Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Battle of Appomattox: Understanding General Lee's Surrender
Ammo.com ^ | 7/26/2021 | Sam Jacobs

Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at ammo.com ...


TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: 1of; appomattox; blogpimp; civilwar; history; neoconfederates; pimpmyblog; postandleave; postandrun; selfpromotion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 1,101 next last
To: x; DiogenesLamp

Neo-Confederates refuse to accept that while the slave economy brought riches to the plantation owners, that success came with a price. A price that held back progress in industrialization and gave the North an advantage.

Banks in the UK invested heavily in the development of the United States. The faster pace of shipbuilding and laying rail lines in the North reflected industrialization that drove the denser population of big cities. That growth was aided by a cheaper cost of money.

“The dread of slave insurrection and civil discord,” the Cotton Supply Reporter complained, was ever present. Even the London money market reflected these concerns, as bonds for southern railroads carried higher interest than those for northern roads. “This mistrust arises,” reported the Westminster Review in 1850 “from a shrewd calculation of the dangers, in both a moral and physical sense, which hang over a state of society whose foundations are laid in injustice and violence.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/383660/


701 posted on 08/15/2021 8:37:11 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie

With each state’s voting on the massive question of secession from the Union , their legislatures determined that a document should be published, outlining the reasoning and causes of their disunion.

None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned
slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union .

The quotes you provide are neither official nor relevant.


702 posted on 08/15/2021 5:22:11 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; SoCal Pubbie; x; DiogenesLamp; jmacusa
PeaRidge to SoCal Pubbie: "...their legislatures determined that a document should be published, outlining the reasoning and causes of their disunion.
None of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union ."

I'm sure you intended to say here: every 1st round secession document which gave reasons listed slavery most prominently.
Not every secession document gave reasons, so not every document listed slavery.

Here is a summary of six 1st Round "Reasons for Secession" documents
Note: the first four are official "Reasons for Secession" by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia and Texas, the only 1st Round states which issued reasons.
1st Round states of Florida, Louisiana & Alabama did not produce "Reasons for Secession" documents.

I'm including Robert Rhett because he wrote at the same time as South Carolina's secession to encourage other slave-states to secede.
CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens's words are the notorious "Cornerstone Speech".:

Reasons for SecessionS. CarolinaMississippiGeorgiaTexasRbt. RhettA. StephensAVERAGE OF 6
Historical context41%20%23%21%20%20%24%
Slavery20%73%56%54%35%50%48%
States' Rights37%3%4%15%15%10%14%
Lincoln's election2%4%4%4%5%0%3%
Economic issues**0015%0%25%20%10%
Military protection0006%0%0%1%

** Economic issues includes tariffs, "fishing smacks" and alleged favortism to Northerners in Federal spending.

Bottom line: across six documents, slavery accounted for 48% of the words explaining why they seceded.
No other issue came even close.

It's also important to notice that eight Upper South and Border States refused to secede so long as slavery was the only real reason.
Then after Fort Sumter four of those states declared secession based on Virginia's claim of "injury or oppression", not slavery.

703 posted on 08/16/2021 1:18:22 AM PDT by BroJoeK (looking for a new tag line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 702 | View Replies]

To: x; DiogenesLamp; SoCal Pubbie; jmacusa
DiogenesLamp to x: "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."

What we know is that Brits in 1860 bought something like 75% of their cotton from the US, the remainder from countries like Egypt & India.
This suggests that US cotton was more reliably & cheaply available than other sources.
As the Civil War began, before Lincoln's blockade kicked in, Confederate exporters decided to withhold their produce from markets as an act of "Cotton Diplomacy" in hopes of encouraging countries to recognize the Confederacy diplomatically.

However, early in the war Confederates withholding their cotton was not a huge problem for most countries because importers had previously accumulated reserve stocks of raw cotton they could draw down -- think of it a little like today's strategic reserves of oil.
But in time shortages of raw cotton did begin to bite, and that drove cotton prices high enough to encourage more production in places like Egypt & India.

After the Civil War US cotton production quickly recovered and doubled from pre-war levels by around 1880.
However, the US never recovered our dominant position in the cotton marketplace.
Today the US produces four times more cotton than in 1860 & exports about 20% of the world's raw cotton, we're #2 behind India, producing slightly more than China or Brazil.
India is the #1 producer, China the #1 exporter.

