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.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six to rockrr: "And, do you think the term “lost cause” originated with Pollard?
The term is ancient, and has been applied throughout history.
But, only someone with an anti-South bias would claim it originated with Pollard."

Pollard's 1866 book was titled, "The Lost Cause" and in it he laid out arguments that pro-Confederates defend to this day, including, it seems, ought-six.

[Pelham]

James Buchanan predicted the Civil War in his 1859 State of the Union message to Congress, and more than that he stated who it was that wanted a war and what their motive would be.

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/third-annual-message-congress-the-state-the-union

“Whilst it is the duty of the President “from time to time to give to Congress information of the state of the Union,” I shall not refer in detail to the recent sad and bloody occurrences at Harpers Ferry. Still, it is proper to observe that these events, however bad and cruel in themselves, derive their chief importance from the apprehension that they are but symptoms of an incurable disease in the public mind, which may break out in still more dangerous outrages and terminate at last in an open war by the North to abolish slavery in the South.”

[rockrr]

I don’t remember you - at all.

Perhaps it is for the best.

[jmacusa]

Well look who crawled out from under a rock.

[x]

"Maryland" makes it hard to find out anything about "Mayland" on the internet. But here's a reference to Winston County Alabama, and the plan for a pro-Union state in the Appalachians. The website says there's more in the guy's book, Lost States: True Stories of Texlahoma, Transylvania, and Other States That Never Made It. Maybe there's not actually that much more there, but it does sound like an interesting read anyway.

[ought-six]

So, you appear to be of the camp that holds that the term ‘lost cause’ “...first appeared in the title of an 1866 book by...Pollard.”

That would be news to many, including the Catholic Church, which recognized the Apostle St. Jude as the patron saint of lost causes; which, of course, pre-dates Pollard.

It’s always fun reading your posts —and I have over the years — because they show how shallow you are: You have no original thoughts whatsoever; all you do is cut-and-paste from others. You are wholly incapable of developing any independent thought or argument; you rely solely on others — even if those others have been shown to be biased or wrong.

Another thing I’ve noticed, is that prior to the Gallagher/Nolan book that came out about twenty years ago there was very little mention of a “lost cause” hagiography. Why? Perhaps one can look at the editors, especially Nolan. Nolan was an obscure historian and left-wing activist who founded the ICLU (Indiana’s version of the ACLU). He was very anti-South. For instance, even though Robert E. Lee’s contemporaries in the North, including many whom he had fought against; and many historians writing on the War over the years had praised the man, and extolled his sense of honor and virtue; Nolan pretty much said they were all wrong! An obscure nobody passing judgment on those who were in a position to know, first-hand, who Lee was; this mountebank Nolan claims credibility? And, what’s even sadder, he has ardent followers among the anti-South ranks.

I’m going to give you a link to an essay about Nolan and his book. It is not “cut-and-paste,” as you habitually rely upon. Rather, it is a critique to Nolan’s work. It will take you maybe five minutes to read.

Here it is:

https:// www.abbevilleinstitute.org/nolans-myth-of-the-lost-cause/

[ought-six]

“I don’t remember you - at all.”

Likely because you couldn’t compete.

[rockrr]

Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com. Reprinted by permission.

Snicker

[gitmo]

I have a book at home that chronicles Maryland. I think I know where it is. I’ll send you the title.

[ought-six]

Yeah, the Rockwell organization owned the copyright. So what? He is an anti-war libertarian, as is Ron Paul. He distrusts the federal government. He is pro-market. For instance, the organization has published articles praising Thomas Sowell.

Since you snicker at who owns the copyright to the essay, perhaps you are opposed to the organization’s platform, and are thus pro-war and trustful of the federal government. Are you?

In any event, here is a list of authors who have written articles or essays for LewRockwell.com. Do you snicker at all of them, as well? I assume you must, since you snicker at the organization that published them. I, personally, don’t like some of them; but I don’t condemn the whole on account of a few.

So, which is it? Do you just disagree with the critique put forth by the author of this essay alone; or do you disagree with the entire organization and its columnists?

[ought-six]

Yeah, the Rockwell organization owned the copyright. So what? He is an anti-war libertarian, as is Ron Paul. He distrusts the federal government. He is pro-market. For instance, the organization has published articles praising Thomas Sowell.

Since you snicker at who owns the copyright to the essay, perhaps you are opposed to the organization’s platform, and are thus pro-war and trustful of the federal government. Are you?

In any event, here is a list of authors who have written articles or essays for LewRockwell.com. Do you snicker at all of them, as well? I assume you must, since you snicker at the organization that published them. I, personally, don’t like some of them; but I don’t condemn the whole on account of a few.

https://lewrockwell.com/columnists

So, which is it? Do you just disagree with the critique put forth by the author of this essay alone; or do you disagree with the entire organization and its columnists?

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "So, you appear to be of the camp that holds that the term ‘lost cause’ “...first appeared in the title of an 1866 book by...Pollard.”

That would be news to many, including the Catholic Church, which recognized the Apostle St. Jude as the patron saint of lost causes; which, of course, pre-dates Pollard."

So, what exactly is your problem here?
Are you somehow confused, that the words "Lost Cause" on a Free Republic Civil War thread might refer to the martyred apostle St. Jude, and not to the anti-historical beliefs first spelled out by Edward Pollard in 1866?
Are you trying to tell us that instead of posting the words "Lost Cause" we must at some point say, "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" to avoid further confusing you?

Really, on a Free Republic Civil War thread, you're confused about the term "Lost Cause"?

I don't believe it.

ought-six: "It’s always fun reading your posts —and I have over the years — because they show how shallow you are: You have no original thoughts whatsoever; all you do is cut-and-paste from others.
You are wholly incapable of developing any independent thought or argument; you rely solely on others — even if those others have been shown to be biased or wrong."

Hmmm... where have I seen such words before? Is it on the homepage of another Lost Causer?
Did you cut & paste those words from someone else's postings?

ought-six: "Another thing I’ve noticed, is that prior to the Gallagher/Nolan book that came out about twenty years ago there was very little mention of a “lost cause” hagiography. Why? "

"lost cause" hagiography?
Where did you cut & paste that term from?
Are you a hagiographer?
Which Confederate "saints" do you most worship?

ought-six: "Nolan was an obscure historian and left-wing activist who founded the ICLU (Indiana’s version of the ACLU). He was very anti-South."

And I should care about this Nolan, why exactly?

ought-six: "I’m going to give you a link to an essay about Nolan and his book. It is not “cut-and-paste,” as you habitually rely upon.
Rather, it is a critique to Nolan’s work.
It will take you maybe five minutes to read."

And I should care about a Lost Causer attacking an anti-hagiographer for dissing on RE Lee, why exactly?

[BroJoeK]

Pelham quoting Buchanan: "Still, it is proper to observe that these events, however bad and cruel in themselves, derive their chief importance from the apprehension that they are but symptoms of an incurable disease in the public mind, which may break out in still more dangerous outrages and terminate at last in an open war by the North to abolish slavery in the South."

Northern Doughface Democrat Pennsylvanian, President James Buchanan was something of an odd bird -- 100% sympathetic to the South, Buchanan helped engineer the 1857 SCOTUS Dred Scott ruling, and did nothing to prevent or oppose Deep South secessions.
Yet, after Fort Sumter Buchanan became a reliable "War Democrat".

In this particular 1859 quote Buchanan makes the point that if civil war comes, it will be over slavery, not some other tangential political disagreements.

And of course, I agree with that.

[jmacusa]

The unvarnished truth. Try telling that to the Confederates in the attic and the “Lost Causers’’ here.

Man do you want to see some (pseudo) intellectual and verbal gymnastics to avoid the plain truth.

[jmacusa]

The unvarnished truth. Try telling that to the Confederates in the attic and the “Lost Causers’’ here.

Man do you want to see some (pseudo) intellectual and verbal gymnastics to avoid the plain truth.

[ought-six]

“Those crude words well describe your posts here.”

Oh, stop with the faux outrage. When it comes to crudeness, some of your compatriots would make even the most dissolute dockworker blush.

