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]

In the Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln referred to Douglas as “Judge Douglas.” I do not know why, since Douglas was a senator.

[DoodleDawg]

I do not know why, since Douglas was a senator.

He spent two years as an associate justice on the Illinois Supreme Court.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’ve shown your own words to you. I don’t know how I can explain it more simply. If you don’t grasp the meaning of your own, I give up. I can’t do your writing for you. You will have to do some better writing on your own.

If you feel like this statement gives you an out, then by all means take it.

You have an impossible position with which to debate. What you wish to believe contradicts actual history and actual economic data, and you simply cannot prove that which you wish to prove.

[DiogenesLamp]

Gonna skip you. Doesn’t look like you wrote anything worth reading.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Jesus I’ve proved it a hundred times. You are the very definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

[DiogenesLamp]

I have asked where exactly this 40% greater profits would come from, and exactly where those profits would go. Presumably you're referring to tariffs.

As I have pointed out before, the word "Tariffs" is an inexact term for a whole host of financial changes that would have occurred with Southern secession.

You want to know where the 40% greater profits would come from. Well, 13% taxation instead of 50% taxation, or thereabouts. Some of it would come from handling shipping contracts that were previously being handled by Northern shipping interests. Some of it would have been from savings created by no longer having to comply with existing Federal statutes governing trade.

Where would the profits go? To the European shippers, traders and to the Southern buyers and sellers of imports and exports. Where they wouldn't be going is to the New York and Washington DC corruptocracy which is still corruptly running the nation today. Pssst! This is why the corruptocracy of Washington DC wanted a war!

Yet the CSA had their own tariffs, so there couldn't have been 40% additional profits based on that.

It was like 13% if I recall correctly. Big difference between 13% and 45 or 50%.

Then you'll argue that the tariffs of the CSA benefited the South, while the tariffs of 1857 only benefited the North. But there's no evidence of that.

There is quite a lot of evidence for that. You just haven't seen it. I have seen some of it, but you can tell simply by the numbers who was paying the majority of the taxes. Here's a quick excerpt.

Works out to 73% of all trade was created by the South. The South represented 1/4th the population of the North, yet they were paying 73% of the taxes.

The federal government paid for mail service across the South...

Paid Northern shipping interests to deliver the mail in the South.

Then you'll say the South would no longer have to pay Northern shipping interests. Then admit they'd pay British shipping interests instead.

You only read the parts of what I write that you like, and never seem to read the whole thing. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that I said the Northern shipping interests set the prices for their services just below the cost of using Foreign ships and the associated fines for doing so. (regular shipping costs plus 50cents per Ton if I recall correctly.)

These rates represented gouging, but because the Northern shipping interests had a captured market, they could gouge with the blessing of the Federal government.

The British and other nation's shipping services would not have gouged. They would have set normal rates with no "protectionism" costs, and they would therefore be cheaper than Northern rates *WITH* protectionism costs.

Free market spurs competition, and competition causes lower prices.

Pretty fundamental conservative doctrine there. Aren't you familiar with it?

[SoCal Pubbie]

Re: The Horizon, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you claim the law forced Southerners to use Northern shipping interests. Then you claim the South had their own ships. How do you reconcile the fact that if they had their own ships then there was no need to use anyone else with your claim of coercion ?

Of course you're an Olympic level gymnast when it comes to your tortured logic, so I'm sure you'll try to worm your way out.

[DiogenesLamp]

You realize of course that there was a glut of cotton in England in 1861 ...

Bullsh*t. There was a severe cotton shortage crises at British mills in 1861.

and the British were turning to India and other sources.

*BECAUSE* there was a crises in the supply of cotton! Not because they had too much of it!

Why was their a crises in the supply of Cotton? Because US Warships had cut off all shipping of cotton to England to prevent the Southern states from establishing direct trade with Europe which would *CUT OUT* the Corrupt Washington DC establishment and the New York Crony Capitalists influencing the government from their previously cut of Southern/European trade.

First thing Lincoln did was stop trade between the Southern states and England. It was all about the money. It was never about moral issues.