World cotton exports, US #2

World cotton production, US #2

704 posted on 08/16/2021 2:03:00 AM PDT by BroJoeK (looking for a new tag line...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 699 | View Replies]

To: SauronOfMordor
No, the main purpose of Fort Sumter was NOT enforcement of tariff collection on ships entering Charleston harbor. It was a military fort, not a tax collection facility. The Charleston harbor was too shallow for the larger and deeper draft vessels of the day, and the port had fallen into decline twenty years before secession. This falsehood is another tenet of Neo-Confederate mythology.
705 posted on 08/16/2021 7:21:02 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Your labels, first round and second, etc. are misleading at minimum.

there were a total of 11 state legislatures or conventions, 1 rump state convention, 1 territorial convention, and 2 Indian tribes that published one or more secession documents around the beginning of the war.

If taken altogether, they published at least 20 documents declaring or otherwise affirming their secession. 11 were ordinances officiating the secession act itself adopted by the 11 state conventions, legislatures, or popular referendum. The conventions of 4 of those 11 states adopted an additional “Declaration of Causes” as a nonbinding legislative resolution, and serving as public information only and not legally binding on anything.

With regard to the official documents of secession, none of the original 7 and eventual 11 ordinances mentioned slavery as a cause of their decision to leave the Union.

The convention of South Carolina also adopted a letter of causes addressed to all the other southern states outlining their list of justifications and urging others to join them. This document is the same type of narrative offered by other states. It is interesting reading but nothing more than ancillary composition.

Out of the 20 total declarations, ordinances, and other secession documents only 6 mentioned slavery in any context beyond geographical nomenclature (only 5 mention it at any length - the sixth is in a single brief clause).

Fourteen of those documents specify other causes, either in addition to slavery or without mentioning it at all.

As noted, and let us get it straight this time, the Official original 7 do not list any causes.


706 posted on 08/16/2021 7:44:19 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
To remove the cloud of your misleading data, here for your review and correction:

Georgia Secession Decree (January, 1861):

“(The Northern States) have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and refused to comply with their constitutional obligations to us in reference to our property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

“The people of Georgia, after a full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with firmness that (the Northern States) shall not rule over them.”

Mississippi Secession Decree (January, 1861):

“(The North) has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

“Utter subjugation awaits us in the Union, if we should consent longer to remain in it. It is not a matter of choice, but of necessity (to secede).”

Texas Secession Decree (February, 1861)

“The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.”

Louisiana Secession Decree (January, 1861):
“The people of Louisiana are unwilling to endanger their liberties and property by submission to the despotism of a single tyrant, or the canting tyranny of pharisaical majorities (in the North).”

Mississippi Secession Decree (January, 1861): “That they have elected a majority of electors for President and Vice-President on the ground that there exists an irreconcilable conflict between the two sections of the Confederacy in reference to their respective systems of labor and in pursuance of their hostility to us and our institutions, thus declaring to the civilized world that the powers of this government are to be used for the dishonor and overthrow of the Southern section of this great Confederacy.”

707 posted on 08/16/2021 8:04:55 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 703 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

here for your review and correction:

“refused to comply with their constitutional obligations in reference to our property”
Could they have meant the obligation to return their runaway property under article IV sec. II?

“deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.”
No law prohibited Southerners from going into any territory of the United States. All the had to do was leave their slaves at home.

“exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common.”
The only restriction on Southerners was they could not bring their slaves into the territories.

“in reference to their respective systems of labor”
one system of labor was free the other system of labor was slave.


708 posted on 08/16/2021 10:14:39 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 707 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
If the shipping fees charged by Northern interests were so onerous, would Southern plantation owners and shipping companies NOT gone to the shipyards and asked them to start building ships to carry cotton across the Atlantic?

I think this is a case where my grasp of history serves me better than your grasp of history serves you.

I guess you've never heard of "Standard Oil."

709 posted on 08/16/2021 12:39:25 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 624 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
As for your ancestors, their own words said slavery was the reason, so go to the graveyard and take up with them.

Yes, all 5 million of them or so only fought to keep the very thing that *LINCOLN* and the Northern state Representatives and Congress voted to give them on a silver platter for free.

It's strange that they decided to fight and die against invaders murdering their people instead of just taking the deal for permanent slavery which Lincoln and the Northern Reps and Senators voted to give them.

It would have just been so much easier to take the deal for permanent slavery.

Why do you suppose they didn't take Lincoln's offer of permanent slavery protected by Constitutional law?

Why do you suppose they didn't take that deal?

710 posted on 08/16/2021 12:44:14 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 625 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
Wow, 18 slaves in New Jersey in 1860! You consider that “plenty.”

Being a "little bit slavery" is like being a "little bit pregnant." You either are or you are not.

New Jersey still had slavery, and so did Pennsylvania for a long while after they claimed they had done away with it.

Were the slaves in these Northern states any less deserving of freedom?

711 posted on 08/16/2021 12:46:38 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 639 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
Why do you suppose they didn't take that deal?

