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.

[DiogenesLamp]

“In practice almost no tariffs were collected; the total customs revenue collected was about $3.3 million (Confederate dollars), from 1861 through 1864. [Historical Statistics (2006) series Eh201]”

Yes, having a massive fleet of warships throwing up a blockade around all your ports tends to discourage any import traffic.

Are you being serious? Are you trying to compare revenue collection on imports during a state of war with revenue collection on imports during a time of peace?

Without the war preventing shipping from getting to the South, the south would have eaten the north's revenue streams.

An Independent Southern coalition was a major financial threat to the then existing monied power structure of the North East.

[DiogenesLamp]

The editorial had a very good chance of accurately predicting the danger. With European goods flooding the Midwest through the Mississippi and along the long porous border, there would be a two pronged loss of income for the Northern manufacturers.

People never look at the economic conditions of this time, because they have been successfully diverted into focusing all their rage and energy on "slavery."

The real story is in the flow of money.

[x]

You just keep repeating the same stuff over and over again, even though it's been disproved.

Buchanan was president when The Star of the West was fired upon. He wasn't bound by promises not to reinforce Sumter that Lincoln had not yet made. He was within his rights to send what he liked to the fort.

Dickens's American Notes were based on a trip he took to the US in 1842. Whatever Southern slaveowners might have said to him in an effort to win him over had little or nothing to do with how they or their children would feel 20 years later. Cotton and slaves were in a long boom in the years leading up to the war and that had a lot to do with making planters cling to slavery all the more tightly. Increasing abolitionist agitation and fears of slave uprisings had similar effects.

Dickens may have expressed the opposition to slavery expected of an Englishman after Britain abolished slavery, but he was an admirer of Thomas Carlyle, so his views about race and his sympathies may have been more complicated and tangled than would appear at first sight. He also had no love for the United States and, like many Englishmen of his day, felt some satisfaction when it came to America's troubles.

[x]

Without the war preventing shipping from getting to the South, the south would have eaten the north's revenue streams.

They're going to "eat our lunch," President Biden? As has been said countless times, goods coming into Southern ports from Europe and shipped north would either have to pay both Confederate and US tariffs or be broken down into smaller quantities for the risky business of smuggling. Shippers would also have to pay more in wages or fuel to make the longer trip to New Orleans. The Southern rail system was also far less extensive than the Northern. I believe the Maritime Charleston website quoted words to the effect that New York's economic hinterland stretched to Kentucky and beyond, while Charleston's barely reached East Tennessee, if that. Add to that difficulties with slave unrest, climate and disease and it doesn't look like the lunch was going to be eaten anytime soon.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Yes there were troops on board. Going to a federal military fort. Imagine that! The ship was nonetheless unarmed, and unable to mount any defense save repelling a boarding party. And Johnny Reb fired first, instigating armed rebellion.

The only thing you’ve been the first to tell me is your incredible nonsense.

[SoCal Pubbie]

No, he hated, or disliked or whatever you want to call it, all Americans. Southerns for their slavery and Northerners for their capitalism. And both for their vulgarity and violence. That’s not an attack, just the facts.

“I never knew what it was to feel disgust and contempt,” Dickens said, “‘till I travelled in America.”

- Charles Dickens

[SoCal Pubbie]

“ But this is all academic…”

That’s true, because the North invaded the South to prevent rebellion, which broke out to preserve slavery.

On the other hand, it shows how you sit on either side of the fence to suit your needs to buttress an absurd argument.

[SoCal Pubbie]

What do you suppose would have happened to Confederate efforts to gain recognition from Great Britain if Robert Barnwell Rhett (Author of the document you linked) had pointed out that slavery was the reason for rebellion?

I find this to be a much more plausible explanation why there are so many documents and statements by Southerners themselves addressing the need to protect slavery against the threat of a Republican administration, and so precious few that you can post stating purely economic reasons having to do with tariffs. Even he addresses his document to the other slaveholding states, not the other economically deprived states.

[SoCal Pubbie]

By the way, Dickens did very little traveling in the South and it is quite likely that most of his so-called observations about slavery were take lifted from other documents he had read and stories he had been told.

[DiogenesLamp]

You just keep repeating the same stuff over and over again, even though it's been disproved.

It is a common human trait to regard "disagrees with what I want to think" as "disproven." We have a difference of opinion on what this Star of the West incident means. I hope we don't have a disagreement on what constitutes the actual facts.

Buchanan was president when The Star of the West was fired upon. He wasn't bound by promises not to reinforce Sumter that Lincoln had not yet made. He was within his rights to send what he liked to the fort.

This is founded on the premise that when the South seceded, those forts constructed to guard their territory still belonged to the people who had absolutely no legitimate use for them. My position is that when they seceded, their territorial integrity should have been respected. Also, Buchanan's secretary of War had told them repeatedly that all the forts would be turned over to them. This makes it a promise of the Buchanan administration.

Dickens may have expressed the opposition to slavery expected of an Englishman after Britain abolished slavery, but he was an admirer of Thomas Carlyle, so his views about race and his sympathies may have been more complicated and tangled than would appear at first sight.

Most people of that era didn't regard black people as their equal. What we regard as racism today, was normal for the majority in that time period. But if you read what Charles Dickens said, he certainly appears to have genuine revulsion for the practice.

He also had no love for the United States and, like many Englishmen of his day, felt some satisfaction when it came to America's troubles.

It may have turned out that the South would have had a far better result simply remaining with England, as was their preference prior to Francis Marion.

