Posted on 08/10/2021 6:18:32 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
WASHINGTON, Friday, Aug. 9, 1861.
The absence of Mr. CHASE, Secretary of the Treasury, and of Mr. CAMERON, Secretary of War, has occasioned the establishment of the practice of inviting the Assistant Secretaries to Cabinet meetings in the absence of their respective Chiefs. Under this rule, Mr. HARRINGTON, of the Treasury, and SCOTT, of the War Department, attended the Cabinet session held to-day. I am not aware that the practice has ever before obtained -- certainly it has not under several Administrations. In the practical workings of their respective departments, Messrs. SCOTT and HARRINGTON are quite as competent to give advice to the Cabinet as their superiors.
Mr. NICOLAY, one of the President's private secretaries, left for Newport this morning. In his absence the entire duties of the office devolve upon Mr. HAY.
ACTION OF THE NEW-YORK DEMOCRATS.
The refusal of the Democrats of the State of New-York to unite with the Republicans in the nomination and election of a ticket, causes some surprise here, as it seems to conflict with what was supposed to be a plan prearranged here at Washington, and which had for its purpose the disintegration of the Republican party. The same idea of a Union ticket was broached in Ohio, and has there been rejected. These two coincidences happening in Ohio and New-York, it is said among the politicians, will cause now the entire dissolution of the Democratic party.
FLOGGING ABOLISHED.
By an adroit insertion of three lines in the bill making appropriations for fortifications, flogging as a punishment is abolished in the Army.
CONGRESSMEN GONE HOME.
All but two or three Members of Congress have left Washington.
KENTUCKY CAVALRY.
Three companies of Col. TOUCEY'S Regiment of Kentucky Cavalry reached Washington this morning.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: May 2025.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Link to previous New York Times thread
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3983409/posts
The Great Rebellion: Important News from Fortress Monroe – 2-3
Important from Southern Kansas – 3
The Rebellion in Missouri – 3
Military and Naval Movements – 3
New-Yorkers Imprisoned at Richmond – 3-4
Editorial: Traitors at Home – 4
Editorial: Cooking for the Soldiers – 4
Editorial: Concentrated Meanness – 4-5
Editorial: The Confiscation Bill – 5
Editorial: The Two Routes to Washington – 5
One Honest Firm in Charleston, S.C. – 5
Making the Issue – 5
From Gen. Banks’ Command – 5
Lively Time in Baltimore: Mr. Breckinridge Not Allowed to Speak – 5
Some of our FRiends have expressed bewilderment at Lincoln's 1864 abandoning the Republican party in favor of a "National Union" party.
Today's report shows this was not some last-minute idea, but began in 1861 with proposals to dissolve both parties in favor of a Union party.
It should be well noted that while Republicans were willing to dissolve their own party -- to put Union before politics -- Democrats were not, then or any time since.
I suppose thirty minutes after the world has ended, you will be trying to post this crap.
And you’ll still have your panties in a bunch over it.
Today (August 10) is a major battle in southwest Missouri -- at Wilson's Creek, Confederate victory, Union forces yet again outnumbered about two-to-one.