Because they were really really stupid?

712 posted on 08/16/2021 12:49:40 PM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 710 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
Yeah, and I imagine you call it the War of Polish Aggression, too.

I guess you need to learn about European history too. It was the Nazis who invaded Poland. The NAZIS were the aggressive party invading another country. It would therefore be called the War of NAZI aggression.

The Nazis also used made up pretexts to invade other countries. Maybe they got the idea from Lincoln? They probably saw a lot to admire in the way he ran the country.

713 posted on 08/16/2021 12:50:47 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 638 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
That quote is erroneously attributed to Stephens, but his speech was an extemporaneous stump speech with no written record. Someone gave that quote to a newspaper and they printed it.

You mean people would lie to create propaganda to use against their economic enemies? I'm shocked! Shocked I say!

714 posted on 08/16/2021 12:51:57 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 640 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Thanks for that information. Your posts are often useful in giving us a better understanding of the history behind the Civil War.

So the FedGov had been favoring the North for a long time. I recall reading an article awhile back saying that New York fully intended to remain the Capitol of the United States, and efforts to move the Capitol to Washington DC were only agreed to because they never believed it would happen.

What I see now is that even though the Capitol physically moved to Washington DC, it's operation were still being controlled by the wealthy power brokers in New York, the Empire State.

And I think the Shadow government has been ran out of there ever since.

715 posted on 08/16/2021 12:55:43 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
You've got three, perhaps four, if you get creative in asserting their statements were only about "slavery."

If not, I’ve got more.

Let's see. There were 11 states in the CSA, and you've got statements from 3, perhaps 4 of them which support what you wish to believe. (so long as you ignore everything else they said)

Call me old fashioned, but I don't believe 3 is a majority in a nation of 11 states. Even 4 is not a majority. It's not even a strong plurality.

So now do Virginia. Tell us why Virginia decided to declare secession from the USA!

716 posted on 08/16/2021 12:59:27 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 643 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
It was reported in the papers of the time. You have no proof that the quote is not accurate.

Oh, well since we are doing that:

"If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side."

And here's another:

"After due consideration the administration determined upon the arrest of the Chief Justice. A warrant or order was issued for his arrest. Then arose the question of service. Who should make the arrest and where should the imprisonment be? This was done by the President with instructions to use his own discretion about making the arrest unless he should receive further orders from him."

Right back atcha.

717 posted on 08/16/2021 1:11:53 PM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 655 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe
“...one system of labor was free the other system of labor was slave” and protected by the Constitution.

The failure of some states to uphold the Constitution is noted here:

“Strange, indeed, must it appear to the impartial observer, but it is none the less true that all these carefully worded clauses The Bill of Rights, proved unavailing to prevent the rise and growth in the Northern States of a political school which has persistently claimed that the government thus formed was not a compact between States, but was in effect a national government, set up above and over the States. An organization created by the States to secure the blessings of liberty and independence against foreign aggression, has been gradually perverted into a machine for their control in their domestic affairs.
“The creature has been exalted above its creators; the principals have been made subordinate to the agent appointed by themselves. The people of the Southern States, whose almost exclusive occupation was agriculture, early perceived a tendency in the Northern States to render the common government subservient to their own purposes by imposing burdens on commerce as a protection to their manufacturing and shipping interests.

“In addition to the long-continued and deep-seated resentment felt by the Southern States at the persistent abuse of the powers they had delegated to the Congress, for the purpose of enriching the manufacturing and shipping classes of the North at the expense of the South, there has existed for nearly half a century another subject of discord, involving interests of such transcendent magnitude as at all times to create the apprehension in the minds of many devoted lovers of the Union that its permanence was impossible. When the several States delegated certain powers to the United States Congress, a large portion of the laboring population consisted of African slaves imported into the colonies by the mother country. In twelve out of the thirteen States negro slavery existed, and the right of property in slaves was protected by law. This property was recognized in the Constitution, and provision was made against its loss by the escape of the slave. The increase in the number of slaves by further importation from Africa was also secured by a clause forbidding Congress to prohibit the slave trade anterior to a certain date, and in no clause can there be found any delegation of power to the Congress authorizing it in any manner to legislate to the prejudice, detriment, or discouragement of the owners of that species of property, or excluding it from the protection of the Government.’

718 posted on 08/16/2021 1:11:59 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 708 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Yeah, I’ve heard of it. Not sure what that has to do with anything.


719 posted on 08/16/2021 1:17:49 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 709 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Southern newspapers were fighting whose economic interests?


720 posted on 08/16/2021 1:22:45 PM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 714 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 681-700701-720721-740 ... 1,101 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson