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

https://www.youtube.com ^ | Jul 10, 2022 | Julius Franklin Howell

[Beowulf9]

Pictures were colorized and enhanced using AI optimization software. For the audio, I remastered it using noise gate, compression, loudness normalization, EQ and a Limiter.

Julius Franklin Howell (January 17, 1846 - June 19, 1948) joined the Confederate Army when he was 16. After surviving a few battles, he eventually found himself in a Union prison camp at Point Lookout, Maryland.

In 1947, at the age of 101, Howell made this recording at the Library of Congress.

Our new music channel - Life in the Music: Classic Collections 2-hour videos of music from the 1600s-1900s https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC24p...

Audio has been restored for clarity.

This video is made for educational purposes for fair use under section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976.

[ought-six]

“Lincoln’s orders were, in effect, ‘no first use of force’. That makes them equivalent to today, when the US sends, for example, warships through the Taiwan straight, despite Chi-Com objections. The sending of warships through the straight, or resupply ships to Taiwan, is not an ‘Act of War’, regardless of how loudly the Chi-Coms squawk about it.”

I disagree. Because your scenario is not the same as that which happened in Charleston Harbor.

For one thing, the Taiwan Strait is INTERNATIONAL water; Charleston Harbor was not: It was within the boundaries of South Carolina.

But, let’s take your scenario to its logical conclusion.

Sailing warships, uninvited, to Charleston Harbor was indeed an act of war against South Carolina; just as the US Navy sending warships to Shanghai Harbor, uninvited, would be an act of war against China. It would be an act of war even if the US Navy ships didn’t fire any weapons. Why? Because the US Navy ships posed a direct THREAT to China itself, and the threat under that scenario IS an act of war.

“BUT, if the Chi-Coms fire on our ships, or invade Taiwan, THAT is an ‘Act of War, period.’”

Well, that goes without saying.

“Just as Confederates firing on Fort Sumter was an Act of War.”

Yes, in response to the acts of war presented by Union forces. Remember, Sumter was an incomplete fort when South Carolina seceded from the Union in December, 1860. But, within days of secession Major Anderson, in command of Union forces at Fort Moultrie, on the north shore of Charleston Harbor, secretly evacuated Moultrie to garrison Fort Sumter, which was in the middle of Charleston Harbor itself, where he could more effectively interdict any ships into and out of the harbor. That was Act of War #1. President Buchanan ordered that Sumter be resupplied and reinforced, and in January, 1861 the steamship Star of the West, under the US War Department, attempted to supply and reinforce Sumter and entered the harbor, whereupon it was fired upon by batteries from both the north and south shores of the harbor. The Star of the West turned around and steamed out of the harbor. That was Act of War #2. South Carolina then demanded that President Buchanan order Anderson to surrender Sumter and evacuate it. Buchanan’s order that Sumter continue to be supplied and reinforced remained in force. That was Act of War #3. When Anderson still refused to leave Sumter, and Lincoln – now president – ordered that Sumter continue to be supplied and garrisoned, South Carolina responded to the continued acts of war.

“More important, at Fort Sumter there were no economic issues
— none, zero — claimed by either Northerners or Southerners at the time.”

Nice try. As I mentioned above, from Sumter, Anderson could more effectively interdict shipping in Charleston Harbor; shipping that was very much an economic interest, to South Carolina in particular.

“Border State slaves were not at risk from Federal Government, until ratification of the 13th Amendment freed their slaves, in December 1865, eight months after Lincoln was dead & buried.”

At which time they BECAME at risk? That is what your comment implies.

“Or until they themselves already abolished slavery on their own, as Maryland, West Virginia & Missouri did.”

You mean, they exercised their states’ rights? Glad you recognize that.

[ought-six]

“Lincoln’s orders were, in effect, ‘no first use of force’. That makes them equivalent to today, when the US sends, for example, warships through the Taiwan straight, despite Chi-Com objections. The sending of warships through the straight, or resupply ships to Taiwan, is not an ‘Act of War’, regardless of how loudly the Chi-Coms squawk about it.”

