Battle of Appomattox: Understanding General Lee's Surrender

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

[DoodleDawg]

Northern shipping companies had the mail carrying contract. This gave them a bottom line of profitability that could not be matched by any other company which did not have such contracts.

If there were southern shipping companies at the time the U.S. was founded then why wouldn't they have been able to get mail contracts for themselves?

[SoCal Pubbie]

“They had also made it legal for foreign ships to carry all traffic, and that would have resulted in a massive increase in foreign commerce on foreign ships to the Southern states.”

So you’re saying none of that profit would go into Southern hands, but rather plantation owners and other Southern interests would continue to hire outside firms to move their products. So that only leaves the tariffs. Which would have remained low had Southern members of Congress remained.

Fail.

[x]

Ha! Pull the other one! It is inherent in the history of government that once they get a tax, it becomes nearly impossible to take it away from them again. When you are exercising great power and influence by taxing some to spend on others, your power is diminished if taxation is diminished.

Here is a graph indicating US tariffs in the 19th century:

We see that the tariff went up to fight the war and pay for the war debt and then went down as "normal" politics with two party competition reasserted itself in the 1880s. That is essentially also what happened before the Civil War and what one would expect to happen (without the initial increase being as high as it was) had the Civil War never happened.

Facts and data are of more value than a priori assumptions. Nineteenth century Americans were more self-reliant and there wasn't the culture of dependency you see today. Americans were used to less government than they are now, so taxes and the size of government could still go up and down. But if you want to make abstract assumptions, you ought to admit that they would have applied to the CSA as they did to the USA.

Hardly. They would try to go around the system. See "Grainger movement."

The Grangers, the Populists, the Non-Partisan League all worked within the system in the sense that they didn't try to overthrow the government or secede from the rest of the country.

Doing what? What would pay the slave owner more than cotton?

I'm going to assume that tobacco, hemp, sugar, domestic service, heavy lifting, carpentry, construction, wagon-making, leatherwork, and all the other things slaves did in the South before the Civil War didn't bring in as much as cotton, yet slaves were applied to all those activities. Maybe some of those activities actually did bring slaveowners more money than cotton growing. After all, there are expenses attached to cotton growing that slaveowners who rent out their slaves don't have to pay.

Slavery was unprofitable in the Northern states so it was abolished. It wasn't that profitable in some Southern states either, but the political will was there to keep it in place, so it wasn't abolished. And the Confederacy definitely had the will to keep slavery going and even to spread it. Also, if you had slaves, you could always sell the ones you didn't need to other slaveowners. That kept slavery going in many areas of the South.

The country was founded as a Christian nation, and those who don't like it really have no legitimate recourse in the same manner that it was founded as a slave nation, and those who didn't like it had no legitimate recourse.

Many people then, and some now, believed that the country was founded as a free, as well as a Christian nation, some believing that because we were Christian we had to be devoted to freedom. Was any of these assumptions -- that the country was founded on Christianity or on freedom or on slavery -- more solidly and unshakably founded than the others? You, choosing always the letter of the law, would probably want to say slavery was. The founders and many of their 19th century descendants would have disagreed, slavery being something the country had trouble getting rid of, not something that defined its essence.

When it became clear to them that they were going to lose in the financial game, they then needed government to rescue them from the free market.

It would be nice if you had some evidence for that, but it looks like it's more abstract speculation based on generalities, rather than evidence. Fernando Wood, the mayor of New York and a very wealthy man, wanted New York City to maintain its commercial ties with the South and secede from the US to become independent. Other wealthy New York merchants disagreed with him about the city seceding, but very definitely wanted to maintain their commercial ties with the South. Those ties were close and amicable, secessionist propaganda notwithstanding.

New Yorkers had the financial skills and weren't especially worried about some Southern city displacing them as the continent's leading port. Things like that take time, and resourceful people have ways of landing on their feet.

And why hadn't Halifax or Montreal replaced New York? They were open to British goods without tariffs or duties. They had a long border with the US that wasn't very well controlled. What you say about the South applied to Canada as well, but New York had the population, the rail network and the commercial and industrial skills to keep going and stay on top economically.

Your assumption that the political moves you favor represent the "free market" is also problematic. Opening up our borders to Chinese goods today represents the "free market" for some people. Same thing with opening up our borders to the uncontrolled movement of people. Is that a good thing? Is wanting some control or protectionism a bad thing? So no, it's questionable whether tearing the country apart or turning its economy and society upside-down really represents the "free market" and not an act of political power.

The Democrat party has been quite protectionist for most of my life. It is only with the advent of Chinese influence on major corporations and players in Washington that the Democrats have seemingly backed away from protectionism and are now reflecting corporate interests above that of their Unionized rank and file.

You must have had a very short or a very strange life. Kennedy and Johnson pushed for tariff reductions. So did Bill Clinton. I would argue that it was more Republicans who lost their way in the Bush era.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Margret Sanger. Susan B. Anthony. Jane Addams. Louis Brandeis. Florence Kelley. Roger Baldwin. And so forth. Virtually everyone in the progressive movement was a Republican and from the North, usually big cities.

Were Stanton and Anthony "progressives" in any modern sense? How "progressive" was Jane Addams, who endorsed Hoover over Roosevelt? Roger N. Baldwin (the founder of the ACLU, not to be confused with an earlier Roger S. Baldwin) was not a Republican. Florence Kelley was likewise a socialist. I learn today that she was a fighter for an eight-hour day and against child labor. Would you really be on the other side of those fights?

But of course, in the early years of the Twentieth Century, the South did have its own populists and progressives, supporters of Wilson and FDR, advocates of women's suffrage (if that's a bad thing) and income taxes to soak the Northeastern states. What they didn't have much of were big cities and urban problems and social workers. If they had had more big cities, they would have had their own Jane Addams and their own settlement houses and their own child labor legislation.

Your argument is circular and nonsensical. You admit that cities encourage liberalism or progressivism. Then you attack Northerners for having cities and having reform-minded characters. But by your own admission, that is the way the world is. And it's not even a question of North and South (or increasingly of urban and rural). The South has its own liberals and progressives. That's not something that can be avoided in the modern world.

Yes, because it had become politically popular. Had it not turned out to be, it would have been left by the wayside. Part of the reason it had become politically popular is because Lincoln tended to arrest people who didn't toe the official government line.

Men fighting against slavery were dying for freedom so freedom became an issue. It wasn't about "political popularity," it was a matter of respect for the sacrifices soldiers were making.

[zaxtres]

Yes, people have a deep and abiding hatred for the possibility of free labor undermining their wages and income.

---

Not defending slavery.

First your notion that slavery was “free labor” is false. The cost to owning and maintaining slaves did not equate to “free labor”. Slave owners had to pay for the slave, build hoousing and facilities for the slave which required resources that must be bought and paid for, and on and on. I always get a kick out of the argument that the North thought that slavery was free labor and that is why the North hated the Southerners who owned slaves. That argument is factually wrong and will be wrong everytime it is brought up. The cost to purchase and own slaves was treated like any other business expense and why only individuals with money could own them.

Oh and by the way you are also considered an asset in whatever company you work. You are considered a human resource asset.

Free states hated slavery because they felt it was against God’s will in the Bible when the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews,

Your argument is predicated on “free labor” which has been shown to be false. So your argument crumbles. Ain’t nothing in this world “free” including freedom. If you don’t believe me ask those who paid for the cost of freedom with their blood and their lives. The cost of freedom shall be paid with the blood of men who wish to see themselves a free people.

Anything else you state is discredited because you are just spouting talking points. Once you understand that slavery was not free labor then you will understand what a bunch of hogwash the majority of your arguments are.

[zaxtres]

Or take school prayer or the pledge of allegiance. Another consequence of the badly written, not legitimately ratified and badly abused 14th amendment. The words ", under God," was added after the Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress. Which brings me to the next point: The country was founded as a Christian nation, and those who don't like it really have no legitimate recourse in the same manner that it was founded as a slave nation, and those who didn't like it had no legitimate recourse. (Other than amendment. Apparently you have not read The Federalist Papers which literally refutes this point. The five authors of the Federalist Papers state that this country was not founded as a Christian nation and they point to two words found within the Declaration of Independence as their proof and note that they also state that the word "God" appears no where in the United States Constitution. The twwo words that Madison specifically states as why this nation was not founded as a Christian nation was the words"..., your Creator,". Most Christians view this as the authors of the Declaration of Independence meant the Christian or Jewish God, Madison states it means no such thing as it was changed to "your Creator" in order to be inclusive to all peoples not just Christians or Jews. The contest for this deals with what was happening in Britain at the time of the Colonies in the United States. If you don't know, then you only know part of United States history. The United States was not founded on Christianity or Judaism, it was founded using the principles of Ancient Greek and the Romans to which the Authors of the Federalist Papers espouse. Also there was an author, Locke, that many of the founding fathers had read and was influenced by was another influential figure in the creation of this country. The exact work by Locke was the Second Treatise of Government. Every learned man of the day was familiar with Locke's writings. The statement that the United States was founded as a Christian nation is a misnomer perpetrated by Christians in efforts to proselytize and gain followers. It is completely 100 percent false statement. I know because I used to say the same thing until I found out it was another lie by the Church.

[zaxtres]

Or take school prayer or the pledge of allegiance. Another consequence of the badly written, not legitimately ratified and badly abused 14th amendment.

The words ", under God," was added after the Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress. Which brings me to the next point:

The country was founded as a Christian nation, and those who don't like it really have no legitimate recourse in the same manner that it was founded as a slave nation, and those who didn't like it had no legitimate recourse. (Other than amendment.

Apparently you have not read The Federalist Papers which literally refutes this point.

The five authors of the Federalist Papers state that this country was not founded as a Christian nation and they point to two words found within the Declaration of Independence as their proof and note that they also state that the word "God" appears no where in the United States Constitution.

The two words that Madison specifically states as why this nation was not founded as a Christian nation was the words"..., your Creator,". Most Christians view this as the authors of the Declaration of Independence meant the Christian or Jewish God, Madison states it means no such thing as it was changed to "your Creator" in order to be inclusive to all peoples not just Christians or Jews.

The context for this deals with what was happening in Britain at the time of the Colonies in the United States. If you don't know, then you only know part of United States history. The United States was not founded on Christianity or Judaism, it was founded using the principles of Ancient Greek and the Romans to which the Authors of the Federalist Papers espouse. Also there was an author, Locke, that many of the founding fathers had read and was influenced by who was another influential figure in the creation of this country. The exact work by Locke was the Second Treatise of Government. Every learned man of the day was familiar with Locke's writings.

The statement that the United States was founded as a Christian nation is a misnomer perpetrated by Christians in efforts to proselytize and gain followers. It is completely 100 percent false statement. I know because I used to say the same thing until I found out it was another lie by the Church.

It's not that that I don't like it, it is what the authors of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution have said in their own writings, whether you like it or not.

Read the Federalist Papers and your eyes will be open.

[mad_as_he$$]

“under God” added June 14, 1954. Trump’s birthday - he turned eight.

[zaxtres]

Here let me help you out

The first 9 papers of the Federalist Papers give numerous examples of Greece and Italy (Rome).

said Madison, I meant Hamilton. Both are authors of the Federalist Papers but Hamilton is credited with writing the first 9. Madison and Hami,ton are two of the five authors.

Madison, decades later, talks about why the word “slave” does not appear in the Founding documents. That is an interesting read in itself and one of the reasons why Madison foresaw the Civil War and how it was inevitable.

