Battle of Appomattox: Understanding General Lee's Surrender

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

[DiogenesLamp]

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

If you think they would just leave the money to pile up in a bank, then you do not have a good grasp on the nature of humanity. People tend to spend money when they get it.

How would I know what they would sell to Europe?

Exactly. Maybe they would import more Italian Marble for their mansions or more French fashion clothes for their parties. The thing is, if they have money, they will spend it, and capitalists will meet the demand.

What do know is that imports did not decrease but instead seem to have increased during the rebellion.

So explain this magic increase. If Europeans couldn't get enough of their fish after the war had started, why weren't the Europeans having the same demand for fish before the war?

It is unassailably true that Southern exports made up the bulk of trade with Europe before the war, and something else magically made up the bulk of trade with Europe after the war started. What did that trade consist of? Specie?

They invested in one item that would help them make more money - slaves.

This doesn't make sense on the face of it. The transport trade had ended in 1808, and there was no further source of supply other than subsequent generations being born. Presumably the people who were running the plantations already owned the slaves, so how do they "invest" in slaves other than employing the slaves they already had?

Wouldn't that leave their money free?

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

You are misrepresenting the conversation in the same manner you deliberately misrepresent the causes and beginning of the war.

I pointed out that the "Free State of Jones" was not formerly a state, and so therefore it was unclear whether the Declaration of Independence should be applied to it, but what was quite clear was that the Declaration of Independence absolutely applies to states, and so about the seceded Southern states there is no ambiguity and no question of this principle applying to them.

But you "dismissed that little awkwardness because" it does not suit the narrative you wish to believe.

The Declaration unquestioningly applies to states. Whether it applies to little rump areas of a state is a matter not worth pursuing in the context of a larger discussion.

But I will also point out that as an advocate of the US Constitution, you cannot support the creation of a "state" from the territory of another state without the approval of that's state's legislature. Therefore your position on the "Free State of Jones" is that it is illegal and contrary to constitutional law.

But that is not why you brought it up. You brought it up in an effort to either portray the Confederates as "hypocrites" (which doesn't matter) or to undermine the principle that *STATES* have a right to secede.

[DoodleDawg]

Attempts to put the focus on Davis are misdirection.

Facts are always a misdirection where you're concerned.

[DoodleDawg]

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.

The evidence is that in the fiscal year ending July 1864 the U.S. government collected $102,315,153 in revenue from customs. The claim on your part is that without the South the U.S. would not be able to import almost anything. Even allowing for inflation and what have you, that is several times higher than in 1861. When asked for your explanation you said that Lincoln cooked the books. Not at all surprising.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

Been over this with you before. *SPECIE* is not trade. No nation willingly continues to use specie to purchase imports because it drains their wealth over the long term.

Indeed, years ago you posted all the trade balances from something like 1800 to the 1870s or so, and I went through it and showed how you were deliberately misconstruing the data to support what you wanted to believe.

Specie is a separate category and it is not the equivalent of trade.

But by more honest accounting, Confederate states' cotton in 1860 made up ~50% of total US exports, no more.

I have got you to admit it was as much as 60%, but it would be difficult to show you your post where you admitted this without days of tedious searching through your commentary and mine.

I said at the time, "I've got you up to 60%, so perhaps I will eventually be able to get you up to the actual number of 72%".

But this is just splitting hairs. Even at your unreasonably low value of 50% of the trade, you have 1/4th of the Citizens producing 50% of the total revenue for the nation, while the other 3/4ths are shirking their duty to pay their fair share of the taxes.

The taxation clearly fell excessively on the Southern citizens, and this was by your own admission of 50% of the trade coming from them.

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%.

You claim the value was 50%, yet the loss of tariff revenues only declined 15%?

Well that does not make any sense, because 15 does not equal 50, so now that you make this claim, you need to explain how you can believe it was 50% of the total, and suddenly it was only 15% of the total?

Clearly some sort of "magic" is occurring here, and so you need to explain how you can believe two contradictory things at the same time.

[DoodleDawg]

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

That all those goods would land in southern ports, get taxed, and then get smuggled into the U.S. in dribs and drabs without exceeding the cost of the U.S. tariff? That's what passes for logic in your world?

[DoodleDawg]

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

It proves that the North consumed imports while the south consumed next to none.

[DoodleDawg]

I never see anything from your side that disputes my claims.

Your claim that U.S. law taxed exports and imports coming and going from the U.S. at the outbreak of the rebellion is one claim I showed was wrong.

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

Your 'evidence' tends to be your opinion and nothing else.

...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.

Pathetic.

[DiogenesLamp]

So clever that you can’t even explain it.

When a bank is robbed, it is unnecessary to explain how it was robbed in order to recognize the fact that it was robbed. You can tell it was robbed just by looking at the quantity of money that was no longer there.

Simply looking at the money will tell you where it went. We can see clearly from the available data that the money was produced in the South, but somehow ended up in the pockets of Northeastern Gentry.

I've shown you how that was done (through biased laws that favored Northeastern industry) but you don't like that explanation because it does not support what you wish to believe.

So the money clearly moved. How about *YOU* explain how that money moved from the South without biased laws favoring the Northeast?

The civil war was about the corrupt northeastern gentry lining their pockets through manipulating the power of Washington DC to favor their own interests.

Corrupt then, still corrupt now. Paid for in blood, and the evil powers are still in charge and still enriching themselves through government power.

[DiogenesLamp]

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

If you are persuaded by large fonts and multi-colors you are just as much of an idiot as someone who believes something simply because it is repeated over and over again, or because a large collection of people believe it too.