I disagree. Because your scenario is not the same as that which happened in Charleston Harbor.

For one thing, the Taiwan Strait is INTERNATIONAL water; Charleston Harbor was not: It was within the boundaries of South Carolina.

But, let’s take your scenario to its logical conclusion.

Sailing warships, uninvited, to Charleston Harbor was indeed an act of war against South Carolina; just as the US Navy sending warships to Shanghai Harbor, uninvited, would be an act of war against China. It would be an act of war even if the US Navy ships didn’t fire any weapons. Why? Because the US Navy ships posed a direct THREAT to China itself, and the threat under that scenario IS an act of war.

“BUT, if the Chi-Coms fire on our ships, or invade Taiwan, THAT is an ‘Act of War, period.’”

Well, that goes without saying.

“Just as Confederates firing on Fort Sumter was an Act of War.”

Yes, in response to the acts of war presented by Union forces. Remember, Sumter was an incomplete fort when South Carolina seceded from the Union in December, 1860. But, within days of secession Major Anderson, in command of Union forces at Fort Moultrie, on the north shore of Charleston Harbor, secretly evacuated Moultrie to garrison Fort Sumter, which was in the middle of Charleston Harbor itself, where he could more effectively interdict any ships into and out of the harbor. That was Act of War #1. President Buchanan ordered that Sumter be resupplied and reinforced, and in January, 1861 the steamship Star of the West, under the US War Department, attempted to supply and reinforce Sumter and entered the harbor, whereupon it was fired upon by batteries from both the north and south shores of the harbor. The Star of the West turned around and steamed out of the harbor. That was Act of War #2. South Carolina then demanded that President Buchanan order Anderson to surrender Sumter and evacuate it. Buchanan’s order that Sumter continue to be supplied and reinforced remained in force. That was Act of War #3. When Anderson still refused to leave Sumter, and Lincoln – now president – ordered that Sumter continue to be supplied and garrisoned, South Carolina responded to the continued acts of war.

“More important, at Fort Sumter there were no economic issues
— none, zero — claimed by either Northerners or Southerners at the time.”

Nice try. As I mentioned above, from Sumter, Anderson could more effectively interdict shipping in Charleston Harbor; shipping that was very much an economic interest, to South Carolina in particular.

“Border State slaves were not at risk from Federal Government, until ratification of the 13th Amendment freed their slaves, in December 1865, eight months after Lincoln was dead & buried.”

At which time they BECAME at risk? That is what your comment implies.

“Or until they themselves already abolished slavery on their own, as Maryland, West Virginia & Missouri did.”

You mean, they exercised their states’ rights? Glad you recognize that.

[DiogenesLamp]

Perhaps the key point here, which DiogenesLamp ignores is, that Corwin did NOT pass...

They key point is that the Northern controlled congress and the presidency supported the passage of it. It means that slavery was something they would live with, but Independence was not.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lincoln's orders were, in effect, "no first use of force".

That is spin. Those "no first use of force" was conditional *IF* they didn't oppose them.

Knowing full well that thousands of troops surrounding the Fort and every kind of interference that could be contemplated was already put into the water, the "if resisted" was already baked into the cake. The "no first use of force" statements were just fig leafs to cover up the fact that the mission would be seen by the Southern forces as an attack mission.

Lincoln knew full well that they would be "resisted", and in this certain eventuality, their orders were to use force, meaning cannons, against the Confederates.

It was an attack mission that was alleged to be a "supply" mission just to placate Northern public sentiment.

[DiogenesLamp]

More important, at Fort Sumter there were no economic issues -- none, zero -- claimed by either Northerners or Southerners at the time.

Well this is incorrect. Somewhere in the list of Northern newspapers commenting about this era there is one that demands the tariff be collected or to turn the guns of all the forts on them.

I'm sure you are familiar with that particular quote and I don't feel like looking it up again.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, Corwin was not "permanent slavery".

Here you are just splitting hairs and quibbling over trivial differences in meaning.

It was "permanent" so far as states wanted it to be. When all the states gave it up voluntarily, then it would be ended, but so far as the lives of most people at the time, it was well nigh "permanent."

The "deal" "DC offered" Confederate states was nowhere near as good -- for slavery -- as the deal embodied in their new Confederate constitution.

Because there are varying degrees of slavery? Somehow the confederate constitution protects slavery more than the Corwin Amendment would protect it?

So where would the Corwin amendment fall short of the Confederate constitution? What benefit would the Confederate constitution grant that the Corwin amendment would not?

What seems so blindingly "obvious" to you was not at all "obvious" to those Confederates who first declared secession and then war against the United States. Not one of them ever mentioned it.

I guess you simply don't bother to look at or even remember evidence to the contrary.

South Carolina's Address to the Slaveholding States

[DiogenesLamp]

DiogenesLamp: "This is true, but it does not address the moral question of why the Republicans voted to keep slavery forever."

They did not!

This is another bunch of hair splitting and quibbling over the meanings of "forever" and "Republicans."

Yes, Republicans voted to pass it. Yes, it was effectively forever, so far as the people who voted for it could tell.

[jmacusa]

They exercised their ‘’states rights’’ to own another human being.

And Lincoln DID order no first use of force in the resupply of Ft. Sumter.
Confederate shore batteries opened fire first.

[jmacusa]

Dude, you should be paying for the education you’re getting here.

[ought-six]

“They exercised their ‘states rights’ to own another human being.”

The original poster’s comment described those states ABOLISHING slavery on their own. Hence, they exercised their states’ rights.

[ought-six]

“And Lincoln DID order no first use of force in the resupply of Ft. Sumter. Confederate shore batteries opened fire first.”

Perhaps you missed my earlier post. The act of supplying and reinforcing Sumter was in itself an act of war. That began under Buchanan, and continued under Lincoln.

[Beowulf9]

I showed this to my brother who reads about the civil war all the time, watches anything on it.

He was speechless. Called me up later and said he thought it was fascinating.

It was/is.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "Yours was a blanket statement about the term “lost cause” FIRST being used by Pollard.
I proved you wrong.
Now, you are qualifying your original statement."

You've put a lot of effort here into arguing meaningless word distinctions.
The "lost cause" on a Free Republic Civil War thread obviously refers to the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy", first argued by Edward Pollard in 1866, and there's no need to bring in the apostle St. Jude into such discussion.

ought-six: "And it is the title of his book, and its content — not his veteran status — that has you guys clutching your pearls.
It is YOUR side that has branded anyone who has an opposing argument about the war as a 'neo-confederate'. "

Pro-Confederates who argue for the Lost Cause on Free Republic Civil War threads have never accepted the term "neo-Confederate" as valid for them.
However, what really is the difference?

Wikipedia defines "neo-Confederate" as:

"Neo-Confederates are groups and individuals who portray the Confederate States of America and its actions during the American Civil War in a positive light.
The League of the South, the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other neo-Confederate organizations continue to advocate the secession of the former Confederate States."

Maryland Sons of Confederate Veterans, 2014, Arlington Cemetery:

Wikipedia lists the following as Neo-Confederate groups:

1. Abbeville Institute
2. Council of Conservative Citizens
3. Dixiecrats (States' Rights Democratic Party) (defunct)
4. Flaggers (movement)
5. Ku Klux Klan (1st and 3rd incarnations)
6. League of the South
7. Southern Party (division of the League of the South) (defunct)
8. Sons of Confederate Veterans
9. Southern Historical Society (defunct)
10. United Daughters of the Confederacy

Where did that term "neo-Confederates" come from?

