times. I'm surprised you haven't dragged out that picture already.

[DoodleDawg]

73% of US Government revenues.

Why think small? Why not say it was 99.997% of the government revenues?