Confederate Veteran John Mosby Knew the Lost Cause Was Bull

War is Boring ^ | May 1, 2017 | Kevin Knodell

[DiogenesLamp]

I must be crazy because you and I actually agree on something. That without the southern rebellion slavery would have lasted for much longer. And yes I am probably being generous with it ending in the late 1800s or early 1900s, it might have lasted until now.

They invented a cotton harvester in 1850. It didn't go anywhere. Various reasons are given for why it didn't go anywhere, but among them was the notion that slaves represented a social status. It meant you were "wealthy." They didn't want machines to replace slaves, because the slaves to them represented a status symbol of sorts.

I think slavery would have continued into the 20th Century, but I think the moral opprobrium against it would continue to grow, and I think the mechanical replacements would eventually make it unprofitable, and it's "status symbol" would eventually diminish.

I guestimate that it would have lasted an additional 40-80 years longer, but I think it would have eventually ceased.

You have been told this Ad Nauseam, that the Republicans of 1860 wished to limit slavery to the states where it already existed and that this was intolerable as far as the south was concerned.

The "Republicans" were made up of the people with moral objections to it, and the business coalition that didn't want more power to go to the Southern State coalition. Kinda like the "Social Conservatives" and the "Chamber of Commerce Business Republicans" today.

The South's argument for extending it into the territories was that there was no constitutional basis for banning it there, (and there wasn't) and many of them felt that if states would enter the Union as slave states, they would vote along with the Southern coalition to advance their interests.

A large component of both groups wanted those states to join as their allies against the other side. Also the Southerners objected to it because a ban on slavery in the territories or new states reinforces the claim that it is immoral, and by association, so were they.

Nobody wants other people to regard them as "immoral" even when they are.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don't see a "choice" in that order and obviously neither did Beauregard.

The word "if" doesn't give you a choice?

The "Agent" had informed Beauregard that a Union fleet was sailing at them with orders to attack them.

Beauregard could have abstained from firing on the Fort if he didn't believe the man. The problem was, the orders sent by the navy for all those men and ships said exactly that.

No rational man would have believed that all those ships given that order would refrain from obeying it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I was actually thinking "Ode to Joy" when I wrote that comment."

Well... Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" using Friedrich Schiller's poem is actually more pagan than seriously religious:

"Joy, beautiful spark of the gods,
Daughter from Elysium,
We enter, drunk with fire,
Heavenly One, thy sanctuary!
Your magic joins again
What convention strictly divides;*
All people become brothers,*
Where your gentle wing abides.."

So I much prefer the American adaptation, which we sometimes still sing in church today:

"Joyful, joyful, we adore Thee, God of glory, Lord of love;
Hearts unfold like flowers before Thee, opening to the sun above.
Melt the clouds of sin and sadness; drive the dark of doubt away;
Giver of immortal gladness, fill us with the light of day!...

"Thou art giving and forgiving, ever blessing, ever blessed,
Wellspring of the joy of living, ocean depth of happy rest!
Thou our Father, Christ our Brother, all who live in love are Thine;
Teach us how to love each other, lift us to the joy divine."

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is as short & sweet.

[DiogenesLamp]

War only began, at Fort Sumter, when Confederates demanded its surrender and assaulted Union garrison after their commander refused.

There would have been no assualt had Lincoln not sent that War Fleet. It was that war fleet with orders to attack that started the war. Anderson himself said as much.

I have also recently read something that said Anderson was about to surrender. It said he penned a surrender statement. I think I still have it on one of my open tabs somewhere. If that war fleet had stayed away for a few more days, Anderson would have surrendered the Fort without a shot having been fired.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well... Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" using Friedrich Schiller's poem is actually more pagan than seriously religious:

But the sentiment of it is that all men are brothers, which I regard as the core principle of Christianity.

Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

[DiogenesLamp]

You millions, I embrace you.
This kiss is for all the world !
Brothers, above the starry canopy
There must dwell a loving Father.
Do you fall in worship, you millions ?
World, do you know your Creator ?
Seek Him in the heavens !
Above the stars must He dwell

Very Christian if you ask me.

[jeffersondem]

Recent posts by you have, apparently, been for the purpose of distraction but are none-the-less instructive.

You stated bluntly: “chivvied”? Who uses words like that? Not Americans, ever.”

It turns our John Wayne, the iconic American hero figure, used it to communicate clearly with millions of other Americans in his audience.

That prompted you to shift to a new line: “I'm not a huge John Wayne fan and never heard him or anybody else use words like “chivvied”, “homestall” or “tally book”.

First, “Not Americans, ever”; then it was you personally “never heard him.” In your world view, if you don't know about it, or when you choose willful ignorance, then it has never happened and can't be considered by others.

This hole you dug is just about a vocabulary word but it provides an insight into how you ignore hard evidence concerning historical matters and then end up on the wrong side of the debate. Over and over and over.

Too bad. You could be an asset to this board if you would take your blinkers off.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The word "if" doesn't give you a choice? "

Clearly both Davis & Beauregard believed what they believed, regardless of Lincoln's words.
So there was no actual choice.

DiogenesLamp: "The problem was, the orders sent by the navy for all those men and ships said exactly that."

But Lincoln's final orders, as we have reviewed before, said exactly what he told SC Governor Pickens -- no use of force or reinforcement if no Confederate resistance.

So clearly Jefferson Davis' use of "if you have no doubt" roughly corresponds to RE Lee's use of "if practicable" in his Gettysburg orders to Second Corps commander Ewell about Culp's Hill.
Ewell decided it was not "practicable" and so lost the whole battle for Lee, while Beauregard decided he had no doubt and won the battle which started the war that destroyed the Confederacy.

Such "ifs" were just the way Southern gentlemen addressed each other in those days.

[jeffersondem]

“Nobody but nobody uses such terms (tally book) today.

Nobody but the people that manufacture them. And distribute them. And retail them. And purchase them.

You should really get off the campus more often.

http://tallybook.com/

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "First, 'Not Americans, ever'; then it was you personally 'never heard him.'
In your world view, if you don't know about it, or when you choose willful ignorance, then it has never happened and can't be considered by others."

Sure, if I were born yesterday and never traveled more than 50 miles from Podunk, then you'd have a good point.
But such is far from the case, and your argument here is most curious coming from somebody who refuses to admit, or deny, that your national origin is other than normal American.

[HandyDandy]

“Blinkers”? Sod off, mate.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Nobody but the people that manufacture them.
And distribute them.
And retail them.
And purchase them."

A niche market perhaps.
So I'll take it as your clue to us, your background is very small business indeed?

[HandyDandy]

I have also recently read something that said Anderson was about to surrender. It said he penned a surrender statement. I think I still have it on one of my open tabs somewhere. If that war fleet had stayed away for a few more days, Anderson would have surrendered the Fort without a shot having been fired.

Don't knock yourself out looking for any "penned surrender statement" by Major Anderson. I'm sure it was only a daydream you had. Major Anderson had sent Beauregard a letter saying he would evacuate on April 15th if he didn't hear anything countermanding that from his Government. I am certain that is what you are referring to. The Government in Montgomery didn't go for that idea. Please pay particular attention to the use of the words "evacuate" and "surrender". There is no way in a million years that Major Anderson would have surrendered without a fight, short of starving to death. But I'll look forward to you producing the "penned surrender statement".

[jeffersondem]

“The manufacturer in Britain probably did end up paying the cost of the shipping, but not everything he paid ended up in the cotton planter's pocket, even apart from the money for shippers and insurance companies.”

Right. That's the way I think about it. Even when the seller on ebay announces “free shipping” I don't believe it. It is my understanding the seller builds the shipping cost into the price of the product and the consumer pays for it.

When I read your earlier post (“Learn a little economics. Cotton planters spent the money they “earned” to buy things and to send their cotton to market.”) I began to wonder if there was a new economic model to learn - one where producers continuously make and deliver products without recovering their costs.

[jeffersondem]

“Nobody but nobody uses such terms (tally book) today.”

Still, I was a little surprised you would make such an obvious mistake and not set the record straight when given the opportunity.

[jeffersondem]

“But such constitutional amendments (i.e., 13th, 14th & 15th) could never be ratified so long as the Slave Power remained in charge.”

That will lead some to charge northern powers did actually start the war on the pretext of “preserving the union” so they could use bullets and bayonets to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution that they could not amend using the constitution process. They simply did not have the votes.

First they would have to chevvy the South into a fight in the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I mean the Fort Sumter incident.

I am not certain that that argument is stronger than the North simply fighting for their economic and political self-interest, but your statement does raise the possibility that the North started the killings after they became frustrated with the slow process of accumulating political power.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Even as you salute the myth that the South alone was responsible for slavery, your testimony repudiates the myth."

But there's no myth and no salute.
History itself is certainly "responsible" for slavery, with enough blame to spread on everyone's toast.
So by the 1776 Declaration of Independence, most Founders including Northerners were slaveholders.
But most Founders including Southerners agreed that slavery was morally wrong.
Yes, some thought it a necessary evil, others said unnecessary but nearly all agreed slavery was evil.

Then immediately after their Declaration, Northern Founders began abolishing slavery such that by the 1787 Consittutuional Convention only two Northern Founders were slave-holders, but only one Southern delegate was not a slave-holder and he a former Pennsylvanian then representing Delaware.

So already by 1787 the lines between slave & free were beginning to harden.
Only Southern delegates insisted that slavery must be enshrined in the Constitution, and argued for counting their slaves as both property and people for representation purposes.
It was the Southern price for Union and Northerners were willing to pay it, especially so since some Northern states still had not begun to abolish slavery.

And that's not myth, it's fact, and the only "salute" you'll see here.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "That will lead some to charge northern powers did actually start the war on the pretext of 'preserving the union' so they could use bullets and bayonets to overthrow the pro-slavery U.S. constitution that they could not amend using the constitution process.
They simply did not have the votes."

Those "some" people would be very wrong, as usual, beginning with who started the war at Pearl Harbor, er, I mean Fort Sumter.

But the key point about abolition to remember is that in the very beginning Lincoln was willing to negotiate it away in exchange for reunion, so it cannot have been his primary motive on Day One.
Yes, emancipation soon became a necessary consequence of war and that might be foreseen, but just as Union came before abolition in 1776 and again in 1787 so it also came first in 1861.

Of course jeffersondem, you know all that, but just like "some people" you enjoy making absurd arguments.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem misquoting BJK, post #725: "Nobody but nobody uses such terms (tally book) today."

jeffersondem post #775: "Still, I was a little surprised you would make such an obvious mistake and not set the record straight when given the opportunity."

But I called you out on three words -- chivvied, homestand and tally book -- none of which I've ever heard used in this country.

1. You referenced a John Wayne movie for "chivvied" which satisfies me it's equivalent to "thee" and "thou" in some old movies of the colonial era.
   
2. I saw no reference for "homestand" suggesting that really is jeffersondem's own background coming out.
   
3. For "tally book" you provide a link to a US distributor, but a word search on "tally book" leads us here suggesting some kind of foreign translation.

Of course, this whole exercise is merely an effort to shame jeffersondem into confessing where (presumably) he's from and something identifying just who we're dealing with.
We can note that even DiogenesLamp has a bit of personal story to tell here, but not jeffersondem and his word clues suggest something interesting....

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: " I began to wonder if there was a new economic model to learn - one where producers continuously make and deliver products without recovering their costs."

Speaking of economic models, I'd like to mention something key to this whole conversation: 1860 Deep South wealth.
This comes from James Huston's 2003 book, "Calculating the Value of the Union: Slavery, Property Rights and the Economic Origins of the Civil War"

His more interesting statistics include: while 1860 average Southern incomes were only slightly higher than average Northern incomes, that counts everybody.
But if you look at just Deep Cotton South white wealth compared to average Northern wealth, the disparity is striking.
Including the value of their slaves, average Deep South whites had three times the wealth of average Northerners in states like Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey.

So when our FRiends DiogenesLamp and jeffersondem argue that Civil War was all about economics, there are such numbers to point at.
But I don't think they make the case for an "oppressed South" that Lost Causers wish us to believe.