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.

[DiogenesLamp]

The South was not politically powerless, most of the legislative items passed by the Congress got passed because Southern states voted for them and a Southern President signed the law.

The navigation act of 1817 occurred when the South had considerable power in congress. They didn't grasp at the time how it would work out in practice and be used against their interests in subsequent years.

They may have felt at the time that their political clout would keep it from getting too bad on them, but over time, they found their political clout waning as states moved from supporting them into the political block of the Northern states.

By 1860, they could stop nothing bad against them in congress. I think that when they realized Kansas would be kept from their coalition, that there was no further point to being in a Union which exploited them greatly and maligned them even more greatly.

Who wants to live with people demanding money while calling you horrible things?

[DiogenesLamp]

Why are you responding then? Just to demonstrate how annoying you can be?

That is a side effect. The primary reason is to rebut you.

I'm mildly surprised you haven't dragged out that moronic tariff picture. Did you lose it?

Why, did you want to see it again? Here it is:

If the picture annoys you then you must see something in it which contradicts what you wish to believe.

If it showed what you wanted, you would be all in favor of showing it. Clearly it doesn't.

Then ping them and leave me out of it.

If I leave you out of it, they won't know the context in which the message I am quoting was made.

If you want to be left out of it, just stay out of it. I won't normally ping you, though BroJoeK has a habit of doing it.

[DoodleDawg]

That is a side effect. The primary reason is to rebut you.

With the same old crap, over and over? It's obvious that the primary reason is to be annoying.

If the picture annoys you then you must see something in it which contradicts what you wish to believe.

If I leave you out of it, they won't know the context in which the message I am quoting was made.

Oh I think they can. Not everyone around here is as dumb as you are.

[Bull Snipe]

Who wants to live with people demanding money while calling you horrible things?

Site an example.

[DiogenesLamp]

With the same old crap, over and over?

Yes, truth happens to be the "same old crap over and over."

If I changed it, it wouldn't be true. Because it is true, it has to remain the same every time you are confronted with it.

Oh I think they can.

Well we already know your judgement is flawed, so let's just say I won't be using it, and instead will use my own.

[DiogenesLamp]

Site an example.

That's a dodge. For someone who has studied the civil war as much as you, you don't need me to point out examples, but here you go.

Charles Sumner's speech said absolutely horrible things about Andrew Butler and South Carolina, for which Brooks beat him (rightfully so) with a cane. It is an example of like minded commentary from Northern newspapers and influential figures.

As for money examples, the numbers speak for themselves. But here's a quote for you. This is from Georgia Senator Robert Tombs.

"...bounties and protection to every interest and every pursuit in the North, to the extent of at least fifty millions per annum, besides the expenditure of at least sixty millions out of every seventy of the public expenditure among them, thus making the treasury a perpetual fertilizing stream to them and their industry, and a suction-pump to drain away our substance and parch up our lands.

Here's another from Henry Benning.

...Eighty-five millions is the amount of the drains from the South to the North in one year, -- drains in return for which the South receives nothing.

[jeffersondem]

“Back you your assertion, the argument that secession was not simply from slavery, is completely bogus, on its face.”

That is an interesting comment.

Does the fact that the southern states were slave states disqualify them in some way from seeking independence from the Union states?

[jeffersondem]

“Defending slavery is abhorrent.”

That is not a controversial statement. And in today's climate it is not a brave statement; just so so.

Let me show you a brave statement: farmer George Washington was an American giant; one that should be revered and respected. And the anniversary of this birth should be a stand-alone national holiday!

Can you boldly support my view of President Washington?

[ConservativeMind]

Not at all, as long as the independence was proper with the Constitution.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not at all, as long as the independence was proper with the Constitution.

The constitution says not a word about independence, and rightfully so. The Declaration of Independence said everything needing to be said on the subject just 11 years earlier.

[ConservativeMind]

If the Constitution says only how to join, and not how to leave, the pass a law allowing states to leave and follow that.

[Vermont Lt]

Then you claim he was a slaveholder. Nice try.

I can understand the norms of 1780 in context.

Honestly, I think naming holidays is stupid. Spread the holidays out across the year. Companies can declare whatever days they want.

[DiogenesLamp]

If the Constitution says only how to join, and not how to leave, the pass a law allowing states to leave and follow that.

The Declaration of Independence said how to leave. It was the foundation document of this nation. It was the mother document of the US Constitution. The Constitution derived it's legitimacy from the Declaration.

The Constitution didn't need to say how to leave, because the Declaration said how to leave.

[ConservativeMind]

Did the States ratify the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?

Is there not a law or amendment that could instigate proceedings for states to withdraw?

[DiogenesLamp]

Did the States ratify the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution?

Yes, the states ratified the Declaration of Independence. Do you not know your history? Ever hear of "John Hancock"? He was a representative of Massachusetts.

Is there not a law or amendment that could instigate proceedings for states to withdraw?

Yes. It is the Declaration of Independence which asserts that it is a right of every people to abolish any form of government that no longer serves their interests and to implement a new one that does.

[jeffersondem]

“I can understand the norms of 1780 in context.”

That is an interesting comment.

Do you understand the norms of 1860 in context?

[jeffersondem]

“Not at all, as long as the independence was proper with the Constitution.”

That is an interesting comment.

The power to prevent states from leaving the Union was not delegated to the federal government in the Constitution.

Moreover, when the thirteen united States of America declared independence, it was not by the authority of the Constitution; it was by the authority of the Declaration of Independence.

Unless, or until, the authority of the Declaration of Independence is renounced its consent of the governed theory remains valid.

In fact, the theories in the DOI will remain valid even after all postmodern Hollywood celebrities and their fans renounce them.

[ConservativeMind]

Any state that entered into the United States approving the Constitution as their Law agreed that changes to that agreement had to be in the manner of that Constitution.

Leave the Union via a lawful, legal way, or expect repercussions. Those states that unilaterally left immediately after Lincoln was voted in on Election Day left without even a vote around it. There was no authority to do so within the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence literally describes the need for “redress” to any issues. When you unilaterally leave your agreement without going through the allowed options for redress (the CSA just abandoned everything, instead), it shows they were cowards and unable to mount any credible verbal fight in Congress or among the States to make changes in a legal manner. It just shows bad faith and cowardice.

I would add that the Declaration of Independence fully allowed a recourse if these normal options were not met through mutually-agreed upon structures:

“We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”

The CSA abandoned the US and became Enemies in War, and lost that war.

So it would appear that, even in conquering the rogue slave-loving CSA, only the United States always followed the Declaration of Rights.

Sucks to be both stupid and wrong, as the CSA leadership was.

[jeffersondem]

“Any state that entered into the United States approving the Constitution as their Law agreed that changes to that agreement had to be in the manner of that Constitution.”

Your argument against secession broke down, but not until your first sentence.

By your own account, the Union states were obligated to amend the constitution using the amendment process if they wished to prohibit secession.

Secession was certainly not prohibited in the constitution then, or now.

And per the 9th amendment, it was not necessary for secession to be enumerated as a state's right in order for it to be available.

You need to revert back to that tried, tired, and hard-to-disprove argument: God told Abraham Lincoln to destroy the South and kill all those people.

[ConservativeMind]

No, the truth, by the CSA’s own words, was that the CSA was formed to enshrine the superiority of the whites over the blacks.

I already quoted your leadership's beautiful, stirring words, above.