Posted on 01/11/2023 4:52:37 AM PST by Homer_J_Simpson
The steamer Marion, Capt. JOHNSON, from New-Orleans on Jan. 2, arrived at this port yesterday morning. She brings very little news. The capitol at Baton Rouge was burned on the night of Dec. 30. Fire was discovered early in the evening. It was apparently subdued about nine o'clock, and it was supposed that the danger was past, but the flames soon after broke out with renewed violence, and the whole structure was consumed. No loss of life is mentioned. The Baton Rouge Comet, of Dec. 31, says:
"The building was occupied by Confederate prisoners, but the cause of the catastrophe is enveloped in mystery. Some negroes were cooking in the eastern portion of the building, above the Senate Chamber, and it is supposed the flues were foul, and hence fire was communicated to inflammable materials, and the second outbreak of the fire is attributed to the [???] of gas by the bursting of the pipes.
Gen. GROVER was early at the scene of destruction, and issued his commands, and every exertion was made by the [???] to extinguish the flames. The Provost-Marshal, Capt. SEAMONS, was indefatigable in his exertions.
The loss is very heavy. Many thousands of rare and valuable books, papers and the furniture of the building were entirely destroyed. The outer walls stand in majestic defiance of the fiery ordeal they have passed through. Seventy thousand dollars will not replace the building and contents."
The Houston, Texas, Telegraph publishes the following special dispatch, which is unquestionably exaggerated, as private letters, dated as late as Dec. 11, written by officers of the fleet, make no mention of the occurrence here alluded to:
GALVESTON, 9 A.M., via EAGLE GROVE, Dec. 2.
A terrible bombardment took place last night at 8 o'clock,
(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/4122198/posts
Later from New-Orleans – 2
The Battle at Vicksburgh: Incidents and Results of Three Days’ Fighting – 3
From the Army of the Potomac: Defective Ammunition, etc. – 3-4
The Battle of Murfreesboro: Particulars of Our Losses – 4-5
News from Washington: Our Special Washington Dispatches – 5
The Indian Executions: An Interesting Account, from our Special Correspondent – 5-7
Operations of the Sanitary Commission – 7
Editorial: Confessions of Jeff. Davis – Failure of his Plans – 7-8
An Unlucky Rebel General – 8
Editorial: Effect of the War on the South – 8
East and West – 8-9
The Atlantic Telegraph – 9
Our War Expenditures and National Income – 9
Missouri 1861 - 1863 Engagements
| Date | Engagement | Military Units | Losses | Victor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10 | St. Louis Riots, MO | Union forces vs secessionist crowd | 4 Union soldiers killed, 3 prisoners, 28 civilians killed | USA |
| 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 (CSA outnumbered) |
| 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 22 | Forsyth, MO | Union Department of the West vs. Confederate Missouri State Guard | Union: 3-total ;Confederates: 15-total | USA |
| 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 (USA outnumbered) |
| 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 incl Gen. Lyon); Confederates 1.232-total (277-killed) | CSA |
| Aug 10 | Potosi, MO | Union Home Guard (~75 troops) vs. Confederate cavalry (~120 troops) | Union 5-total (1-killed); Confederates 5-total (2-killed) | USA (USA outnumbered) |
| Aug 17 | Palmyra, MO | Union 16th Illinois (entrained) vs. Confederate guerillas | Union 2-total (1-killed); Confederates 5-killed | USA |
| Aug 29 | Morse's Mills near Lexington, MO | Union MO Home Guards vs. Confederate cavalry | Union unknown; Confederates unknown | CSA |
| Sep 2 | Dry Wood Creek, MO | Union Dept of the West (Lane ~1,200) vs. Confederate MO State Guard (Price ~12,000) | Union 25-total (2 killed); Confederates 14-total (5 killed) | CSA |
| Sep 17 | Blue Mills Landing, MO | Union 3rd Iowa & MO Home Guard (Scott ~800) & Confederate 4th Div Missouri Militia (Atchison ~3,500) | Union 99 (19-killed); Confederates 21-total (3-killed) | CSA |
| Sep 13-20 | Lexington, MO, 1st battle, aka: "Battle of the Hemp Bales" | Union Illinois 23rd Irish Brigade + 27 & 13th MO Infantry (Mulligan ~3,500) & Confederate Missouri Militia (Price ~15,000) | Union 3,000 surrendered (36-killed); Confederates 150-total (~30-killed) | CSA (Union surrender) |
| Sep 26 | Hunter's Farm, MO | Union Dep of the West (Steward under Grant ~200 & Confederate MO State Guard (under Thompson ~40) | Union none; Confederates 10-total (10-killed) | USA |
| Oct 21 | Fredericktown, MO | Union Ill & MO Infantry, IN cavalry (Plummer ~3,500) & Confederate Missouri State Guard (Thompson ~1,500) | Union 67-total (7-killed), Confederates 145-total (25-killed_ | USA (Union defeated Confederate ambush) |
| Oct 25 | Springfield, MO | Union: Fremont's scouts (Zagonyi -326) & Confederate MO State Guard (Frazier ~1,500) | Union 85-total (48-killed), Confederates 133-total (unkn-killed) | USA (USA outnumbered) |
| Dec 28 | Mount Zion Church, MO | Union Birge's Western Sharpshooters, 3rd MO Cav(Prentiss ~400) & Confederate MO State Guard (Dorsey ~235) | Union 70-total (3 dead), Confederates 235-total (25-killed) | USA |
| Jan 8 | Roan's Tan Yard, MO | Union MO & OH Cavalry (Torrence ~500) & Confederate MO State Guard (Poindexter ~1,000) | Union 27 total, Confederates ~80 total | USA |
| Aug 6-9 | Kirksville, MO | Union Cavalry (McNeill ~1,000, Confederate MO State Guard (Porter ~2,500) | Union 88-total (30-killed), Confederates ~368-total (200-killed) | USA (Union outnumbered) |
| Aug 11 | Independence, MO | Union MO Militia & Cavalry (Buel -344, Confederate MO Bushwhackers (Hughes (killed), Hayes (wounded) Quantrill -800) | Union ~344 (captured), Confederates unknown | CSA |
| Aug 15-16 | Lone Jack, MO | Union MO Cavalry (Foster -800, Confederate MO Regimental Recruits (Cockrell -3,000) | Union 323-total (94-killed), Confederates 118-total (59 -kill3) | CSA |
| Sep 30 | Newtonia, MO | Union Infantry, cavalry, artillery from Ohio, Kansas, Wisc. (Saloman, ~4,500), Confederate Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Texas & MO units (Cooper, Shelby ~6,000) | Union ~320-total (48?-killed), Confederates 78-total (12?-killed) | CSA |
| Nov 7 | Clark's Mill, MO | Union IL Cav, MO state militia (Barstow ~100), Confederate MO brigade (Burbridge, Green ~1,500) | Union 46-total (9-killed), Confederates 65?-total (34-killed) | CSA, Union surrendered |
| Jan 8, 1863 | 2nd Springfield, MO | Union SW MO Dist. (Brown 2,090), Confederate Transmississippi Dept (Marmaduke 1,870) | Union 231-total (30-killed), Confederates 290-total (40?-killed) | USA |
| Jan 9-11 | Hartville, MO | Union SW Dist of MO (Morrill ~4,000?), Confederate Trans MS Dept (Marmaduike ~3,000?) | Union 78-total (7-killed), Confederates 111-total (12-killed) | USA |
Summary of Civil War Engagements as of January 11, 1863:
Engagements in Confederate states:
| State | Union Victories | Confederate Victories | Inconclusive | Total Engagements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Carolina | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Virginia | 7 | 27 | 12 | 46 |
| North Carolina | 7 | 1 | 1 | 9 |
| Florida | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Louisiana | 3 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Tennessee | 7 | 5 | 1 | 13 |
| Arkansas | 8 | 0 | 2 | 10 |
| Georgia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Mississippi | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 |
| Texas | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Total Engagements in CSA | 40 | 39 | 17 | 96 |
Engagements in Union states/territories:
| State | Union Victories | Confederate Victories | Inconclusive | Total Engagements |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maryland | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| West Virginia | 9 | 3 | 2 | 14 |
| Missouri | 14 | 13 | 1 | 28 |
| New Mexico | 5 | 8 | 0 | 13 |
| Kentucky | 5 | 6 | 2 | 13 |
| Oklahoma | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| Total Engagements in Union | 37 | 33 | 6 | 76 |
| Total Engagements to date | 77 | 72 | 23 | 172 |
Casualties totaled 189, including 19 killed in action.
