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 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 1,101 next last
To: PeaRidge

Your whole premise is that the Great Southern Trading economy would rest on smuggling to avoid the tariff. Now that’s nonsense.


781 posted on 08/18/2021 11:21:50 AM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 774 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

Chicago.


782 posted on 08/18/2021 12:31:59 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 780 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
With New Orleans already the gateway to the Midwest, and with Charleston having a newly dredged harbor, Lincoln and his supporters realized that direct trade with Europe would now be possible for Southern business interests.

Direct trade was already possible with Europe for southern business interests. In the year prior to the rebellion 2.85 million bales of cotton were exported from southern ports and over $24 million worth of imports were landed.

This would supplant the shipping, banking, insurance, and freight companies that flourished with the movement of Southern goods through northern ports into the overseas trade.

If banking, insurance, and freight companies weren't established before the war then what would cause them to be established after it? Cotton exports wouldn't suddenly double. Imports would likely remain about the same. All things being equal who would invest the money to create the insurance and banking and freight companies?

And what "movement of Southern goods through northern ports" were they talking about? Cotton exports from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia totaled less than 300,000 bales - less than 10% of the total cotton exports for the year. It might cause a small dent in the traffic moving through those ports but certainly not any business disaster.

Northern ports, supplying the mid west would also be damaged by the trade that would move back through New Orleans, Galveston, and Mobile.

Again, it makes no sense. Send goods destined for northern consumers to Galveston or Mobile and how would they then get to their customers? Why drop them off then only to load them onto another ship to send them up north? Where they would have their tariffs applied once they landed?

Since essentially the Southern states were forming their own cotton, rice, and tobacco world exchange, he had to halt it.

Which differed from the ones pre-rebellion how?

783 posted on 08/18/2021 12:51:22 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 777 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
As usual for you, x, your posting is intentionally misleading.

As is usual for you, your posting is snarky, irrelevant and largely plagiarized. You claim to know what other people are thinking but you aren't even educated enough to know that you can't cut and paste whole paragraphs of someone else's work without attribution and pass it off as your own work. That's a pretty good indication of why I don't respond to you if I can help it and why I am surprised that anyone else does.

Yes, New Orleans was the city of the future, the metropolis of great promise, but the future was always in the future and the promise never quite panned out. You indicate a large part of the reason for that yourself:

In summer, the ports were virtually deserted as the heat, humidity, and falling water levels slowed dock workers, rotted any agricultural products on the docks, and hindered the river traffic. Many merchants and their families left the port cities to avoid the heat, yellow fever, cholera, and hurricanes. However, between January and March, many plantation owners and their families would visit in the cities, partaking of the social whirl of Mardi Gras, shopping, and meeting with their cotton factors, who acted as agents, bankers, and financial advisors.

The climate was unpleasant for many people. There were epidemics. Free immigrants avoided the city because of that and because slavery predominated there. The steamboats of the era couldn't carry as much as railroads could and transportation up the length of the river was slow and risky before snags and shoals were removed.

I don't mean to put the city down. It was a successful port in 1860, but much of what made the port of South Louisiana so important today waited until years after the Civil War. It couldn't be assumed that New Orleans would somehow outshine New York in the 19th century.

Now please slither back under your rock.

784 posted on 08/18/2021 12:55:28 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 769 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

So, if you took your nice bottle of single malt to New Orleans, who would be charging you a tariff?


785 posted on 08/18/2021 1:38:47 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 782 | View Replies]

To: Bull Snipe

Wrong question.

Not smuggling.....free trade with Europe.


786 posted on 08/18/2021 1:40:30 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 781 | View Replies]

To: x

Your usual reply...failure to deal with the facts and numbers.

But your determination to obfuscate is clear. You are not a Socratic scholar.

But you are who you are.


787 posted on 08/18/2021 1:46:06 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 784 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
So, if you took your nice bottle of single malt to New Orleans, who would be charging you a tariff?

Jameson's is an Irish whiskey, but I get your point. After clearing customs and paying duties I would not get taxed again because New Orleans is in the same country. However, if I cleared customs in Chicago and hopped a plane for Toronto then I'm sure Canadian customs would want their tax as well.

788 posted on 08/18/2021 1:46:21 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 785 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Looks like everyone skipped over this point. Why am I not surprised.

Without notifying Congress, Lincoln sent a fleet of Union warships under command of a retired junior Naval officer under orders to send supplies to a group of Union soldiers that were about to surrender and leave a fort with no function other than to force taxation of the local people. Their resistance became labeled rebellion, despite the absence of any other higher authority from which to rebel, except a sitting U.S. president who had vowed to protect the revenue stream from Southern production.

The new President would accept slavery but not the loss of revenue for the country. He essentially treated the Southern Confederacy as subject states of which he demanded that they remain under the taxing authority of the government.

789 posted on 08/18/2021 1:52:37 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 787 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
So the question is, would you pay double taxation?
790 posted on 08/18/2021 1:56:06 PM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 788 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge

smuggling into the United States. Just as they smuggle aliens or drugs accross our border. no different.


791 posted on 08/18/2021 2:29:10 PM PDT by Bull Snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 786 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
So the question is, would you pay double taxation?

Would I want to? No. But how would I avoid it other than not going into a third country?

792 posted on 08/18/2021 4:06:41 PM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 790 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Looks like everyone skipped over this point. Why am I not surprised.

Then let me take a crack at it.

Without notifying Congress, Lincoln sent a fleet of Union warships under command of a retired junior Naval officer under orders to send supplies to a group of Union soldiers that were about to surrender...

Leaving aside for the moment that Congress was in recess, why would Lincoln have been required to obtain the approval of Congress to exercise his powers as commander-in-chief?

... and leave a fort with no function other than to force taxation of the local people.

Sumter was built to protect Charleston from attack by a foreign power. You can say that the troops were there to protect Charleston. You can say the troops were there because Lincoln wanted to make a point and show he did not recognize that the southern acts of secession were legal. But please don't resort to that patently false crap that the fort was there "to force taxation of the people." That was never it's purpose.

Their resistance became labeled rebellion, despite the absence of any other higher authority from which to rebel, except a sitting U.S. president who had vowed to protect the revenue stream from Southern production.

Their actions were a rebellion in any sense of the word. An unsuccessful rebellion as it turns out.

793 posted on 08/19/2021 7:35:16 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 789 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
While we’re at it, Stephens lived two decades after the speech was first published. Did he ever disavow it, or deny he said those words?

Since you brought up this "did he ever disavow it", I ask you to apply the same standard to the Constitutional ratification statement of Virginia, of New York, and of Rhode Island, all which explicitly say they can resume their former powers.

Here is Virginia's as an example.

"WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will:"

Did any of the founders disavow those statements? Did Congress refuse to accept their conditional ratifications?

The answer is "no, they did not." Therefore, following SoCal Pubbie's logic, the fact that they did not disavow those statements would appear to prove those statements were true and accurate.

Just trying to make you live up to your own set of standards.

794 posted on 08/19/2021 7:49:40 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 662 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; DoodleDawg
Repealed by the House but did not change the foreign shipper law against multiple domestic ports of call and pickup.

Wouldn't it also have to be repealed by the Senate to become law? The legislative branch normally requires approval by both houses of congress, not just one.

I suppose a bill could be written to allow it's repeal by just the house, but the Senate would have to approve that bill before such could become law.

795 posted on 08/19/2021 7:53:42 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; DoodleDawg
Only if foreign ships arrived with empty holes. Some tried ( see cobblestone streets in Charleston) but did not last long.

No one can successfully run a shipping business if the ships are required to arrive with empty holds, especially when their protected competition does not have to abide by such rules.

It is inherently a tilted playing field.

796 posted on 08/19/2021 7:55:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; SoCal Pubbie
I am afraid this dialectic has degraded into a humorless amateur exchange that is boring. Good night.

He often tries to substitute snark for a valid argument. We can pity the fellow because he often cannot put forth a valid argument to support his claim, and is therefore left with no choice but to use snark.

What was that old Lawyer's saying?

If the law is on your side, pound the law.
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

797 posted on 08/19/2021 7:58:47 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 684 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
And yet the Union army remained overwhelmingly powerful throughout the war.

Having four times the population and having the war fought in other people's land gives you quite an advantage in that regard.

798 posted on 08/19/2021 8:00:41 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 692 | View Replies]

To: SoCal Pubbie
Captain William Nugent, writing to his wife from headquarters, 28th Mississippi Cavalry, Tupelo Mississippi on September 7, 1863

I have long argued that those attempting to justify the war go to great efforts to cherry pick their "evidence."

According to these people, every soldier in the Union army wrote letters to back home telling their families that they joined the Union army for the sole purpose of eradicating slavery!

That is not at all the truth, but that is the sort of fact manipulation Liberals have done for centuries. They went to great efforts to collect examples of such letters, and then they try to create the illusion that this was the dominant thought in the ranks. They left out the many thousands of letters from Union soldiers that would show those fighting to eradicate slavery are a teeny tiny minority of kooks in the larger ranks.

This is form of "astroturf."

And now you are doing the flip side of that with your searching for letters from Confederates that also show what you want to believe, and ignoring the vast majority of other letters which do not show this at all.

We are long aware of how this game is played, and it does not impress us when you attempt to deceive us by cherry picking out only examples that support what you wish to believe.

799 posted on 08/19/2021 8:07:35 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 695 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

When the only crop is cherries, one must pick only that.


800 posted on 08/19/2021 8:17:38 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820 ... 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