Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War - Restored Audio

The Library of Congress ^ | Jul 10, 2022 | Julius Franklin Howell (January 17, 1846 - June 19, 1948)

[Dr. Franklin]

Recording made in 1947 when he was 101 years old as an oral history of the American Civil War, (or the War Between the States, as it is known in South). This man joined the 24th Virginia Calvary in 1862 at the age of 16 and and half. He was eventually taken prisoner in the Spring of 1965 at what must have been the Battle of Hillsman's House since her refers to Gen. Ewell's surrender. He was held at Point Lookout, Maryland until the end of the war.

He is quite emphatic that the South didn't fight for "the preservation or extension of slavery", but for states rights. When he begins by reminiscing about the "early 50's", he was, of course, referring to the 1850's.

[virgil]

I didn’t say slavery should have been tolerated. The pressure against it had been building for a long time and no reason to stop it. I think it would have ended a lot sooner than 1930, however, especially if there hadn’t been a war. Internal wars have damaging effects on a country economically, politically, socially that can last decades.

[DoodleDawg]

Meaningless in substance if not in form.

Not joining the rebellion was the desire of the Maryland legislature so how was that meaningless?

Maryland was occupied by Federal troops - Lincoln had suspended habeus corpus and was arresting any suspected southern sympathizers- holding them at Ft. McHenry - 2000 by the end of the war.>

Hyperbole and exaggeration aside, the Constitution gives the president the power to call out the militia to suppress rebellion. Lincoln was acting well within his authority.

So I say the vote was meaningless because if Maryland had voted to secede- they would have been powerless to do so.

If Maryland had joined the rebellion then I expect they would suffer the same fate as the other rebellious states - armed conflict would have come to them and all the death and destruction that followed would be their own fault. Good thing for them they remained with the Union.

[DoodleDawg]

The pressure against it had been building for a long time and no reason to stop it.

Not in the south.

I think it would have ended a lot sooner than 1930, however, especially if there hadn’t been a war.

What would have ended it and what would have replaced it?

[BroJoeK]

Oorange: "The Southern states produced 73% of the US entire trade product at that time, and all the money to pay for it was being funneled into New York because of the Navigation act of 1817."

"73%" is a bogus number, the real number is roughly 50% of US exports were Deep South cotton, everything else claimed as "Southern products" was produced in whole or in part in Union states.
The value of cotton exports in 1860 was approx. $200 million.

Southern cotton growers were typically paid for their products, sometimes ahead of the harvest, by middlemen called "factors" who then typically arranged for "ginned" cotton to be transported to a dock for export.
So before cotton ever left his property, the cotton grower was paid.

Who were these money-men "factors"?
Some were Southern bankers, some were Northerners, some, doubtless, represented major European buyers.
And once the cotton grower is paid for his products, the methods & routes of transportation to foreign (or domestic) manufacturers is utterly irrelevant to the grower.

But, as it happened, in the vast majority of cases, cotton shipped directly from a major Southern port -- i.e., New Orleans or Mobile -- to its customers in Europe or New England.
And once the ship-owners unloaded & sold their cotton, then, naturally, they looked for paying cargoes for their return trips.
These returning cargoes included the raw materials and luxury goods needed by American businesses & wealthy people.
And the largest concentration of such businesses & wealthy people was in New York City, or could be quickly & cheaply reached from NY via America's railroads & river steamboats.
So NY is where those return ships stopped first & sold their cargoes, imports which then went into special bonded warehouses, which by law did not have to pay import duties until sold & shipped elsewhere?
The total value of those imports was circa $400 million in 1860.

So how many of those $400 million in imports ended up in the hands of Souther cotton growers?
Answer: very little, a tiny percentage, and the reasons are obvious.
Nearly everything Southerners imported, they "imported" from the North.
And those "imports" from the North were neither raw materials nor foreign luxury goods, but mainly basic manufactured cotton & woolen clothing, shoes, iron stoves, hats, farm tools & railroad iron, etc.

Bottom line: in 1860 Southern cotton exports of $200 million amounted to roughly 5% of the US total GDP of $4.4 billion.
The entire Southern economy amounted by roughly 15% of the US $4.4 billion GDP, about $650 million.
And these numbers were instantly removed from the US economy in 1861, resulting in serious economic issues, not least because New Orleans was closed to Union traffic.
But the Union economy did quickly adjust & recover and by war's end had more than doubled.

And of course, none of this had anything to do with events at Fort Sumter, SC, or the Confederacy's Declaration of War on the United States, May 6, 1861.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well thanks for pinging me to this thread. Oddly enough, I ran across that audio on youtube the other day and listened to it.

It is unusual to hear the voice of someone who experienced an era that was such a very long time ago.

Your 200 million number is correct, but your suggestion that it does not represent 72% of the total US exports is wrong.

I've posted to you the data from the Kettell book, and others have posted to you the data from the official records, so why you keep denying the correct percentage, I don't know.

I do recall getting you to admit to 60% once, but that was a long time ago.

[DiogenesLamp]

How were they losing money to southern ports?

A big fleet of warships kept that from happening, but it would have happened without the blockade. The math is easy. Lose 35% of your profits by going to Northern ports, or only 13% of your profits by going to Southern ports.

The first commercially viable cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the 1930's. Pesticides and fertilizers came later. Would slavery till then be OK with you?

Well it was okay with Abe Lincoln. Don't you remember the Corwin Amendment?

