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.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

Interesting dialect.

[Bonemaker]

That’s right, don’t believe the words of an actual participant. Even Lincoln always maintained his goal was to “preserve the union” (ie the Central Government - a monstrosity which we all so dearly love). Slavery wouldn’t have lasted much longer anyhow with the Industrial Revolution, and 700,000 souls wouldn’t have been lost.

[Jumper]

You, Sir, are a purist. One that gleens everything down to a desired essence. You boil out the good to ensure that at the completion of the concoction, only the worse remains.

I am sure you can find the worst in, say, the people detained under the US Captial for their participation in J6. Let’s see... they were there to overthrow the government and they came there with that one singular focus. Nothing else was important to the J6’ers because overthrowing the current “Sh*t-Show” representing the USG is an act of war on the Union.

Given 25 different reasons for a soldier to fight you think it has to do with something the politicians wrote, rather than the 25 reasons they say.

Most of those evil white southerners probably didn’t have the means to support themselves as well as were the slaves cared for.

[larrytown]

Plain truth, that inevitably flushes out the neo-confederates that have been instilled with post-war redemptive propaganda.

[ought-six]

Historical facts in a nutshell.

[ought-six]

“Plain truth, that inevitably flushes out the neo-confederates that have been instilled with post-war redemptive propaganda.”

You do know, I assume, that there were slave states that didn’t secede, right?

In any event, here is the casus belli in a nutshell:

The Southern states’ economy was agriculturally based, with its major crops being cotton, tobacco, sugar, and rice. Its biggest trading partner was Europe. The Southern states exported their crops to Europe, and in return imported manufactured goods (especially from England). In 1828 a developing American manufacturing interest (located almost exclusively in the Northern states) sought protection from its competitors in Europe and the oppressive Tariff of Abominations was passed in 1828. (A tariff is, I’m sure you know, a tax on imported goods.) That tariff was passed by Northern congressmen, since the North dominated Congress due to its higher population. That tariff was followed by the tariff of 1832, and sectional animosity began to rise.

The federal treasury got 90% of its revenues from tariffs. Since the Northern states imported very little, the tariffs fell almost exclusively on the Southern states. The tariffs protected Northern manufacturing interests but raised the cost of everyday living in the South, and of course adversely affected the South’s commerce with its European trading partners.

More than 70% of the revenues generated by these tariffs were spent up North for public works and infrastructure (including subsidizing industrial works and railroads: The North had an extensive railroad apparatus, where the South had very few track miles in comparison).

Then, in the late 1850s, Congress began to debate the creation of what was known as the Morrill Tariff. The Morrill Tariff called for raising the tariff rate from 15% to 37%, to be increased to almost 50% within three years. Almost 90% of the Northern congressman favored it, and 90% of the Southern congressman opposed it. Abe Lincoln, in campaigning for the presidency, supported the Morrill Tariff and vowed to sign it if he were elected president. The Morrill Tariff would have been disastrous to Southern economic interests. Since it was obvious that a new Lincoln Administration would sign the Morrill Tariff Act as soon as he took office (and he did, signing it early in 1861 upon taking office), Southern states began to secede, beginning with South Carolina in December, 1860.

To get a flavor of the cause of the Civil War from dispassionate and neutral sources, one can simply read the European accounts of the conflict, both contemporary and historical. Even Karl Marx (who had no love at all for the Confederacy), called the Civil War a “tariff war.” European writers said that staying in the Union would cost the South millions, but the Southern states leaving the Union would cost the North millions.

So, how did the North finance the Civil War since it lost its tariff revenues? Initially, it borrowed the money. Then, it passed the Revenue Act of 1862 which raised taxes and initiated the first federal income tax. It also created what would become the Internal Revenue Service.

[jmacusa]

To hell they didn’t fight to protect slavery.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

Reminds me of the opening of the movie Little Big Man, except that this is real.

[shoff]

ping

[x]

Yes, the Southern accent changed after the war. Virginians and others wanted to sound more “Southern” than they had before.

[Pelham]

Well Lincoln said the war was about “preserving the Union” but what would he know.

[wgmalabama]

I knew you would show up to tell this man what he was fighting for. Such wise and all knowing insight you have on this particular soldier.

[Zuriel]

Remembering what I had for supper the night before may take some thinking, but the not so routine things stick pretty good.

