Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This Day In Civil War History - May 23rd

Posted on 05/23/2008 6:54:17 AM PDT by mainepatsfan

This Day In Civil War History

May 23rd

1861:

- Virginia voters approve secession by a vote of 97,750 to 32,134.

- Union Gen. Benjamin Butler declares three runaway slaves "contraband of war" establishing a precedent for slaves to escape behind Union lines.

- Confederate Gen. Benjamin Huger takes command at Norfolk, VA.

1862:

- Confederate forces under Gen. Thomas Jackson surprise and rout a Union outpost at Fort Royal, VA. The action threatens the rear of Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks army forcing him to race Jackson's army back towards Winchester.

1863:

- Confederate secretary of war John Seddon suggests to President Davis that an offensive against Helena, AK as a way to relieve pressure on Vicksburg since it partially serves Grant as a supply base.

- Confederate Gen. Richard Ewell is promoted to lieutenant general.

- Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks Army of the Gulf continues encricling Port Hudson, LA in preparation for an assault.

1864:

- The Army of the Potomac continues to move into position for a crossing of the North Anna River in Virginia.

- Union Gen. William T. Sherman's army advances towards Dallas, GA where he intends to cross the Etowah River.

1865:

- Unionist politicians from Virginia occupy the state capital at Richmond.

- In Washington there is a mass review of the Grand Armies of the Republic.

- The British blockade runner Sarah M. Newhall is captured off Savannah, GA by the USS Azalea.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

1 posted on 05/23/2008 6:54:18 AM PDT by mainepatsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan

No one ever questions the “Rightgeousness” of the Civil War. Was it right?


2 posted on 05/23/2008 6:55:50 AM PDT by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: indcons

ping


3 posted on 05/23/2008 7:01:05 AM PDT by mainepatsfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
No one ever questions the “Rightgeousness” of the Civil War. Was it right?

Are you kidding?

Every Civil War thread ever posted on FR degenerates into a food fight about what was politically "right" or "wrong" about each side within the first 20 posts.

If there is ever a Civil War thread on FR that sticks only to the military history of the men who bravely fought on both sides, we will have pigs flying past our windows.

4 posted on 05/23/2008 7:05:38 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan

Have you thought of doing a daily PING list for this thread?

I think there’s be a significant amount of interest in such a PING list.


5 posted on 05/23/2008 7:10:39 AM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

I’m only asking because my granddaughter will be learning “stuff” about it this year. I want to be truthful to her so guess I have to do some digging. I always tell her to go to old history books....before FDR at least.


6 posted on 05/23/2008 7:18:55 AM PDT by Sacajaweau ("The Cracker" will be renamed "The Crapper")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Was it right?

While it was morally and constitutionally wrong for the insurrection to have occurred in the first place, its failure was a good thing and the efforts to put it down were righteous indeed.

7 posted on 05/23/2008 7:19:10 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
I always tell her to go to old history books....before FDR at least.

Old history books about the Civil War are often full of historical inaccuracies and partisan misrepresentations as much as - if not more than - post-WWII accounts.

Shelby Foote's The Civil War and James McPherson's Battle Cry Of Freedom are two good post-WWII histories that get almost all the facts right and are very readable.

Foote's book is sympathetic to the Confederate viewpoint and McPherson's is sympathetic to the Union viewpoint.

Together they present a good layman's overview of the conflict, in my opinion.

8 posted on 05/23/2008 7:23:27 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Not Constitutionally wrong, the SCOTUS had ruled that the Sates had the right to voluntarily leave the Union. By the way, that ruling has never been legally overturned.


9 posted on 05/23/2008 7:34:18 AM PDT by ricmc2175
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ricmc2175
Not Constitutionally wrong, the SCOTUS had ruled that the Sates had the right to voluntarily leave the Union.

The Supreme Court never issued such a ruling.

10 posted on 05/23/2008 7:36:13 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
While it ... constitutionally wrong

What clause of the Constitution dictates the voluntary entry into the agreement as being a one way street?

Recall that though slavery was morally wrong, it was Constitutionally permitted.

You cannot argue the Constitution both ways.

11 posted on 05/23/2008 7:36:17 AM PDT by Michael.SF. ("They're not Americans. They're liberals! "-- Ann Coulter, May 15, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
What clause of the Constitution dictates the voluntary entry into the agreement as being a one way street?

Article VI paragraph 2 clearly states that the Constitution and federal laws are the supreme law of the land and that the federal judiciary has the right of review of all state laws and acts.

By ratifying the Constitution each state formally acknowledged this supremacy.

12 posted on 05/23/2008 7:40:27 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Recall that though slavery was morally wrong, it was Constitutionally permitted. You cannot argue the Constitution both ways.

I'm not.

Slavery was legal. Insurrection was never legal.

The South's constitutional breach consisted of its insurrection.

13 posted on 05/23/2008 7:42:42 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan

One very minor nit to pick—it’s not “Fort Royal, Virginia,” it’s “Front Royal, Virginia.”

}:-)4


14 posted on 05/23/2008 7:55:24 AM PDT by Moose4 (http://moosedroppings.wordpress.com -- Because 20 million self-important blogs just aren't enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
No one ever questions the “Rightgeousness” of the Civil War. Was it right?

you bated that hook nicely...

15 posted on 05/23/2008 7:55:45 AM PDT by NativeSon (off the Rez without a pass...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Moose4

Yesterday it was “Altoona, Georgia” instead of “Allatoona Pass, Georgia.”


16 posted on 05/23/2008 7:56:30 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan

“Union Gen. Nathaniel Banks Army of the Gulf continues encricling Port Hudson, LA in preparation for an assault.”

....in preparation for the looting, rape and burning of Louisiana....see:
“War Crimes against Southern Civilians” by Walter Brian Cisco
http://www.amazon.com/War-Crimes-Against-Southern-Civilians/dp/158980466X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211554209&sr=1-1

....if your local public library doesn’t have a copy they can get it thru inter-library loan for you.


17 posted on 05/23/2008 8:06:12 AM PDT by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

There are some history purists who scoff at the Time-Life Series on the Civil War - but years ago, I read that series before I did any in-depth reading on the Civil War.

I found it to be very useful.


18 posted on 05/23/2008 8:07:44 AM PDT by MplsSteve
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Moose4
“One very minor nit to pick—it’s not “Fort Royal, Virginia,” it’s “Front Royal, Virginia.””

I might add, It is Helena Arkansas (AR), not Alaska (AK) hahaha.

The civil war always restarts here on FR.
I am a Southerner so all of you Yankees
can get stuffed :P

19 posted on 05/23/2008 8:15:21 AM PDT by AlexW (Reporting from Bratislava, Slovakia. Happy not to be back in the USA for now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: STONEWALLS
“War Crimes against Southern Civilians” by Walter Brian Cisco

Pathetic neo-Klan propaganda written in the tones of postmodern "postcolonialist" drivel worthy of Edward Said and Noam Chomsky.

20 posted on 05/23/2008 8:30:26 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson