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.

[DoodleDawg]

What does it prove?

Not what you claim it proves.

[DoodleDawg]

Numbers are only approximations I have found reading articles on the topic.

Or the numbers are made up depending on what day you chose to use them. You really should be more careful and try and stick with a consistent fairy tale.

[DoodleDawg]

If I run across it, i'll mention it, but I'm not going to spend a lot of time looking.

Of course you won't. Anything that disputes your claims is of no interest to you.

Again, some form of the Jones act has always existed in this country.

True. But we're talking about your claim that foreign ships bringing imports to the U.S. or exports from the U.S. were taxed at a higher rate than U.S. ships, giving them a disadvantage. I've provided the evidence that such taxes were repealed decades before the rebellion. You dispute that without any evidence of your own.

People tend to see what they want to see, and ignore what they don't really want to see.

As you have shown countless times already.

[DoodleDawg]

How would I know what they would buy from Europe.

You just know that all of a sudden they would. Got it.

So what was the Northern folk suddenly selling a lot of to Europe? More lumber? More fish? More leather goods?

How would I know what they would sell to Europe? What do know is that imports did not decrease but instead seem to have increased during the rebellion. The Europeans would have to figure out what they wanted and buy it from them.

They were getting those out of Europe, were they? Clearly you are attempting to make some sort of feeble joke here, and for what purpose I cannot guess, because it doesn't impress me, and I doubt it impresses your friends.

The jokes are from your end. What did the Southerners do with all the money they made by selling their millions of bales of cotton, their tobacco, their rice? They didn't establish new businesses with it like insurance or banking or shipping. They didn't build large urban areas. They invested in one item that would help them make more money - slaves. Slaves increased the amount of crop they could produce, provided a ready source of income if needed by just selling them, and made even more slaves. It was the one investment Southerners apparenly understood.

[SoCal Pubbie]

The last time I went round and round with him, maybe two years ago, I brought up the Free State of Jones. As I recall he dismissed that little awkwardness because that was a rag tag group of local yokels and not an approved cadre of fine Southern gentlemen like Jeff Davis and his ilk.

[DiogenesLamp]

How? Tariffs are in IMPORTS. There’s no way 1/3 of the population bought 3/4 of the goods.

The 1/3rd that produced 72% of the total revenue stream from Europe.

The way the 3/4ths bought the European imports is by cleverly using legislation to get the money away from the 1/3rd that produced it, and then using that money to buy the European products.

All that would have changed with secession. That money would have no longer streamed through the pockets of the Northeastern gentry. You keep ignoring where the money was coming from because it doesn't not support what you wish to believe.

[DiogenesLamp]

They matter to me, because they refute your inaccurate description of Southern economic production before the war.

No they don't, they show that the rigged system was funneling money into Northeastern gentry pockets, but the money was produced by the Southern states.

To recap:

Reminds me of how the left keeps repeating that Trump supporters are Nazis, and January 6 was an "INSURRECTION!" against lawful government.

People will keep repeating their narrative because stupid people embrace repetition.

[DiogenesLamp]

Why did Trump need his protectionist laws?

You are going to try to shift the discussion to the merits of protectionism? I don't think I will bother to follow you down this path of misdirection.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The Southern production is established by the official records.
Yes, the South did produce 72+ % of the total trade value with Europe in 1860."

Sadly, DiogenesLamp's "72+%" is a lie, only potentially true if by "the South" you mean every state "South" of New York, and if by "total trade value with Europe" you delete the values of California gold and Nevada silver exported to balance-up our trade deficits.

But by more honest accounting, Confederate states' cotton in 1860 made up ~50% of total US exports, no more.
Other products like tobacco would add ~7%, but they were mainly grown in Union states & regions -- i.e., Kentucky, Maryland & Pennsylvania, not in the Confederacy.

And even the legitimate $200 million in Confederate state cotton exports of 1860 are exaggerated in saying they "paid for" 50% of Federal tariff revenues.
We know this because in 1861, when Confederate cotton was deleted from US exports, Federal tariff revenues fell only ~15%, not 50%, much less 72%.

So DiogenesLamp's 72% number is pure Democrat Confederate propaganda, of no value in explaining anything, but still used by propagandists from that time to ours.

[DiogenesLamp]

Any town can secede from the county, any county from the state, and so on.

Whether this idea applies to smaller components of a state is not at issue here. In 1776, it was full blown states that seceded from England, and in 1860, it was also full blown states that seceded from the New York/Washington DC corruption cartel.

So no one is bringing up pieces of states to which to apply the idea of secession except for you, who is attempting to discredit the idea.

Now I will point out to you that Lincoln, in complete contravention of a specific clause in the US Constitution which prohibits states from being formed out of the territory of existing states without permission from that state's legislature, approved and supported the piece of Virginia which became "West Virginia", by seceding from a larger state.

I believe this puts Lincoln on the side which says it's okay for counties to secede from a larger state.

Indeed, he argued for this very thing in his speech to congress in 1848.

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,—a most sacred right—a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution.

But history clearly shows that he only believed this when the principle worked in his favor, and completely disavowed this principle when it worked against him.

[DiogenesLamp]

Which he did. Congress met again in July.

See? Now was that so hard?

So what did Congress do in July that solved the trade problem you speak of?

Because Davis wanted the war to start.

Attempts to put the focus on Davis are misdirection. Davis was in no position to do anything when Lincoln held all the power to interdict trade.

Lincoln was calling all the shots in the lead up to war. Lincoln alone is responsible for precipitating a war through his own deliberate actions.

And his reason for precipitating a war was to secure financial safety for his Crony Capitalist buddies in New York. This is why he supported the Corwin Amendment.

He was a shyster con man who would say whatever he needed to say to get power, then do whatever he needed to do to keep power.

[DiogenesLamp]

We're talking 1860, not 2018.

We're talking corruption in Washington DC, which has pretty much remained a significant aspect of the Federal Power since Lincoln became the head of the government, though there is quite a lot of evidence to indicate it had roots of corruption in it before Lincoln got there.

He just greatly expanded the corruption from what it was before, and it has persisted in that place ever since.

What is your evidence that Lincoln was 'cooking the books' in his 1864 message to Congress?

Evidence is not really necessary in arguing with you because I have already been through the experience of you and others rejecting any evidence that doesn't suit what you wish to believe.

I have learned to not apply too much effort to find evidence which won't matter to you anyway.

[DiogenesLamp]

I think you are presenting editorial commentary as fact.

The economic logic of what they said is inherently reasonable on it's own face.

It is completely consistent with human nature that people will refuse to be put at a disadvantage economically if they can see a means to avoid it.

Refusing to collect the high tariff would give them an equal footing in trade with the Southern states, so logic implies they would have taken that step.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not what you claim it proves.

To the contrary. It proves quite conclusively that slave money was ending up in New York gentry pockets as well as Washington DC gentry pockets.

You don't want it to prove this, but objective people can reach no other conclusion. Significant amounts of slave money was supporting the economy in New York and Washington DC.

Why else would Seward proclaim that he could guarantee New York's ratification of the Corwin amendment?

[DiogenesLamp]

Pretty much a throwaway comment on your part. I guess if you have nothing else to throw, throw snark.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“The way the 3/4ths bought the European imports is by cleverly using legislation to get the money away from the 1/3rd that produced it, and then using that money to buy the European products.”

So clever that you can’t even explain it.

To recap:

The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.

The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.

The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.

[DiogenesLamp]

Of course you won't. Anything that disputes your claims is of no interest to you.

I never see anything from your side that disputes my claims. You don't have the sort of strong evidence (Declaration of Independence, Ratification statements, Corwin Amendment, Export values, Import tariff map, etc) that we have. All of your "evidence" tends to be weak, pathetic, subjective, and requiring extraordinary "interpretation" to make it look like it supports what you claim.

All the evidence on our side is pretty straightforward and unassailable by realistic and objective people.

Youse guys usually just substitute repetition in lieu of good evidence to support your claims.

I've provided the evidence that such taxes were repealed decades before the rebellion.

I will acknowledge that what you have provided seems to support the claim that this aspect of the unfair trade laws were repealed, though I do not think it is quite so cut and dried as you seem to indicate. The repeal requires the President's approval, and requires the foreign country that would no longer have duties to have reciprocal trade policies with the US.

I can only assume their target nation is England, but I do not know if this is true. It would seem that all the duty penalties would still apply to all foreign countries that don't have reciprocal trade policies with the United States, but which countries are those, and how significant would they be in the overall trade with Europe?

You assume a whole lot of information not yet in evidence with your claim, and at this point we have no way of actually knowing if any of these duty laws were really repealed for the existing trade.

I would assume they were repealed for England, but I do not know if this is actually true.

Even if the most favorable to you interpretation of this law can be accepted as correct, it is only an aspect of the advantage Northern ships had in securing the trade with Europe. Still left is the significant economic advantage they had in carrying cargo between ports, which the European ships did not have.

Again, if protectionist laws do not result in favor for the protected target, why would anyone make them?

As you have shown countless times already.

Yes, I consistently point out examples of your side doing this very thing.

[DoodleDawg]

If the shoe fits...

[rockrr]

Careful - your restatement of the obvious may result in DegenerateLamp posting his protests in large font size and perhaps even (gasp!) multi-colors!

[SoCal Pubbie]

You wrote:

“You are trying to step around the fact that protectionism works.”

By referring to Trump, I am suggesting that protectionist legislation does not on its face suggest a scheme to benefit one region of the country to the detriment of another. You have failed to show how the tariffs of the 19th century did that. The Southern states were free to build or purchase their own ships. They were free to sell directly to foreign buyers if they wished. How did the North’s three card monty work?

In coming days I will post further information demolishing your bogus arguments.

To recap:

The reason for secession was the South’s desire to preserve slavery.

The trigger for secession was the election of Abraham Lincoln, which fed fear of the abolitionist foundation of the Republican Party.

The American Civil War began when units of the South Carolina Militia fired upon a Union fort in Charleston harbor.