“So, what exactly is your problem here? Are you somehow confused, that the words “Lost Cause” on a Free Republic Civil War thread might refer to the martyred apostle St. Jude, and not to the anti-historical beliefs first spelled out by Edward Pollard in 1866? Are you trying to tell us that instead of posting the words “Lost Cause” we must at some point say, “Lost Cause of the Confederacy” to avoid further confusing you?”

Nice try, son. I was responding to YOUR post #61, wherein you said: “The term “Lost Cause” first appeared in the title of an 1866 book by the Virginian author and journalist Edward A. Pollard, The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates.[23]”

That is clearly NOT true. The term far pre-dated Pollard. Hence, I mentioned St. Jude, who was an Apostle, was known as the patron saint of lost causes. How can the term have originated with Pollard and his book, yet for many generations prior to Pollard St. Jude was known as the patron saint of lost causes?

I read Pollard’s book many years ago. It was primarily a history of the war itself, particularly from a military standpoint (my recollection is he dealt with the military battles more than anything else). He did address the issue of states’ rights. His argument in that regard was the prevailing one in the South before, during, and after the war. It is not a “neo-Confederate” viewpoint, as so many disparagers claim. It is the “paleo-Confederate” viewpoint. Hell, Pollard’s position was even understood by many in the North. When war between the USA and the CSA broke out in 1861 the prevailing belief in the North was that the war was being fought to preserve the union; they would have been appalled to hear that the war was being fought to end slavery (and they would not have supported a war based on such a claim had they been told that was the reason for war). The South saw it as a war for states’ rights and independence.
The position that the war was fought over slavery is a simplistic and disingenuous rationale by Northern victors to put a moral cloak over the carnage. Even Lincoln made no such claim.

The prevailing reason the southern states seceded is because they felt they had no choice. Remember, The Democrats dominated Congress prior to 1860 (most Democrats were in the Southern states). In the mid-term election of 1858 Northern Democrats aligned with the Whigs in the fledgling Republican Party, which supported the railroads (most of which were in the north), the gold standard, the national bank (as opposed to the existing state banking system), and high tariffs. None of which were in the South’s interests. In the 36th Congress the Democrats lost the House and a Republican-led coalition took over (March 1859 – March 1861). In March, 1859 the Senate had a slim Democrat majority of 34 to 32, but 10 of those Democrats were not from the South, and were more receptive toward a coalition with the Republicans. Thus, the Southern Democrats and the states they served were not only in the minority, they were left with little influence. The writing was on the wall.

Then, for the South, disaster struck: In the 1860 election Republicans won the presidency (Lincoln). They already had the House, and were on the cusp of controlling the Senate. To the Southern states, this was a death blow to their future. They found themselves totally at the mercy of the more populous Northern states with their Republican and Republican-led coalition majorities. The Southern states could only wait for the inevitable, and either bear the agony of the loss of their economy through tariffs and boycotts and government-initiated restrictions, or get the hell out. They chose the latter. As they saw it, they had no choice.

That, my friend, is what states’ rights was all about. EVERYTHING a state decided was in its best interests was — and still is — a state’s right.

You have to remember that in the mid-19th century one identified more with one’s state than one identified with the nation in general. That is not surprising, because back then the country was more provincial, more regional; nationalism was an abstract that many didn’t understand or recognize or care a whit about.

It’s easy for someone to judge them by the standards of the 21st century, and find fault with them. Just as those living in the mid-19th century would be appalled with the people today, and would be disgusted with our laws and mores and customs and institutions, and judge us harshly.

[BroJoeK]

ought-six: "Oh, stop with the faux outrage.
When it comes to crudeness, some of your compatriots would make even the most dissolute dockworker blush."

Naw... I'm not "outraged", far from it, I simply point out the fact that your crude words, "bull crap", best describe your own posts here.

ought-six: "Nice try, son. I was responding to YOUR post #61, wherein you said: “The term “Lost Cause” first appeared in the title of an 1866 book by the Virginian author and journalist Edward A. Pollard, The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates.[23]”
That is clearly NOT true.
The term far pre-dated Pollard.
Hence, I mentioned St. Jude, who was an Apostle, was known as the patron saint of lost causes."

So, you're blowing smoke to confuse the issue, since smoke is all you can do.
The fact remains, regardless of your fogging, the term "Lost Cause", so far as we know, was first applied to the US Civil War by Virginian Edward Pollard's 1866 book titled "The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates.".
So the term "Lost Cause" was applied by Confederates to their fellow Confederates long before anybody north of the Mason-Dixon line picked up on it.

ought-six: "His argument in that regard was the prevailing one in the South before, during, and after the war.
It is not a “neo-Confederate” viewpoint, as so many disparagers claim. "

Pollard was an actual Confederate, nothing "neo" about him.

ought-six: "It is the “paleo-Confederate” viewpoint. "

No, not really, because by a reasonable definition, "paleo-Confederate" would refer to, for example, Alexander Stephens in his "Cornerstone Speech", but not in his post-war Lost Cause opinions.

ought-six: "When war between the USA and the CSA broke out in 1861 the prevailing belief in the North was that the war was being fought to preserve the union; they would have been appalled to hear that the war was being fought to end slavery (and they would not have supported a war based on such a claim had they been told that was the reason for war). "

Well... Southern Democrat Fire Eaters made very clear why they declared secession in 1860 & early 1861, and the number one reason was slavery -- note my chart in post #43 above.

Civil War started, of course, at Fort Sumter and at first had nothing to do with slavery.
Republicans were at pains to reassure slaveholders in Border States that their slaves were not at risk.
However, from the beginning, many Republican leaders understood that Confederates could never be entirely defeated unless slavery was also destroyed, and so from the beginning Confederates' slaves were classified and freed as "Contraband of War".
Throughout the war Union efforts to free Confederate slaves grew stronger, most notably in Lincoln's 1862 Emancipation Proclamation.

By war's end Julia Ward Howe's 1861 song, "Battle Hymn of the Republic" was often sung by Union soldiers.
So, yes, Virginia, they did fight to free the slaves.

ought-six: "The Southern states could only wait for the inevitable, and either bear the agony of the loss of their economy through tariffs and boycotts and government-initiated restrictions, or get the hell out.
They chose the latter.
As they saw it, they had no choice.
That, my friend, is what states’ rights was all about.
EVERYTHING a state decided was in its best interests was — and still is — a state’s right."

Most of what you posted here is pure nonsense, and here's how you know that:

1. In 1856 Republicans nominated abolitionist John Fremont (from Georgia) for President and Southern Democrat Fire Eaters threatened secession if Fremont won -- why?
   Was it because of high tariffs? No, Republicans said nothing about tariffs in 1856.
   Was it because of a gold standard? No, not an issue.
   Was it because of the national bank? No, not an issue.
   Was it because of railroads? Well, the 1856 Republican party platform called for "a railroad to the Pacific Ocean by the most central and practicable route...". It did not specify where that route might run, so clearly that was a matter for reasonable negotiations.

   No, there was only one reason for Southern Democrat Fire Eaters to threaten secession in 1856, and that was because of Republican Fremont's abolitionism.

   In 1856 Southern & Northern Democrats united to defeat Fremont (from Georgia) and elect pro-Southern Doughface Pennsylvanian James Buchanan President. So, no secession in 1856.

2. In 1860 Southern Democrats again threatened secession if Republican Abraham Lincoln was elected President.
   Was it because of high tariffs? No, there was no mention of tariffs in any early "Reasons for Secession" document.
   Was it because of a gold standard? No, not an issue.
   Was it because of the national bank? No, not an issue.
   Was it because of railroads? No, Southern Democrats also supported Federal aid to railroad construction, the only real issue was which route to California was best.

   No, there was only one real reason for Southern Democrat Fire Eaters to threaten secession in 1860, and that was their fears of Republican Lincoln's anti-slavery opinions.

ought-six: "Then, for the South, disaster struck: In the 1860 election Republicans won the presidency (Lincoln)."

It's important to remember that this "disaster" was entirely engineered by Southern Democrat Fire Eaters!
Unlike 1856, in 1860 Democrat Fire Eaters refused to unite behind their party's leaders to win the White House and Congress.
Instead, Fire Eaters split their Democrat party to guarantee Republican victory, and then used Lincoln's anti-slavery opinions as their excuse to declare secession.

ought-six: "It’s easy for someone to judge them by the standards of the 21st century, and find fault with them.
Just as those living in the mid-19th century would be appalled with the people today, and would be disgusted with our laws and mores and customs and institutions, and judge us harshly."

Our job is not so much to "find fault" as it is to understand the actual facts and reasons for historical events.
Slavery was the root cause of secession in 1860 and abolition was the final result of Union victory in 1865.
Beginning in 1861 Union troops marching to battle sometimes sang a new Battle Hymn of the Republic, including these lines:

"In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me.
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,[15]
While God is marching on."

So, yes, Virginia, it was all about slavery.

[jmacusa]

Masterful response Joe. It was indeed all about slavery and no twists and turns, verbal and (pseudo ) intellectual gymnastics and rancorous revisionism on the part of “The Causers’’ will ever change that.

Your patient deconstruction of the other sides arguments are
enlightening for me. I've asked some times often in the past of the Confederates of FR a simple question:If the South had won the war would it have freed the salves.

Most ignore the question. in fact all but one, “Diogenes Lamp’;’ who has they the CSA would ‘’most certainly would at some point''. Then what would have been the whole point of secession and the war?

[jmacusa]

Typo. Meant to say ‘’would the South have freed the slaves’’.

[BroJoeK]

jmacusa: "I've asked some times... If the South had won the war would it have freed the salves?
Most ignore the question. in fact all but one, “Diogenes Lamp’;’ who has they the CSA would ‘’most certainly would at some point''."

Many pro-Confederate posters on Free Republic have claimed that in 1860 slavery was a dying institution.
And we might even grant some truth to that, if we only consider the status of slavery in Border Slave States of Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & Missouri.
All refused to secede even after Fort Sumter, thus suggesting the "slave power" in those Border States had waned to minority status, and so was potentially subject to internal abolitionists.

But nothing in the original seven Deep Cotton South Confederate states (SC, MS, FL, AL, GA, LA & TX) suggests a waning of the slavery's "way of life" or political power.
In all of the Deep Cotton South, by 1860 slavery was at its peak of prosperity and political power, and no Confederate was willing to entertain abolitionism.
We can see this in the Confederate Richmond government's consistent rejection of all suggestions that some slaves be offered freedom in exchange for their service in the Confederate army.
Only in 1865, in the war's final days, were a small number of Confederate slaves offered freedom for service -- far too little and too late to make any difference.

But after the war many former Confederates began claiming, not only that slavery was "no big deal", but also that slavery was a dying institution in 1860.
Lost Cause creator, Edward Pollard was one of them:

"Pollard wrote several books.
In 1859, he advocated reopening the slave trade in Black Diamonds Gathered in the Darkey Homes of the South.[7] [1]
He also rejected ideas that slavery improved the slaves and that slavery should gradually fade away.[8]
Unlike his most prominent uncles, William C. and Alexander Rives, Pollard strongly favored secession and during the civil war continued to write about slave society and Union depredations.
After Union forces occupied Richmond in 1865, Pollard was arrested for continuing to publish pro-Confederate and pro-slavery writings, and he decried emancipation as the North's ultimate war crime..."

[After the war] "...Pollard's opinions continued to change.
By the early 1870s, Pollard wrote in favor of northern capitalism and thrift, limited civil rights legislation, and black suffrage.
He supported segregation, but opposed the Ku Klux Klan, and shortly before his death [1872 age 40] wrote that by 1860, slavery had 'completed its historic mission and its continuance would have been an inexcusable oppression.'[16]"

Many other Confederates followed Pollard's path, including Georgia Congressman, Governor and Confederate VP, Alexander Stephens, "Cornerstone Speech" author in 1861:

"He [Alexander Stephens] published a U.S. history in 1868–1870, laying out the Lost Cause of the Confederacy in his view: that secession was legal, and the attacks from the North aggression.
The thrust of his legal argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the 1869 case Texas vs. White, ruling secession to be unconstitutional."