| Date | Engagement | Military Units | Losses | Victor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| April 12-14 | Fort Sumter, SC | Confederate artillery (Beauregard), Union garrison (Anderson) | None | CSA |
| April 15 | Evacuation of Fort Sumter, SC | Union garrison | Two Union soldiers killed, four wounded by accidental explosion | N.A. |
| April 19 | Baltimore Riots, MD | MA 6th, PA 26th vs secessionist crowd | 4 Union soldiers killed, 12 civilians killed, hundreds wounded | USA |
| May 10 | St. Louis Riots, MO | Union forces vs secessionist crowd | 4 Union soldiers killed, 3 prisoners, 28 civilians killed | USA |
| May 18-19 | Sewell's Point, VA | Union naval squadron vs Confederate shore artillery | 10 total | inconclusive |
| May 29- June 1 | Aquila Creek, VA | Union naval squadron vs Confederate shore artillery | 10 total | inconclusive |
| June 1 | Fairfax Court House, VA | detachments from CSA & USA armies | 8 on each side, 1 each killed | inconclusive |
| June 3 | Philippi, WVA | Union Dept of Ohio (McClellan) -3,000, CSA infantry (Porterfield) -800 | Union 4, CSA 26 (killed or wounded) | USA |
| June 10 | Big Bethel, VA | Union (Butler) -3,500, CSA (Magruder) -1,400 | Union 71-total (18-killed); CSA: 10-total (1-killed) | CSA |
| June 15 | Hooe's Ferry (near Mathias Point) VA | Union schooner Christina Keen; CSA Farmer's Fork Grays | none -- Christina Keen captured and burned | CSA |
| June 17 | Vienna, VA | Detachments from both Union & CSA armies | Union: 12-total (8 killed); CSA: none reported | CSA |
| June 17 | Boonville, MO | Union Western Dept (Lyon) -1,700 vs. MO State Guard (Marmaduke) ~1,500 | Union: 12-total (5-killed); MO Guard 22-total (5-killed) | USA |
| June 18 | Camp Cole, MO | Union Home Guards (~500) vs. Confederate State Guards (~350) | Union: 120-total (35 killed, 60 wounded 25 captured); CSA: 32-total ( 7-K, 25-W) | CSA |
| June 27 | Matthias' Point, VA | Union gunboats ~50 vs. Confed garrison ~500 | Union: 1-killed, 4-wounded; CSA none | CSA |
| July 2 | Hoke's Run, WVA | Union Army of the Shenandoah (2 brigades, Patterson) -8,000 vs. Confederate Army of the Shenandoah (1 brigade, Stonewall Jackson) - 4,000 | Union: 70-total (3-killed); CSA 23-total ( 9-killed) | USA |
| July 5 | Carthage, MO | Union Department of the West (Sigel) -- 1,000 vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard (Jackson) -- 4,000 | Union: 44-total; CSA 200-total | CSA |
| July 5 | Neosho, MO | Union 3rd Missouri vs. Confederate cavalry | Union: 137-total; CSA zero total | CSA |
| July 8 | Laurel Hill, WVA | Union Dept of Ohio vs. Confederate Army of the Northwest | Union: 8-total; CSA unknown | USA |
| July 11 | Rich Mountain, WVA | Union Department of the Ohio (McClellan & Rosecrans) -7,000 vs. Confederate Army (Pegram & Garnett) -1,300 | Union: 46-total; CSA 300-total | USA |
| July 12 | Barboursville, WVA | Union 2nd Kentucky vs. Confederate rangers & locals | Union: 16-total; CSA 1-total | USA |
| July 13 | Corrick's Ford, WVA | Union Department of the Ohio (McClellan & Rosecrans) -20,000 vs. Confederate Army (Garnett) -4,500 | Union: 53-total; CSA 620-total CSA Gen. Garnett killed | USA |
| July 17 | Scary Creek, WVA | Union Department of the Ohio (Cox) -1,000 vs. Confederate Army of the Kanawha (Wise & George S. Patton) -800 | Union: 51-total; CSA 10-total including Patton wounded | CSA |
| July 18 | Blackburn's Ford, VA (pre-Manassas) | Union Department of NE Virginia (McDowell, Richardson) -3,000 vs. Confederate Army of VA (Beauregard, Longstreet) -5,100 | Union: 83-total; CSA 70-total | CSA |
| July 21 | Bull Run/Manassas, VA | Union Department of NE Virginia (McDowell, Patterson) -54,000 (18,000 engaged) vs. Confederate Army of VA (Beauregard, Longstreet) -34,000 (18,000 engaged) | Union: 2,708-total (481-killed); CSA 1,897-total (387-killed) | CSA |
| July 22 | Forsyth, MO | Union Department of the West vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard | Union: 3-total ;Confederates: 15-total | USA |
| July 25 | Mesilla, New Mexico | Union Department of the New Mexico (~300) vs. Confederate 2nd Texas Mounted Rifles (~380 +artillery ) | Union: 9-total (2-killed); Confederates: 19-total (13-killed) | CSA |
| July 27 | Fort Fillmore, NM | Union Department of the New Mexico (~500) vs. Confederate 2nd Texas Mounted Rifles (~300) | Union: 500-total (surrendered); Confederates: none | CSA |
| Aug 2 | Dug Springs, MO (leadup to Wilson's Creek) | Union Department of the West (~6,000) vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard (~12,000) | Union: 38-total (8 killed ); Confederates:84-total (40 killed) | USA |
| Aug 3 | Curran Post Office, MO (leadup to Wilson's Creek) | Union Department of the West (~6,000) vs. Confederate 1st Arkansas Rifles | Unknown | inconclusive |
| Aug 5 | Athens, MO | Union 21st MO Infantry, Home Guards (~500) vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard (~2,000 + 3-cannons) | Union 23-total (3-killed); Confederate 31-total | USA |
| Aug 7 | CSA burned Hampton, VA | Union (Butler) vs. Confederate Cavalry (Magruder) | Union unknown; Confederates unknown | CSA |
| Aug 8 | skirmish at Lovettsville, VA | Union vs. Confederate | Union unknown; Confederates 6-total | USA |
| Aug 10 | Wilson's Creek, MO | Union Dept of the West (Lyon -5,430)vs. Confederate MO State Guard, Dept 2 (Price -12,120) | Union 1,317-total (285-killed); Confederates 1.232-total (277-killed) | CSA |
“And you’ll still have your panties in a bunch over it.”
No, you flatter yourself with your supposed influence. It just a bit surprising that someone can be so delusional as to compulsively post such crap and still think someone else will read it.
I don't remember seeing any such objections over many years when Homer posted daily NY Times reports on WWII.
And you might remember, in WWII arguably Democrats were the heroes, Republicans suspected for isolationism & appeasement.
Now for the Civil War those roles are reversed and you don't like it when your darling Democrats are held up for scrutiny, right?
“...and you don’t like it when your darling Democrats are held up for scrutiny, right?”
“my darling democrats”??????!!!!!!
Anyone who has noticed my posts from long ago would immediately see the idiocy in that statement.
Me, the first one on this site to call for Trump to run in March of 2015, and was immediately “hated on” here for doing so?
No, what irritates me greatly is to see someone so idiotically and mindlessly repeat New York Times propaganda by dismissing my ancestors as engaging in the “Great Rebellion.” Federal troops slaughtered Southern civilians by the thousands after dehumanizing them as “rebels” and traitors.
In case you haven’t noticed, the New York Times is engaging in the exact same ploy be calling Trump supporters white supremacists and enemies of democracy.
You suggested to me above that I am delusional to think that anyone reads my post. I'll admit, there aren't a lot, in internet terms. So why not take advantage of a great feature available at FreeRepublic.com and ignore them?
The larger point you seem to miss is that I don't post history items in order to re-fight past wars or gloat at the expense of one side or the other, but so we can study them and, perhaps, learn a thing or two. I don't post old NY Times articles to promote propaganda but to show what was considered authoritative information at the time of the history we are studying. Including misspellings, factual errors, and outright fake news. Also, NYT is the primary news source cited by the authors of the many popular history books I excerpt from. I enjoy comparing my impressions with those of the authors.
For quite some time I have been thinking that the usage of the word "Rebellion" is a pejorative lie. What the southern states did was *NOT* a rebellion, it was a separation.
I reject the idea that Washington DC had any legal authority to compel states to remain under their control.
If people have a right to give up their citizenship individually, then they also have a right to give up their citizenship collectively. To force them to remain under the control of a despotic and corrupt government is tyranny, but the tyrants had the better propaganda apparatus.
They also worked very hard at propaganda. Saw this yesterday.
"They had been long known as enemies of the Union, and as despisers of the flag of our country.... The war was gotten up with as much trick and skill in management as a showman uses to get the populace to visit his menagerie. Our whole country was placarded all over with war posters of all colors and sizes. Drums were beating and bands playing at every corner of the streets. Nine-tenths of all the ministers of the Gospel were praying and preaching to the horrible din of the war-music, and the profane eloquence of slaughter. There was little chance for any man to exercise his reason, and if he attempted such a thing he was knocked down and sometimes murdered. If an editor ventured to appeal to the Constitution, his office was either destroyed by the mob, or his paper suspended by “the order of the Government.” ...The historian of these shameful and criminal events needs no other proof that the managers of the war knew that they were perpetrating a great crime than the fact that they refused to allow any man to reason or speak in opposition to their action. The cause of truth and justice always flourishes most with all the reasoning that argument and controversy can give it. Whenever men attempt to suppress argument and free speech, we may be sure that they know their cause to be a bad one."
I have resolved not to take seriously any thread that characterizes secession as "rebellion." Especially threads that say "The Great Rebellion."
That is lie.
DiogenesLamp: "For quite some time I have been thinking that the usage of the word "Rebellion" is a pejorative lie.
What the southern states did was *NOT* a rebellion, it was a separation."
So here's the truth, the whole truth & nothing but, so help me God: the United States and most Unionists never recognized either 1) declarations of secession, or 2) the Confederacy, as legitimate -- in Union eyes those were all just "pretend".
The Union did absolutely understand: Confederates' formal declaration of war, on May 6, 1861, could mean a long & bloody conflict requiring the Union's best efforts to win.
And the United States was not alone in refusing to officially recognize Confederates as legitimate -- no major country recognized the Confederacy.
Since the Confederacy was not recognized by anyone anywhere, that makes it, by definition, a "pretend" country and their war a rebellion, whether you guys like it or not.
One key difference, among others, between the American Revolution beginning in 1776 and Civil War in 1861 is that Americans after 1776 were able to achieve important foreign support, including Dutch (Jewish), French & Spanish.
One key reason other countries refused to officially recognize the Confederacy was because of Confederate support for their "cornerstone", slavery.
Those are the facts, whether you guys like them or not.
I, for one, did not know the scheming to create a uniparty went that far back.
Perhaps Willard, Jeb, and Mitch can complete the agenda.
And the United States was not alone in refusing to officially recognize Confederates as legitimate -- no major country recognized the Confederacy. Since the Confederacy was not recognized by anyone anywhere, that makes it, by definition, a "pretend" country and their war a rebellion, whether you guys like it or not.
Without significant qualifiers being added, this statement is simply false.
The CSA was not a "pretend" country. Its existence was recognized by the USA when Lincoln proclaimed a blockade which is a distinctly international act. A nation cannot declare to the world a blockade of its own ports. The domestic act would be a declaration of a closing of the ports. In response to the international act by Lincoln, various nations declared neutrality between the two powers at war. It is not possible to declare neutrality between the USA and the USA. Moreover, it is also impossible to take or exchange prisoners of war as the domestic act of a single power.
What the CSA lacked was official diplomatic recognition as a freee and sovereign state by the United States. Whether the CSA was a free and independent state was a question answered by the result of the Civil War. The USA recognized the CSA as a belligerent power, i.e. a self-governing area and population whose continued existence as such was being contested by armed conflict.
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1861-1865/Blockade
U.S. State Department
Office of the HistorianSouth Recognized as a Belligerent
Following the U.S. announcement of its intention to establish an official blockade of Confederate ports, foreign governments began to recognize the Confederacy as a belligerent in the Civil War. Great Britain granted belligerent status on May 13, 1861, Spain on June 17, and Brazil on August 1. Other foreign governments issued statements of neutrality.
Note that Lincoln declared a blockade of North Carolina and Virginia a month before they ratified their ordinances of secession on 20 and 23 May 1861.
From Gideon Welles, Lincoln and Johnson, First Paper, Galaxy Magazine, April 1872, p. 523
Mr. Seward, who had been uneasy since his return, [nc: Seward had been thrown from his carriage and injured] read to the Secretary of the Treasury and myself the draft of a proclamation he had prepared for the President to sign, closing the ports of the Southern States. This was a step which I had earnestly pressed at the beginning of the rebellion, as a domestic measure, and more legitimate than a blockade, which was international, and an admission that we were two nations.* * *
The President reached Washington on the evening of Sunday, the 9th of April. [1865] When I called on him the next morning he was in excellent spirits, the news of Lee’s surrender, which however was not unanticipated, having been received. While I was with him he signed the proclamation for closing the ports and expressed his gratification that Mr. Seward and myself concurred in the measure, alluding to our former differences.