[SoCal Pubbie]

It’s been a while since that last trip on the merry-go-round, but my response accurately portrays your viewpoint- you dismiss it.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for ONE PEOPLE to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.“

I don’t see anything about “states” there. The point is not about hypocrisy, but rather the Confederates themselves did not really believe their own rhetoric. Rebellion just suited their purpose to fight for the preservation of slavery, that’s all.

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.

[SoCal Pubbie]

The inflation rate in 1861 was 6.02%.

[DiogenesLamp]

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.

So your argument is "because protectionism can be created which does not favor one particular portion of the country to the detriment of another portion of a country, protectionism cannot be made which favors one particular portion of the country to the detriment of another portion of the country."

If that is your thinking, I recognize that as bad logic. It is possible to create protectionism that favors the entire country, but it is also possible to create protectionism that favors specific parts of the country.

Laws which grant favors to American ships benefit those areas that produce and control American ships. They are economically disadvantageous for those that don't.

You have failed to show how the tariffs of the 19th century did that.

You can keep saying that, but no matter how many times you keep repeating it, it's still untrue. I have shown you how tariff/shipping laws moved the money produced in the South into the North. We haven't even gotten into the other acts such as the "Warehousing act of 1846" and a few other acts which were discussed in previous threads on this topic.

There is a reason why the "Free Soil Party" was located in New York New York instead of Kansas. It was because it served the interests of New York New York. Keeping the Southern states at a legislative disadvantage insured the money produced by Washington DC law would continue flowing into the pockets of the New York gentry and the Washington DC plutocrats.

The Southern states were free to build or purchase their own ships.

They could not purchase foreign ships. That was not allowed. They could build ships, but then they would have to compete with Northern shipbuilders and shippers who had government contracts guaranteeing them a profit, while the Southern shippers would not have such government contracts.

The Northern shipping industry was highly organized, highly clannish, and worked with other northern industries to create a "closed shop" condition for their industry. Their banking, insurance and warehousing were all in collusion with each other, and they all maintained their connections to government power in Washington DC.

In other words, the same corrupt system we have now which favors the liberal elite and their corrupt corporations.

[DiogenesLamp]

That claim is in itself misdirection.

It's what you have left to work with when you can't find good evidence like I have.

[DiogenesLamp]

The evidence is that in the fiscal year ending July 1864 the U.S. government collected $102,315,153 in revenue from customs.

Obama's inflation was 3%. See how that works? Real everyday inflation which I personally witnessed was running 40-50%. Everything I buy nearly doubled in some cases and more than doubled in other cases.

So what good does it do to compare numbers based on one system to numbers based on another? Not much. There is so much slop in the means of calculating value here that it would take a great deal of effort just to establish some factual equivalence between the numbers of 1860 and the numbers of 1864. I have seen others tackle this problem, and I simply don't see the point because you won't understand or respect the results when they are produced.

You want to believe what you want to believe.

When asked for your explanation you said that Lincoln cooked the books.

That is your "interpretation" of what I said. Economic conditions changed greatly as a result of the things Lincoln did, but Lincoln did not personally "cook the books." He created conditions in which the money, value and trade numbers from 1864 cannot be compared accurately on a one to one bases with the numbers from 1860.

Others have written quite detailed messages on the economic changes produced by Lincoln's war, and they have shown that the later numbers are created by a combination of inflation, use of specie instead of trade, heavy borrowing, and various other artificial means of government market manipulation.

I don't want to suss out where these numbers come from because they aren't relevant to the straightforward numbers which were produced before the war, and without all the government driven market distortion.

[DoodleDawg]

That claim is in itself misdirection.

The claim is factual. The South started the war. It's in all the history books.

[DoodleDawg]

You want to believe what you want to believe.

A case of the pot calling the kettle black if ever there was one.

[DiogenesLamp]

That all those goods would land in southern ports, get taxed, and then get smuggled into the U.S. in dribs and drabs without exceeding the cost of the U.S. tariff?

30% price differential is quite a lot in an era where people struggled to make money. People smuggle cigarettes now. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with this phenomena?

So no, not so far fetched as you are trying to portray. 30% is just the profit differential from TAXES. Additionally there would be profit differential from the European goods being cheaper, and of better quality, so profit potential for a smuggler could be substantially more than 30%.

And people smuggle crap in and out of Canada every single day. Canadians often come to the US for healthcare, and take it back with them when they return.

Not at all unreasonable to believe markets would be set up south of the border, and Northern citizens would avail themselves of these markets. They certainly couldn't have had border outposts all along the border, and there was always the chance that Kentucky, Missouri, etc would decide to avoid the hassle and just join the Confederacy.

That's what passes for logic in your world?

It passes for logic in any reasonable world.

[DiogenesLamp]

It proves that the North consumed imports while the south consumed next to none.

Through the magic of harvesting money out of Northern trees to pay for things.

You understand my point, you are pretending to be deliberately obtuse. The money came from the South. It was not produced in the North, it was taken from the trade produced by the South.

It did not come from magic money trees in the North. It came from slave labor in the South. *THAT* is why the Northern states and their representatives were so willing to pass the Corwin Amendment.

Washington DC and New York were awash in slave money. The war wasn't about slavery, it was about the cutoff of that slave money, and the economic threat that direct trade between Europe and the South represented to Northeastern monied interests.

[DiogenesLamp]

It proves that the North consumed imports while the south consumed next to none.

With magic money produced by their fairy godmothers.

This idea you have that people can "buy" stuff when they don't have money is alien thinking to me.

Things can only be bought with money that has to come from somewhere.

The money to purchase 72% of these European goods came from the South. It did not come from magic money trees or fairy godmothers in the North.