I remember the time I first was left unsupervised to rake oat straw in a 34 acre field, with a John Deere 730 diesel. I thought I was big stuff at 7 years old (61 years ago).

[larrytown]

Pretty lite stuff.

[ought-six]

“Pretty lite stuff.”

Well, I wanted to keep it brief and easily comprehensible. That you understood it (and I am assuming you did) means I was successful.

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

That’s interesting.

My grandmother went to “finishing school” to sound more “genteel” with elocution lessons.

[larrytown]

Excuse me, I wasn’t clear then.

Lightweight history at best.

[ought-six]

“Lightweight history at best.”

It’s either history or it isn’t. It’s either factual or it isn’t. It’s either supportable or it isn’t.

Whether history is “lightweight” or “heavyweight” or some level of “welterweight” is almost immaterial. What is “heavyweight” to one can be “lightweight” to another.

[BroJoeK]

larrytown on ought-six post #26: "“Lightweight history at best.”

ought-six: "It’s either history or it isn’t.
It’s either factual or it isn’t.
It’s either supportable or it isn’t."

It isn't, none of it is true, it's all lies:

ought-six to larrytown: "You do know, I assume, that there were slave states that didn’t secede, right?"

In 1860 and 1861 the eagerness of Southern states to secede was directly proportional to the percentage of slaves and slaveholders in their populations.

1. Those seven slave states with 1/3 to 1/2 slave populations seceded immediately, before the Battle of Fort Sumter.
   
2. Those four slave states with 1/4 to 1/3 slave populations refused to secede before Fort Sumter, but did secede soon after.
   
3. Those four slave states with less than 1/4 slave populations refused to secede even after Fort Sumter, though the Confederacy claimed & invaded two of them regardless, Kentucky & Missouri.

So the numbers of slaves & slaveholders in a state directly correlated to the state's eagerness to secede.

ought-six: "The Southern states’ economy was agriculturally based, with its major crops being cotton, tobacco, sugar, and rice.
Its biggest trading partner was Europe.
The Southern states exported their crops to Europe, and in return imported manufactured goods (especially from England)."

Totally false -- first of all, there was lots of manufacturing in Southern states, so much that many Southerners supported protective tariffs, most notably President Jackson from Tennessee and Senator Henry Clay from Kentucky.
Centers of Southern manufacturing included Baltimore, Maryland (railroad equipment, cotton mills, iron works), Richmond, Virginia (Tredegar Iron Works), Nashville, Tennessee (Cumberland Iron Works) and New Orleans, Louisiana (consumer goods including bakers, butchers, clothiers, shoemakers, furniture makers, silversmiths, tobacconists, lithographers, daguerreotypists, printers, and bookbinders).

Second, Southern states imported virtually nothing directly from Europe.
Instead, about 90% of Southern "imports" were manufactured & agricultural products from Northern, Eastern & Western United States, not Europe.
We know this for certain because less than 10% of total Federal tariff revenues came from Southern ports.
And the vast majority of imports to Northern ports were raw materials used in manufacturing.
Of those, only half came from Europe, the rest from Central America, South American and China.

ought-six: "In 1828 a developing American manufacturing interest (located almost exclusively in the Northern states) sought protection from its competitors in Europe and the oppressive Tariff of Abominations was passed in 1828.
(A tariff is, I’m sure you know, a tax on imported goods.)
That tariff was passed by Northern congressmen, since the North dominated Congress due to its higher population.
That tariff was followed by the tariff of 1832, and sectional animosity began to rise."

No, Protective Tariffs did not begin in 1828, they began in the First Congress, introduced by Congressman James Madison in 1789 and signed by President Washington.
Like every tariff after it, the Tariff of 1789 was intended to both raise revenues for Federal government and protect American manufacturing.

In fact, in voting to pass the 1828 "Tariff of Abominations" there were proportionately as many Southerners who voted for the Tariff as there were New Englanders who voted against it.
Among Southerners who originally supported the 1828 Tariff was none other than VP & SC Senator Calhoun, though he later flipped sides.

As for "sectional rivalry" what happened in 1830 was South Carolina's threatened secession was put down by President Andrew Jackson from Tennessee.
It was not about North vs. South.