For the war, so far, in Missouri the totals are nearly 10,000 casualties, including over 1,500 killed in action.
The war's overall totals remain about 301,000 casualties including nearly 35,000 killed in action.
Sorry, but if the union soldiers and even Lincoln, for that matter, knew what we would become in the 21st century, unable to tell the difference between man and woman, grooming kids, gender dysphoria, and critical race theory, in which the most important thing in the world is the color of your skin, he would not have fought the Civil War, and instead allowed succession.
The Confederacy was a Socalist State, go look it up.
Does not matter. America today is worse than that.
Contrary to what Democrats' propaganda may say, the Republican party has always been the more conservative party, we are the people who wrote & ratified the US Constitution, against opposition from many who later became Jeffersonian "Democratics".
We have always been the conservative bulwark against which all the latest fads & fashions of the day crash, attempting to break us down and transform us into them.
We were and are the party of the "middle class", family farms, small businesses, professionals, skilled workers, suburban, small town and rural, religious/cultural conservatives, national defense and local law enforcement.
Democrats were & are the party of big global business and big city immigrants.
And we have always (or almost always) stood firm in our beliefs & values against whatever is next on the "progressive" agenda.
Democrats have been at war -- declared or undeclared --against Americans since Day One.
Yes, in the very beginning, Jeffersonians used "strict construction" as their battle-cry against the old Federalists, but it was all just a sham then, just as it is today whenever they trot out that old war-horse.
As soon as Jeffersonians came to power, in 1801, they began doing all the things they had decried when proposed by Federalists.
And they invented new Federal powers, including the Louisiana Purchase, which Jefferson himself admitted needed a constitutional amendment to authorize.
In 1861 Democrats formally declared war against the United States, and they never formally surrendered.
Think about that.
So, today, when a Democrat politician promises to "transform America", that's what they've been trying to do all this time.
They HATE America as it is, or was, as one Democrat Governor (ahem, NY) said, "America was NEVER all that great".
They want to transform us into some nightmarish vision of the future in which they rule and we are all just slaves on the Democrats' big government plantation.
So Abraham Lincoln waged a bloody war against insane Democrats and finally won, but they never formally surrendered and never quit being Democrats.
What people today don't realize is how close-fought the Civil War really was -- look at my statistics.
Even in 1863, the battles won & lost are almost even, and also the numbers of battles fought in Union states & territories is still only slightly less than those fought in the Confederacy.
And, if I were to post the totals of known casualties on each side, the Union numbers are vastly higher.
So as of early 1863, Democrats/Confederates are at least holding their own in their war against the United States.
Today they seem to be running roughshod over us, raining great metaphorical clouds of urine down on us and all we can do is make like the proverbial Texas jackrabbits in a hail-storm -- hunker and take it (credit to Charlie Couch for that one).
And the situation is vastly more complicated by four facts --
1) It's no longer clear if our elections are fair & honest, not rigged, and
2) Unlimited numbers of new illegal immigrants will soon be voting, "legally" or illegally, their numbers will tip the scales against all but the very greatest of "red wave" elections; and
3) The Federal government itself has become the Democrats' political enforcement arm.
Add to that media and education and those are powerful opponents.
4) Many or most Republican politicians are just plain cowards, will not fight for their beliefs, or their constituents'.
But, if history is any guide, in due time Democrats will finally overstep even the very tolerant limits of average American values and then Republicans will have opportunities to correct at least the worst of Democrats' misgovernment.
When, is anybody's guess, but for sure, it cannot come soon enough.
Your philippic would have been more effective if you had just said Thomas Jefferson invented tooth decay and let it go at that.
It was not necessary to go full Castro length.
I think George Washington is more famous for his false teeth than Jefferson, and considering how much Washington hated Jefferson, in the end, he might not appreciate your giving Jefferson some credit.
Thomas Jefferson was as "complicated" as any Founder, if not more so.
