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.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“In American Notes, the book written after he returned to England describing his American visit, he wrote scathingly about the institution of slavery, citing newspaper accounts of runaway slaves horribly disfigured by their cruel masters.”

https://m.charlesdickenspage.com/charles-dickens-in-america.html

Doesn’t sound like he was much of a first-hand observer does it?

[DoodleDawg]

The editorial had a very good chance of accurately predicting the danger.

Nonsense.

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.

Hardly. Goods entering in through New Orleans in an independent Confederacy would have the tarrif applied once they crossed into the U.S.

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."

Maybe because most rational people don't depend on newspaper editorials for their economic information.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“People sold what they wanted to do as an idea they thought the public would support, not one they knew would provoke a backlash against them.”

I just realized the true meaning of the words which you yourself wrote. You are saying that for the vast majority of Southerners, including 99% of all soldiers and civilians, the Confederacy’s reason for fighting in the Civil War was in fact the preservation of slavery. Only a small cabal of Machiavellian politicians knew the true secret of their noble cause.

Not that I believe that of course, but your own words support the interpretation that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

[DoodleDawg]

You didn't answer the question. If anything, you affirmed that none of those places were part of the United States.

They weren't...yet. A condition that the Confederacy was anxious to take care of.

[DiogenesLamp]

I thought the number was 4.5 billion, but it's been awhile since I looked it up. And that production paid for 73% of the government of the United States.

And they liked it that way. They intended to keep it that way. Hence the Corwin Amendment.

Other sources I have seen claim that 60% of all slave production went into Northern pockets in New York and Washington DC.

So who was benefiting the most from slavery?

[DiogenesLamp]

It was a legal Democratic process. Now you can allege that it was captured by an evil elite with ulterior motives, but then you are starting to sound like me.

[DiogenesLamp]

Secesh didn’t just think blacks were inferior, they wanted to protect their wealth.

Their current wealth was just fine. Secession would have allowed them to keep more of it, 60% of which was getting grabbed by Washington DC (tariffs) and New York. (Excessive shipping costs, handling costs, insurance costs, warehousing costs, etc.)

You may not know this, but almost all of the export trade in cotton went through New York control. New York businesses completely ran the trade.

[DiogenesLamp]

Cause you have to be right in the thick of it to be an expert on slavery, Unlike all those Massachusetts reps and senators that harangued about it during this era. They didn't know anything about slavery because they didn't go down and look.

Really, that's rather silly. What do you need to know other than that people are being compelled to work in grueling conditions against their will?

[SoCal Pubbie]

The South. There were more millionaires per capita in the Mississippi River Valley by 1860 than anywhere else in the United States.

[DiogenesLamp]

... he wrote scathingly about the institution of slavery, citing newspaper accounts of runaway slaves horribly disfigured by their cruel masters.”

Doesn’t sound like he was much of a first-hand observer does it?

Are you suggesting he is wrong in his characterization of how slaves were treated? Are you now defending slaveowners?

[SoCal Pubbie]

You said it they were state-wide elections. Now who doesn’t know what the f*ck they’re talking about.

[nascarnation]

That’s amazing because a million bucks back then was real money.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Duh. What’s closer to England, New York City or New Orleans? What was the biggest city back then, with the most ships and busiest ports?

Now what were the two largest imported commodities brought to the United States at that time? And who is using more of those two things, the north or the south?

[SoCal Pubbie]

You stated that Dickens was an impartial observer. I’ve Demi started that he was neither impartial nor, in the case of slavery and general conditions in the South, an observer.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Make that “I’ve demonstrated.”

[SoCal Pubbie]

“ Secession would have allowed them to keep more of it, 60% of which was getting grabbed by Washington DC (tariffs) and New York. (Excessive shipping costs, handling costs, insurance costs, warehousing costs, etc.)”

Because of course all those costs go away after secession, and the infrastructure cost of increasing shipping fleets and port facilities would have been negligible./s

[DiogenesLamp]

Hardly. Goods entering in through New Orleans in an independent Confederacy would have the tarrif applied once they crossed into the U.S.

In theory. Very likely not in practice, or have you noticed how well we are guarding our southern border?

People in the Border states would sneak that stuff in. They even acknowledged at the time that it would have been impossible to patrol the entire border.

Plus you ignore the effect that making their dollars go further would have on these states. Missouri and Kentucky would have decided they want to be on the CSA side, because it would have been in their better economic interest to be so.

The Confederacy would have continued to switch states until it looked something like this.

The economic reinforcement zone of the great lakes and New York would have remained, but the rest of the nation would have done better without being controlled from New York.

Maybe because most rational people don't depend on newspaper editorials for their economic information.

The economic information which shows the clearest picture of what was happening is in the book "Southern Wealth and Northern Profit by Thomas Prentice Kettell. You've seen it's excerpts before. BroJoeK has also posted links to other sources, and when you cut away all the bullsh*t he tries to spin it with, it shows exactly the same thing.

The South was the dominant export engine of the Nation, and all their trade was being controlled by the people in New York and Washington DC with a vigorish of 60%.

The newspaper articles just let you know what prominent people of that time were thinking.

You can post your economic data any time.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are saying that for the vast majority of Southerners, including 99% of all soldiers and civilians, the Confederacy’s reason for fighting in the Civil War was in fact the preservation of slavery.

The trouble with arguing with people who want to believe what they want to believe is that they hear what they want to hear.

That's all you. I had no input on that claim.

Not that I believe that of course, but your own words support the interpretation that the Civil War was fought over slavery.

The North did not invade to stamp out slavery. They invaded to stamp out independence. Therefore the war was over independence, not slavery. Do you not remember me showing you the Corwin Amendment which is the Northern Republicans handing the South slavery on a silver platter? Did you forget about that?

If you have some copies of orders that show the Military was instructed to stamp out slavery when they initially invaded, I'm perfectly willing to accept your claim that Northern Armies invaded because of slavery.

The absolute truth is that the Northern Armies which invaded had no intention of changing the slavery situation at all.

[TTFX]

Great posts. Thanks. They’re very informative.

Lincoln conscripted people to fight the war. Conscription is slavery. It’s ridiculous to enslave people and claim one is fighting slavery.

The war turned a voluntary union of states into a country of states kept by force.

[DiogenesLamp]

Whether that be true or not, it is another thing altogether to allege the United States should dictate the domestic conditions of other countries. Why would you suggest that the US should have a role in that?

And the reality of the time is we did nothing to stop slavery in the Caribbean and Brazil. Apparently our moral high horse only extended to those people who could be financial threats to the crony capitalist power structure still running the Capitol today.