"Historian James M. McPherson used the term "neo-Confederate historical committees" in his description of the efforts which were undertaken from 1890 to 1930 to have history textbooks present a version of the American Civil War in which
1. secession was not rebellion,
2. the Confederacy did not fight for slavery, and
3. the Confederate soldier was defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources.[1]

"Historian Nancy MacLean used the term "neo-Confederacy" in reference to groups, such as the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission, that formed in the 1950s to oppose the Supreme Court of the United States rulings demanding racial integration, in particular Brown v. Board of Education (1954).[2]

"An early use of the term came in 1954.
In a book review, Leonard Levy (later a winner of the Pulitzer Prize for History in 1968) wrote: 'Similar blindness to the moral issue of slavery, plus a resentment against the rise of the Negro and modern industrialism, resulted in the neo-Confederate interpretation of Phillips, Ramsdell and Owsley.' "[4]

"Historian Gary W. Gallagher stated in an interview that neo-Confederates don't want to hear him when he talks "about how important maintaining racial control, white supremacy, was to the white South."[5]
He warns, however, that the term neo-Confederate can be overused, writing, 'Any historian who argues that the Confederate people demonstrated robust devotion to their slave-based republic, possessed feelings of national community, and sacrificed more than any other segment of white society in United States history runs the risk of being labeled a neo-Confederate."[6]

So here's the bottom line: are there actual distinctions worth mentioning between the terms, "neo-Confederate", "Lost Causer" and pro-Confederate".
I've seen nothing to suggest there are.

Have you?

ought-six: "You guys have branded as “neo-Confederates” those who find credence with Pollard’s argument.
The term “neo-Confederate” thus necessarily applies to those who agreed with Pollard post-bellum (his book wasn’t even published until after the war, in 1866).
But what Pollard wrote was the prevailing position from the earliest days of the country, at least in the southern, more agrarian states."

Here's what Pollard published in 1866.
Note that it's focus is the Civil War itself, not a rehearsal of Founding and antebellum history.

Will stop here, more later...

[ought-six]

“You’ve put a lot of effort here into arguing meaningless word distinctions.”

No; when you make a statement that is factually false, it calls into question other statements of yours. There is an old legal maxim: Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. It simply means, “False in one thing, false in everything.”

“Pro-Confederates who argue for the Lost Cause on Free Republic Civil War threads have never accepted the term ‘neo-Confederate’ as valid for them.”

But you guys do, and you apply the appellation quite liberally. That is why I rebutted the usage.

And, the Wikipedia “definition” of “neo-Confederate” is so patronizing.

BOTH the Confederacy and the Union felt justified in their positions; and BOTH could and did make good arguments to support their respective positions. But, the victor gets to decide which argument was actually right. The victor, and eventually, history; and history is often as divided and divisive as the original subject.

But, from what I’ve seen here on FR you guys categorically reject any argument posed by the Southern side. So you are categorically rejecting Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry, and Richard Henry Lee, and so many others; because THEIR positions were what guided the South in ITS position.

I note with amusement — but not surprise — that you fail to respond to my argument that the conflict that eventually led to the Civil War had been roiling since the closing days of the American Revolution; and that conflict was between federalists and anti-federalists, each of whom saw the country from very different viewpoints: Strong central government, with states subordinate vs. limited federal government, with states retaining their equal share of power. The names of the political parties may have changed or evolved over the years, but their respective tenets did not.

And then you make the utterly ludicrous comment — well, the comment is really not yours, because you seldom if ever make any comment that is original with you: No, you just cut-and-paste what others have said — that “neo-Confederates” tried to have history books say that “secession was not rebellion,” and that “the Confederacy did not fight for slavery,” and that “the Confederate soldier was defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources.”

Laughable! Southerners saw themselves much the same as the colonists saw THEMSELVES in 1776 when they declared independence. The Southern states in 1860 and 1861 declared their independence from the US of A. If the patriots of 1776 were rebels, then that was good enough for their later compatriots. Southerners reveled in being associated with those colonist patriots! They found it honorable!