House Vote on Tariff of 1828

Regional States	For	Against
New England (Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine)	16	21
Middele States (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware)	56	6
"Western" Free States (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois)	16	0
"Western" Border Slave States (Missouri, Kentucky)	13	1
South (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana,North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland)	4	64
Free States	88	29
Slave States	17	65

ought-six: "The federal treasury got 90% of its revenues from tariffs.
Since the Northern states imported very little, the tariffs fell almost exclusively on the Southern states. "

You have it backwards -- ~93% of Federal tariff revenues were collected in Northern, not Southern, ports.
And ~90% of Southern "imports" came from "the North".

ought-six: "The tariffs protected Northern manufacturing interests but raised the cost of everyday living in the South, and of course adversely affected the South’s commerce with its European trading partners."

US tariffs protected all US manufacturing, North, East, West and South.
For examples, US tariffs protected Southern cotton, sugar and hemp production.
Tariffs did not prevent Southerners from exporting as much of their production as they wished.

ought-six: "More than 70% of the revenues generated by these tariffs were spent up North for public works and infrastructure (including subsidizing industrial works and railroads..."

That 70% is a total 100% lie based on distorting the definition of "up North".
It's only potentially true if by "up North" you mean everywhere North of South Carolina!
But, if we define "the South" as all 15 slave-states, then Federal spending from 1790 through 1860 was roughly equal, North vs. South.
Federals spent $2 million more on Southern fortifications and lighthouses, $2 million more on Northern infrastructure.
All told, Southern slave-states received $2 million more in Federal expenditures than free-states.

ought-six: "The North had an extensive railroad apparatus, where the South had very few track miles in comparison)."

No, overall, Confederates claimed about 1/3 of US territory, with 1/3 of the US population and 1/3 of US railroad miles in 1860.
The Federal government supported railroad construction in the South the same way it did in other regions.
Yes, Southern railroads were less integrated into the larger network of lines

ought-six: "Then, in the late 1850s, Congress began to debate the creation of what was known as the Morrill Tariff.
The Morrill Tariff called for raising the tariff rate from 15% to 37%, to be increased to almost 50% within three years. "

Wrong yet again.
In fact, from 1830 on, tariffs were gradually reduced by Democrat controlled Congresses, such that by 1860 they were historically low and the National Debt had doubled in just a few years.
The original Morrill Tariff proposal simply returned tariff rates to those of the 1846 Walker Tariff, which had been supported by Southern Democrats in Congress and signed by Democrat President Polk, from Tennessee.
In 1860 the Morrill Tariff was defeated by Democrats in Congress, and only passed after secession state representatives left Congress.

None of the first "Reasons for Secession" documents mentioned the Morrill Tariff.
All of them used slavery as a key reason.

ought-six: "The Morrill Tariff would have been disastrous to Southern economic interests.
Since it was obvious that a new Lincoln Administration would sign the Morrill Tariff Act as soon as he took office (and he did, signing it early in 1861 upon taking office), Southern states began to secede, beginning with South Carolina in December, 1860."

And yet... and yet... neither South Carolina nor any other seceding state mentioned the Morrill Tariff in their Reasons for Secession documents.
They did all mention slavery, at great length.

ought-six: "Even Karl Marx (who had no love at all for the Confederacy), called the Civil War a “tariff war.”
European writers said that staying in the Union would cost the South millions, but the Southern states leaving the Union would cost the North millions."

You may not realize it, but Marx was a Marxist!
Marxists, by definition, consider economic interests the root cause of everything, regardless of what people themselves may say.
Further, we can be certain that Marx also understood the importance of slavery & abolition to both sides.

ought-six: "So, how did the North finance the Civil War since it lost its tariff revenues?
Initially, it borrowed the money.
Then, it passed the Revenue Act of 1862 which raised taxes and initiated the first federal income tax.
It also created what would become the Internal Revenue Service."

And yet more lies!
In fact, the Union never lost its tariff revenues, because less than 10% of tariff revenues came from Southern ports.
Those Union ports became increasingly busy with imports as the war progressed, such that by 1864 tariff revenues had more than doubled, from $53 million in 1860 to $102 million in 1864.

During the Civil War the national debt increased from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865.
That was about 30% of US GDP and it took until 1890 to reduce the debt to 10% of GDP.

[Bull Snipe]

“first of all, there was lots of manufacturing in Southern states”

That was not really the case. According to the 1860 Census

Manufacturing Investment, North $892 million, South $113 million

Manufacturing operations, North 110,000, South 18,000

Manufacturing workers, North 1.3 million, South 110,000; this included slaves working in Southern manufacturing operations.