The claim that the CSA was not recognized by anyone is simply without merit. While we have not recognized the government of Iran since 1980, and do not recognize the government of Iran as a legitimate government today, this does not mean that Iran does not exist or that it is a "pretend" country. While ambassadors are not exchanged, the non-pretend nation of Iran maintains a consulate in the United States at 50 Washington Street, Glastonbury, CT; and is a non-pretend member of the United Nations. For thirty years after the founding of the Peoples Republic of China, the United States recognized the government of Taiwan as the sole legitimate government of all of China. Maintaining that fiction did not result in Taiwan governing mainland China, nor did it make China a pretend nation until 1979.
The royal family of Great Britain during the period of the ACW was the House of Saxe, Coburg and Gotha. It remained so until 1917 when WWI induced the King to decree a change in the family name to the House of Windsor. The family tree did not change. The current House of Windsor was the House of Saxe, Coburg and Gotha before rebranding.
The House of Saxe, Coburg and Gotha dates back prior to the unification of the German states. Kaiser Wilhelm was the grandson of Queen Victoria.
The CSA was recognized by Saxe, Coburg and Gotha, from which the British royal house arose. There was a consulate in Texas.
The Duchy of Saxe Coburg Gotha was a sovereign state until about 1918 when a revolution ended the monarchy. It was one of those tiny European states similar to the principality of Monaco today.
SOURCE: North & South, Volume 7, Number 3, May 2004, Page 87
Sidebar: Do You Know?3. This is the only foreign state to officially recognize the Confederacy.
Answer: The duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
And yet, you refute your own argument:
woodpusher: "What the CSA lacked was official diplomatic recognition as a freee and sovereign state by the United States."
Now you need only add the phrase "or any other major power" and you will be speaking the truth, the whole truth & nothing but.
Actions you mention short of official recognition are just that: not official recognition and so irrelevant to the question of Confederates' "pretend" status as in rebellion, insurrection and invasion against the United States.
So, while Lincoln was determined to be as easy on Confederates as possible he never, ever, officially recognized them as legitimate.
Nor did Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court.
woodpusher: "The claim that the CSA was not recognized by anyone is simply without merit."
Your self-contradicted claim that the CSA was officially recognized by any major power is simply without merit.
The duchy of Saxe, Coburg and Gotha, was a minor German principality, a population under 200,000 and in due time absorbed into the German empire -- which you doubtless well know.
Of course it's well known the British aristocracy favored Confederates, and the British government was on occasion tempted in that direction, but never actually went there.
“So, while Lincoln was determined to be as easy on Confederates as possible...”
I have no idea why the idea of international recognition is supposed to be mundane to the Confederacy. Were the 13 colonies extended diplomatic relation when they broke, REBELLED!!!!!!! from England?
Lincoln may have made some supposedly generous overtures to a prostate South when the war was over, but he ordered his generals to conduct a “hard war” that saw the complete, utter, and mindless destruction of the South.
Even as a temporary wartime measure Northern Democrats refused to put country ahead of their partisan political interests.
So Republicans went ahead with their National Union party anyway, and in 1864 it helped them win every Union state & region except Kentucky, Delaware & New Jersey.
After the war Southern & Northern Democrats reunited and never again even considered the possibility of putting country ahead of the Democrat party.
Of the Confederate polity, certainly, of "the South" generally, no, not true.
For starters, huge regions all over the South remained loyal Unionists, and so suffered from Confederate "hard war", while the Union attempted to protect them.
Second, in the Confederacy itself, the greatest single source of wealth destruction was the Confederate Army, always short on essential provisions and so forced to "requisition" it's needs from Southern farmers, "paying for" them with increasingly worthless Confederate money.
Third, in the 1870 "Reconstruction Census", many former Confederates refused to participate for fear of being tracked down.
Thus it appeared the South was missing its normal percent of population growth.
But that "missing" population was "found" again in 1880 and proved the South's population had grown just as fast as other regions throughout.
Finally, there's no doubt the loss of $billions in slave asset values (real money in those days) was a major economic blow.
But to whom, exactly, since Confederates had long since renounced their debts to the Northern banks which had loaned most of the money that "paid for" those slave assets?
Once war ended, most Southerners were soon enough back in business using the same share-cropper & hired hands they'd previously enslaved.
So the destruction was not always "mindless" and far from "utter" or "complete".
I hear that Freedonia was contemplating recognition of the cornfederacy but lacked enough cash to print a proclamation...
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.