And a cotton harvester was invented in the 19th century too, but it clearly wasn't a commercial success.

[DiogenesLamp]

Up until 1863, even the Northern States were inclined to let the South go, much as we would be inclined to let California go if they so wished.

Except the Republicans were the Liberals and the Democrats were the conservatives in 1860. Letting California go would be like the South letting the North go.

Which they sorta did.

[DiogenesLamp]

The CSA themselves said the war was about chattel slavery.

No they didn't. That's just what the revisionists keep trying to make people believe.

The war was about money.

The Corwin Amendment proves that everything you think is a lie.

Yes, Abe Lincoln and the Union did offer the South permanent slavery in exchange for remaining in the Union.

[DiogenesLamp]

Except, those very same Southern states required a slave state be made and admitted as any free state would be admitted. This was even if that state did not want slaves.

Why?

Interesting story about Alaska and Hawaii. Alaska had long reached the point where it could be admitted as a state, but the Democrats did not want Alaska admitted as a state because they knew it was heavily Republican.

A compromise was worked out to allow Hawaii to become a State in exchange for Alaska becoming a state. That way, the balance of power would be maintained, and both sides could live with it.

Did it have anything to do with a love of polar bears or coconut trees?

No. It was about power. It is *ALWAYS* about power. The South wanted a state that would vote with it as a block rather than voting with the North as a block.

In actual fact, there was no economic feasibility to have slavery in any of the states that would be created from the territories, so no actual slavery was going to move into the new states.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it was for the choice of slaves that the South fought. Period.

Let me inform you as to the existence of the Corwin Amendment. This Amendment (which would guarantee permanent slavery) was pushed by Lincoln and the Republicans.

It passed the house and Senate by the required 2/3rds margin, and was ratified by 5 Northern states.

So to make it clear, the North was handing *SLAVERY* to the South on a silver platter. The only string attached was that the South would have to remain in the Union.

So with the North GIVING AWAY slavery, and with the South REFUSING TO ACCEPT IT it kinda proves the war was *NOT* about slavery to either the North or the South.

I'm sorry if this undercuts your view of the goodness of human nature, but it is factually true.

Yes, the North was going to sell out the slaves to keep the Southern states.

[DiogenesLamp]

When the war was about states rights, the south was winning. When the war was made about a man’s rights, the north began winning.

That's poetic but wrong. When the *FOUR TIMES BIGGER* Union kept grinding down the much smaller Southern forces, they began winning.

...and if Abraham Lincoln didn’t listen to him, the north would have lost.

No they wouldn't have. They had four-five times the population to call upon for soldiers, and if they were willing to murder enough people defending their homeland, they were going to win no matter what.

[DiogenesLamp]

He we go with the stupid lost causers who polite this site.

Independence is never a lost cause, and isn't being polite better than being rude?

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln forces arrested all the pro-secession legislators of Maryland. That’s why Maryland’s state song calls him a tyrant.

[DiogenesLamp]

Real history is that they were traitors, just like the left. Many Southerners bravely fought for the Union.

Yes, the Southerners who fought for the Union against their families and their homeland, were indeed traitors.

[cowboyusa]

Why do you even bother posting on a pro-USA site. You are the same as the left. This is my last response to you, I don't talk to traitors.

[DiogenesLamp]

I’ve read first hand accounts from the militia my ancestors fought and died with. While slavery wasn’t the reason to start, they just needed one look at it and it became their cause.

Did they go tackle slavery in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky and West Virginia?

Should have been real easy, because those were all Union slave states and the army had to march through them to get to the other slave states.

Because they passed those slave states by, i'm thinking it was something other than slavery that was compelling them to fight.

I laugh when the “civil war perfessers” on FR spout their grand reasons.

I assume you can do simple math. The North - 200 million per year = The South +200 million per year.

I guess money is a "grand reason". It is the real one in any case.

[Palio di Siena]

Not joining the rebellion was not necessarily the will of the legislature.
They were afraid to vote.
Seriously - you should read “A southern star for Maryland”
written by my friend Larry Denton.
His view, after much research, was that Maryland would have seceded,
but for the federal occupation.

[Bull Snipe]

This is not the case. Jefferson freed just 10 slaves over his lifetime. Five were freed when the man was alive and five were freed by his last will and testament. Most all of the slaves at his death at Monticello and his other estates, were sold to pay the estates debts.

[DoodleDawg]

They were afraid to vote.

They voted on the question on more than one occasion over the course of the summer of 1861.

Seriously - you should read “A southern star for Maryland” written by my friend Larry Denton.

Denton's opinion is not the only one and not automatically correct.

[jeffersondem]

“Iirc, they were one of only three Southern States to voluntarily abolish slavery on their own.”

That is an interesting comment.

And it brings to mind the controversy about over whether or not the 13th amendment, and the later homosexual marriage amendment (14th), were legitimately adopted after the war.

Supporters of the amendments say the southern states voluntarily voted to adopt the amendments. Because of the constitutional super majority required to adopt an amendment, more than 3 southern states had to support the proposals in order for them to become part of the constitution.

Other scholars say that amendments adopted by southern states at the point of bayonets are not valid because consent obtained by coercion is not voluntary and is not consent.

Your observation (only three Southern States voluntarily voted to abolish slavery) leaves no doubt where you stand on the matter. Unless you change your mind again, I support your conclusion there were not enough southern states voting voluntarily for the amendments to be legally adopted.