[zaxtres]

Man you definitely do not know your history.

The Southern Demoncraps wanted to overturn the laws that Congress had been passing and counted on Lincoln’s loss in 1860. Look it up before you start spouting crap.

Just like when Trump lost, the demoncraps overturned almost everything Trump did in office.

[DiogenesLamp]

I always get a kick out of the argument that the North thought that slavery was free labor and that is why the North hated the Southerners who owned slaves.

So you are saying that the average Northerner had seriously considered the costs of buying the slaves, the costs of housing the slaves and the facilities to provide resources for the slaves to do their jobs?

I really don't think they pondered it all that much. It was far more probable that they didn't consider the difficulties and costs of being a slave owner at all. I simply don't see them saying "well, it costs a lot to own and employ a slave, so we won't think of it as "free labor."

No, I think most northerners really did think of it as "free labor."

The cost to purchase and own slaves was treated like any other business expense and why only individuals with money could own them.

Subtleties that would be lost on anyone not directly concerned with running slavery operations.

Free states hated slavery because they felt it was against God’s will in the Bible when the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews,

For a tiny little cult like section of the population. The vast majority of the "free states" hated blacks, hated "free" labor, and hated rich slave owners. If the moral aspect was dominant, you wouldn't have seen the horrible "black codes" in the northern states where black people were treated as less than human.

Your argument is predicated on “free labor” which has been shown to be false.

Stop. Just stop with your childish hair splitting. So far as the vast majority of people in the north were concerned, it was "free labor." They didn't give a sh*t about the subtleties of purchase costs and operating costs. So long as those costs were borne by the profit from slavery, the labor was effectively free.

As Lincoln himself said:

"You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.

So your argument crumbles.

You "deem" it so, in the same manner Nancy Pelosi thinks she can warp reality through a declaration.

Once you understand that slavery was not free labor then you will understand what a bunch of hogwash the majority of your arguments are.

Your assertion is logically flawed, and I am not impressed by your attempt to present yourself as "knowledgeable" on the subject. You are just another loudmouth who doesn't like having his snout shoved into a pile of ugly truth.

[DiogenesLamp]

The words ", under God," was added after the Pledge of Allegiance was adopted by Congress.

Not at all relevant to the point you are attempting to address. The 14th amendment was badly written and not legitimately ratified. Adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance has nothing to do with the comment to which you are responding.

Apparently you have not read The Federalist Papers which literally refutes this point.

What part of the Federalist Papers is codified law? Apparently *YOU* have not read the section of the US Constitution which specifically exempts the President from working on Sundays (because it violates the sabbath) and the section acknowledging "Our Lord", which is Jesus Christ.

Since the US constitution specifically mentions Jesus, and the Articles of Confederation and Declaration of Independence do as well, it becomes clear to any objective viewer that the nation was founded as a specifically and explicitly Christian nation.

they also state that the word "God" appears no where in the United States Constitution.

In the Articles of Confederation, It says "Our Lord" and it also says "the Great Governor of the World".

The US Constitution says "Our Lord" meaning Jesus Christ, and it exempts the President from working on Sunday, which is the Christian Sabbath day. Additionally, in 1787, many states still had official state religions, and this is the reason they didn't want to establish an official Federal religion. It would blow apart the coalition.

Now your effort to say "the word "God" appears no where in the United States Constitution." is a deliberate effort to mislead, and is therefore tantamount to an intentional lie. No it doesn't say "God", but it D@mn well uses a substitute term that means the same thing in the Christian religion.

I'm not going to bother reading any further of your dreck. You are racking up a score card of being wrong and I haven't got time to fool with pretentious people who are so sloppy in their understanding of history.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’m trying to show that your statement attributing Charleston’s decline as a shipping port was due to the Civil War was false,

You are thinking that the effect of warships shooting at people trying to trade with Charleston would have no impact on their commerce? Well that just seems silly to me. I don't think people want to trade with ports under siege by warships, and this would have caused a definite loss of trade.