King Cotton’s reign was ending and those big extra profits would have never happened.

"King Cotton" was assassinated. Without Lincoln's interdiction stopping trade, it was literally impossible for Europe to find cheaper sources of cotton than slave labor.

Now if you can explain to me how paid labor in India and Egypt could provide lower prices than slave labor, I would like to hear it, but it looks to me that without Lincoln stopping the trade, Cotton would have continued to be bought from the South in large quantities by the Europeans.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“ Which were artificially inflated beyond the market norm because of laws forcing them to use the North’s shipping, banking, warehousing, insurances and other services.”

I know you claim that the Navigation Act of 1817 forced Southerns to use Northern shipping, which of course it did not, but where do you find clauses to force all the other stuff?

[DiogenesLamp]

Re: The Horizon, you seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you claim the law forced Southerners to use Northern shipping interests.

I guess you just completely missed the dates in question. The Horizon was built in a South Carolina shipyard in 1797, I think. By 1860, there weren't any Southern shipyards left except the Navy shipyard in Norfolk.

If you will once again read through Robert Rhett's address from South Carolina, you will see he mentions the destruction of Southern ship building as one of their grievances.

Then you claim the South had their own ships. How do you reconcile the fact that if they had their own ships then there was no need to use anyone else with your claim of coercion ?

In the 1790s they were building ships. By the 1860s, they had ceased. The Northern shipping industry was like a closed shop. They favored their own, and were quite clannish about it. The government favored them too.

Of course you're an Olympic level gymnast when it comes to your tortured logic, so I'm sure you'll try to worm your way out.

Yes, pointing out that things change in 60 years is a diabolically clever trick.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“In fact, much of the 1861 crop was burned in an effort to produce a faster shortage in Great Britain. But the Confederates didn't count on a couple of factors.

A major factor was that the 1860 crop, which had been a very large one, had already been shipped and Britain had stockpiles on hand from the late antebellum years. So there was a little bit of a cushion for the British there. Also, bumper crops from the later 1850s had left Great Britain with a surplus at the outset of the Civil War...

...It wasn't until the second half of 1862 that a pinch began to be felt in Britain. Britain imported only about one percent as much Southern cotton as it had imported in the last antebellum shipments...

...But, the strategy was doomed in the long term. First, Britain developed alternate sources of cotton—by 1864, British imports had reached 75% of their antebellum average, most of the new cotton coming from India and Egypt...

...And, there was also an increasing volume of American cotton coming into Britain from ports controlled by the United States military as the war went on. Some cotton would come out of ports that the U.S. controlled...

...Thus, despite the promise of its effectiveness, the ‘King Cotton’ strategy didn't work out for the Confederacy, as it had hoped. Along with that, any hopes of it getting recognition from the European powers were also wiped out.”

https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/american-civil-war-the-confederacys-king-cotton-diplomacy/

When discussing historical matters, it helps to know what the f*ck you're talking about.

[central_va]

The CSS Nashville, built in Montgomery, Montgomery County, was one of the last ironclads constructed by the Confederacy during the Civil War and one of the last major Confederate ships to see action before the end of the war, and probably the only ironclad constructed in Montgomery. The Nashville was outfitted with the most advanced naval armaments of the era.

The construction of the CSS Nashville and other southern ironclads was prompted by Confederate secretary of the navy and former U.S. senator from Florida Stephen R. Mallory, who was greatly concerned about the South's lack of naval power. When the 11 southern states seceded from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America, they had the makings of an army but none of a navy. The new government had to improvise one largely from scratch and with little seafaring tradition and few warships or naval facilities, as compared with the United States. Stephen R. Mallory Mallory improvised a four-point maritime strategy: the Confederate Navy would forego existing naval shipbuilding doctrine in favor of new technology, including armored warships, submarines, and mines (then called "torpedoes"); it would build a fleet of ironclads to defend southern harbors and rivers and prevent invasions by the U.S. Navy into the southern interior; it would construct a fleet of swift blockade runners to bring critically needed arms and supplies into the Confederacy; and it would hire or commission raiders to destroy federal merchant vessels. The Confederacy contracted various shipbuilders for 50 armored warships and by extraordinary efforts 22 were commissioned and sent into battle. The most famous were the first CSS Virginia, the CSS Arkansas, the CSS Tennessee, and the CSS Nashville. The Confederate navy also possessed a different ship named the CSS Nashville, a blockade runner that was sunk.

[DiogenesLamp]

I know you claim that the Navigation Act of 1817 forced Southerns to use Northern shipping, which of course it did not, but where do you find clauses to force all the other stuff?

Some of it is inherent in the laws requiring the usage of Northern ships. The Northern shipping industries could set whatever rules they wanted, because you were forced to use their services. If they said you must insure the cargo through their insurance agents, you had to do it. If they said you must use warehouses in New York, you had to do it. If they said you must take out a loan from a bank in New York, you either did it, or you didn't get your product transported. Look up "Company Town" to get an idea how this system works in practice.

This is why doing away with the Navigation Act of 1817 was such a financial boon for the South. It took away the power to coerce them to use services at excessively high rates, and allowed them to not only use cheaper European services, but they could avoid the gouging to their bottom line that New York and Washington DC's cut represented.

It cut New York and Washington DC out of their trade deals and their profits.

Remember, 73% of all US Trade was from the South.

[DiogenesLamp]

Were they built in an existing shipyard, or did they build the shipyard as a war effort in order to build the ships?

If it is the former, then I stand corrected.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Thank you for providing yet another example of how Southern shipbuilders, who had long specialized in building shallow draft river craft to take goods North up inland waterways, could have switched to building blue water craft there were a demand. It had always been easier to let Northern shipyards, which by 1860 which far more developed for that purpose, do it. Thus leaving more money to buy more slaves. Also dispelling the crazy idea that secession did not happen to protect the institution of slavery and the entire Southern economy which was built on it.

[HandyDandy]

Yes, thanks, I know who “Judge” refers to. I was wondering if DL did. I don’t think that the Lincoln quote means what he thinks it does..... seeing as how it’s clipped beginning and end and out of context.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“Some of it is inherent in the laws requiring the usage of Northern ships. “

What law said you had to use NORTHERN ships?

“Remember, 73% of all US Trade was from the South.”

You keep throwing that number around, without any documentation. And no, another poster’s comments do not constitute a legitimate source.

[DoodleDawg]

I was wondering if DL did.

LOL! He does now.

[DiogenesLamp]

...But, the strategy was doomed in the long term. First, Britain developed alternate sources of cotton—by 1864, British imports had reached 75% of their antebellum average, most of the new cotton coming from India and Egypt...

I've been around the block on this assertion before. Another fellow who I shall not name was constantly trying to suggest that the British were just going to get alternative sources of cotton, and therefore Southern cotton was doomed.

He too would ignore the fact that the cotton shortage was artificially created by Lincoln, and would not have occurred without Union Warships cutting off the supply. England would *NOT* have created alternative sources of supply without the interdiction occurring. You cannot pay people to grow cotton cheaper than you can do it with slave labor. It's economically impossible.

England would have continued using the South's cotton indefinitely without Lincoln's intervention.

When discussing historical matters, it helps to know what the f*ck you're talking about.

That's correct, but it's also very important to not *LIE* or attempt to *MISLEAD* people about historical information.

Pretending that other sources of cotton would have just occurred naturally is an example of an attempt to mislead. Without the war, those other sources would not have materialized.

Lincoln is responsible for Europe finding those other sources, and once they were created, that represented a permanent loss of income for the South. That economic damage persisted long after the war.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thank you for providing yet another example of how Southern shipbuilders, who had long specialized in building shallow draft river craft to take goods North up inland waterways, could have switched to building blue water craft there were a demand.

Yeah, I think there was that little matter of a war going on to spur this development. They had their very own closed system and economic demand for that production. Would that have occurred with the Northern system still controlling shipbuilding and shipping? Probably not.