[DiogenesLamp]

As has been said countless times, goods coming into Southern ports from Europe and shipped north would either have to pay both Confederate and US tariffs or be broken down into smaller quantities for the risky business of smuggling.

There are newspaper editorials of the day which point out that it would have been impossible to regulate the border between the CSA and the USA. The goods would have gotten through anyway, and the Mississippi would have carried them deep into the heart of the country. New York and New England would have been twice hit. First in the loss of their shipping, handling, and banking industries because they would be bypassed, and secondly in the loss of manufacturing business because their products would have been replaced with cheaper and better quality European goods.

It was a double whammy, and do not think the industrialists of that era were stupid. They knew exactly what sort of threat an independent south would pose to their economic interests.

I believe the Maritime Charleston website quoted words to the effect that New York's economic hinterland stretched to Kentucky and beyond, while Charleston's barely reached East Tennessee, if that.

Most traffic shipped out of New Orleans. Charleston was a more local market, but still one that would displace northern products and services.

New Orleans is where the real trouble was.

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes there were troops on board.

The captain of the Star of the West ordered them to remain below deck as they approached the channel because he knew that if the Confederates saw military uniforms it would result in an attack against them. It would be regarded by the defending forces as an invasion.

But what the Captain didn't know is that other ships had spotted the troops and cargo being offloaded from the Brooklyn at sea, and they knew where these troops were going. They got to port and telegraphed the Charleston Authorities.

Anderson seized Sumter in the dead of night with force. The Confederates had trusted the Union troops to be honorable men, but after they had done that, no further trust would be forthcoming.

They also didn't have long to wait for another demonstration that Union officers would lie. Gustavus Fox claimed humanitarian reasons for being allowed to meet with Major Anderson. What he was really doing was involving Anderson in his plan to reinforce the fortress. He was on a military mission, and lying about it. They finally realized that they had been lied to quite a lot when they started opening all the mail between Sumter and Washington DC.

[DiogenesLamp]

That’s true, because the North invaded the South to prevent rebellion,

Holding a statewide election and voting to leave the existing government is not "rebellion." As the left will conflate Voter ID with "RACISM", so too will they pretend it is "rebellion" to separate from a nation founded on the right to separate.

That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sounds like "Rebellion" is holding people against their will.

[DiogenesLamp]

...so precious few that you can post stating purely economic reasons having to do with tariffs

This is where so many people get misdirected. Tariff's were the lesser part of Northern angst. The far greater threat was the flooding of European goods throughout the United States, thereby displacing the production of the monied industrialists.

Not only would they lose their shipping, banking, insurance, warehousing and tariff collections, they would find customers would gravitate away from their products because the stuff made in Europe was much better, and now much cheaper.

The people of that era were very money conscious because it was so hard to obtain money. 30% or 45% extra cost would have encouraged people to look elsewhere, and that elsewhere was European imports coming in through the Confederacy.

It's about money. All else is noise and trash talk.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have no way of knowing if he made up conversations based on what he read, but implying that he did so is just another attack against the man. And for what? For seeing clearly what was an economic fight while the public was duped into believing it was about "Preserving the Union"?

It was about preserving the existing economic structure where the New York was taking approximately 60% of the total profits from all slave produced goods.

Wake up! This is why they had no problem passing the Corwin amendment. They didn't give a d@mn about the slaves, but they wanted to keep that money flowing into their pockets.

You need to be more cynical. Wars are rarely about the milk of human kindness and always about power, land or money.

[x]

Newspapers "point things out" because they want to convince people of something, not because what they want us to think is true. You could expect traffic on the Mississippi and on the railroads to be closely controlled at the border. Smugglers would have to take to the backroads where goods would have to broken down to travel on horse-drawn wagons. That would not be very efficient.

If the Confederates took over Kentucky things might have been different with smugglers crossing the Ohio, and that may be why the CSA was so determined to seize Kentucky, but you are assuming that the difference in cost and quality between US and foreign goods would be enough to make up for the greater transportation cost and the risks of smuggling. That is a very questionable assumption.

Also, those smugglers would also be carrying runaways to the North, thus weakening the slave economy. The river border would be so thick with troops, customs officials, smugglers, bushwackers, bandits, abolitionists and seditionists that the likely result would have been war whatever happened elsewhere.

Buchanan's Secretary of War was a traitor who did all he could to help the secessionists and weaken the country's ability to respond to their provocations. He resigned at the end of 1860 because he disagreed with Buchanan's unwillingness to surrender the fort. You assume that the secessionists were so well informed of what was going in Washington in the early days of the Lincoln administration. Do you really think that they weren't aware that John Floyd no longer spoke for the Buchanan administration and that his treasonous collaboration could no longer be assumed to be federal policy?

Why didn't we go to war with Brazil? Because we weren't idiots or busy-bodies. Because Brazil didn't attack our fort and our flag and threaten our capital and our fellow citizens.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“It’s about money. All else is noise and trash talk.”

Like the 4 million slaves with a market value estimated to be between $3.1 and $3.6 billion producing the bulk of Southern wealth?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Statewide elections? Don’t you mean commissions of wealthy plantation owners?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Since Dickens saw very little of slavery, how could it be otherwise?

“Wars are rarely about the milk of human kindness and always about power, land or money.”

That’s true. Secesh didn’t just think blacks were inferior, they wanted to protect their wealth. Hence their reason to secede, and start a war to achieve that objective.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Dickens only went as far south as Richmond. So he was hardly a well-versed expert on the whole topic.