You wrote that it had more to do with ravages of the Civil War.

I have no doubt that's what you think you read, but that is not what I wrote. That is your interpretation of what I wrote, and a heavily biased one at that.

Let me try again. Without the war Charleston would have seen a massive increase in trade because they could offload products at a cost of 13% versus the USA's 40-50%.

It was this increase in profit to the trade ships that would have caused them to go to Charleston.

Now I know this is a complicated thing to understand, but warships threatening and capturing ships that attempted to trade with Charleston, prevented ships from going to Charleston as they would have done without a war.

I'll try to simplify further.

No war: Massive trade increase in Charleston.
War: Complete collapse of trade in Charleston.

I hope i've made it simple enough that you can understand about war causing a loss of trade in a city blockaded by warships.

I hope you can also understand that a 35% extra profit would have motivated ships to go there if they weren't stopped from doing so by warships.

If any part of this is too complicated, just tell me the part you are having trouble with, and I will endeavor to explain it more clearly the next time.

[DiogenesLamp]

New Orleans was the primary source of cotton. It was massively more significant in the export trade than any other port in the south.

Much of it's shipping was coastal packets bound for New York where the cargo was offloaded onto faster ocean going vessels.

It was way bigger than Charleston. That being said, with a 35-45% increase in profits for trade ships under the CSA, had the Union blockade not prevented trade, the vast majority of trade would have moved to Southern ports, and New Orleans would have seen a commensurate increase in trade due to it's greater importance in the overall trade system.

The Union was going to get it's trade eaten alive by the South but for Northern warships stopping that from happening.

Like I said, the Civil War was about money, not slavery. The Corwin amendment proves the North would continue to tolerate slavery, but they would never tolerate the cessation of their money streams.

[DiogenesLamp]

If there were southern shipping companies at the time the U.S. was founded then why wouldn't they have been able to get mail contracts for themselves?

Why does Boeing have a contract for their starliner? Did you see how they tried to stop SpaceX with their government influence?

[DoodleDawg]

Why does Boeing have a contract for their starliner? Did you see how they tried to stop SpaceX with their government influence?

Stupid analogies aside, if the southern colonies had established a ship-building industry or had run their own shipping lines then there is no reason why they would not have been in a position to compete with northern colonies and, after independence, gotten their own share of mail contracts. Yet there were no colonial shipbuilders or colonial shipping lines in the south. I suppose the northern colonies conspired with the King to undermine all the attempts to establish them? Or some similar conspiracy theory from your fertile imagination?

[DoodleDawg]

the vast majority of trade would have moved to Southern ports

Nonsence.

The Union was going to get it's trade eaten alive by the South

How? No ships, remember? And nobody to build them.

[DoodleDawg]

Now I know this is a complicated thing to understand...

Obviously, since you are making zero sense to begin with. Why would goods destined for Northern consumers suddenly so South?

[DiogenesLamp]

How? No ships, remember? And nobody to build them.

This is hilarious. You so badly want to believe something that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Where O where would those ships come from? How in the world could they possibly have shipping into their ports without US ships or their own ships?

Why it must be impossible! :)

[DoodleDawg]

This is hilarious. You so badly want to believe something that you can't see the forest for the trees.

It may seem that way but just because people keep blowing holes in your BS claims.

Where O where would those ships come from? How in the world could they possibly have shipping into their ports without US ships or their own ships?

Well they wouldn't come from the South, that's for sure. No financing, no expertise, no existing shipyards. So the only alternative would be to allow foreign companies to take over coastal shipping from U.S. lines. So how is that better?

[DiogenesLamp]

...if the southern colonies had established a ship-building industry...

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".

Yet there were no colonial shipbuilders or colonial shipping lines in the south.

Clearly you are mistaken.