Fighting for slavery? That is evasion. It is much the same as saying the Union went to war to END slavery (which, of course, the Union did NOT go to war to do; it went to war to restore the Union). Slavery (as distasteful an institution as it was) was LEGAL in states that wanted it. And it was up to the individual states to decide for themselves whether to practice it or ban it. That is called states’ rights. In 1860, there were 33 states in the Union; of those, almost half were slave states to one degree or another (though not all of them seceded). Fun facts: Did you know that New Jersey still had slaves up until 1865? Did you know that West Virginia joined the Union in 1863 as a SLAVE state, and didn’t abolish slavery until 1865?

Finally, the inclusion in the history books that Confederate soldiers were defeated by overwhelming numbers and resources, that your cut-and-paste source seemed to find objectionable. What is the objection? Is it some mysterious arcana that superior numbers and resources and logistics won the war for the Union? The Confederacy had no chance whatsoever of conquering the Union, and never claimed it was even an objective. It just wanted to be independent and left alone, to sink or swim on its own merits or failures, as the case may be.

[jmacusa]

You f’ing Rebs kill me, you really do.

You fulminate and stamp your feet and hold your breath to pettifog and deflect what the CW was really about.

IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY! And, yes it was not the main reason the North went to war but Lincoln had every intention of ending it and preserving the Union, both of which he did
.
Your side lost in 1865 and it's still losing.

And throwing off the chains of a degenerate monarchy half a world away it NO WHERE NEAR ending the abominable practice of owning another human being. That's laughable.

[jmacusa]

On the morning of April 12, 1861 The United States government wasn't at war with anyone even though the South had seceded.

On April 9, 1861 Jeff Davis ordered his generals to ‘’Strike’ a blow’’ and General P.G.T Beauregard was ordered to begin the bombardment. And as far as Buchanan goes, his sympathies were more with the South, not the North.

[Chgogal]

Bookmark

[x]

“Neo-Confederate” has an historical use and a political one. For historians someone who goes around saying “The South Was Right” is a neo-Confederate. In politics it means someone who wants a reborn Confederacy, something very rare indeed. So people who support a “neo-Confederate” view of history often deny that they are “neo-Confederates.”

Southerners favored “Jeffersonian” limited government because they didn’t want to be outvoted by Northerners. If they had their own country and didn’t have to worry about Northerners, they would naturally develop their own big government and small government parties.

This happened even in Jefferson’s own lifetime. Once Jefferson’s party became the only effective party in the country, Madison supported things that he and Jefferson had earlier opposed, like a national bank, national roads, and a protective tariff, because they were regarded as necessary. This happened again in the 20th century with Wilson and FDR.

[ought-six]

Ah, I see facts and history terrify you; hence your easy resort to slander. That usually means you have no argument in your favor.

You say Lincoln had “every intention of ending” slavery as a reason for the war. Unfortunately for you, his own words don’t support you.

Grow up, son.

[ought-six]

“On the morning of April 12, 1861 The United States government wasn’t at war with anyone even though the South had seceded.”

I disagree. Sending warships to Charleston Harbor to supply and reinforce Sumter is, in a legal sense, an act of war. The recognized definition of an act of war is: An aggressive act, usually employing military force, which constitutes an immediate threat to peace.

So, let’s break that down: An aggressive act (sending warships into another’s harbor), usually employing military force (warships and troops), which constitutes an immediate threat to peace (Anderson at Sumter could interdict all shipping in Charleston Harbor). Thus, Federal troops on Sumter constituted an immediate threat.

“And as far as Buchanan goes, his sympathies were more with the South, not the North.”

Yet it was Buchanan who first ordered Sumter to be resupplied and reinforced. Doesn’t sound like he was so sympathetic to the South.