He is rightly praised for genius and creativity.
But he was also the first, prototypical & archetypal, "Democratic" politician -- and Democrats still today claim Jefferson as one of their own, along with Andrew Jackson.
As for "philippic", yeah sure, the truth can sometimes seem bitter & cutting, but remember, this all began, as is so often the case, when somebody (i.e., our FRiend nwrep) tried to lay the blame for today's Democrats' insanity on Abraham Lincoln and the Union army -- for defeating the Democrats in 1865.
I'm just hoping to help keep our focus where it belongs, FRiend.
I think this is based on a flawed assumption (one addressed earlier in the above posting) that the election machinery is fair and presents a level playing field. We know this is not true, and hence, no matter how abjectly deleterious the effects of Democratic malfeasance, it is not a given that the election process will provide a corrective opportunity.
“. . . Democrats still today claim Jefferson as one of their own, along with Andrew Jackson.”
Republicans still claim Lincoln as one of their own even though he eschewed the Republican Party and changed to something else to run for president the last time. And, he recruited a Democrat to be his vice president.
He qctualy ran as a Union Party Canidate.
Right. He refused to run as a Republican.
I wish I could disagree with you.
And hope is not a strategy.
You're right, it was one of the few times in history when Union "War Democrats" put their dedication to country ahead of their loyalty to other Democrats.
Most Northern Democrats supported, even if half-heartedly, the Union war effort.
Had they actively opposed, the Civil War could not have been even fought, much less won.
And Northern Democrats' support for the Union was made possible by the broken 1860 Democrat Convention in Charleston, SC, when Southern Fire Eater Democrats refused to support Illinois Democrat Stephen Douglas' nomination.
So Lincoln rightly felt Northern Democrats should be rewarded for their support, especially in the face of 1864 Peace-Democrat presidential nominee George McClellan's opposition.
In early 1864 the war was going so badly for the Union that Lincoln himself expected defeat in November's elections.
And even with military success in the fall, Lincoln's margin of victory was not huge -- nowhere near Grant's margins in the 1868 election.
Indeed, a shift of only 5% of voters in eight key states would have given the 1864 election to Democrat McClellan.
Those 5% in 1864 were easily Democrats who voted for the Union Party, or at least stayed home and didn't vote.
So, in 1864 Lincoln put his country above his party and the result was victory for both.
Sadly, the resulting loss of party unity echoes down to us today in such characters as Cheney, Kinzinger and... the list is too long and discouraging.
Curiously, Democrat President Andrew Johnson was hated by most northerners for being too lenient on the South and he was reviled by most Southerners for being too harsh.
And that's what comes from putting country above party, a lesson Democrats took to heart, but Republicans never quite understood.
“The National Union Party was the name used by the Republican Party and elements of other parties for the national ticket in the 1864 presidential election during the Civil War. Most state Republican parties did not change their name. The name was used to attract War Democrats, border state voters, and Unconditional Unionist, and Unionist Party members who might otherwise have not voted for Republicans. The National Union Party nominated incumbent Republican President Abraham Lincoln of Illinois and Democrat Andrew Johnson of Tennessee for Vice President. They won the Electoral College 212–21.”
Is this not the true state of affairs?
Furthermore:
“The National Union (Republican) Convention The nominating convention of the National Union Party, dominated by Republicans with a scattering of War Democrats, met in Baltimore on June 7-8, 1864. By that time, Lincoln’s supporters had thwarted various insurgencies and secured control of the proceedings. The platform called for pursuit of the war until the Confederacy surrendered unconditionally; a constitutional amendment for the abolition of slavery; aid to disabled Union veterans; continued European neutrality; enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine; encouragement of immigration; and construction of a transcontinental railroad. It also praised the use of black troops and Lincoln’s management of the war. On the first presidential ballot, Lincoln got all of the votes except for 22 cast by Missouri delegates for General Grant (506 of 528). The Missouri faction, however, quickly changed their votes to make Lincoln’s renomination unanimous.
Like many presidents, Lincoln gave little thought to the vice presidency; therefore, he left the selection of his running mate to the convention, expressing no opinion publicly or privately. Vice President Hannibal Hamlin desired to be renominated, but he generated little enthusiasm. Some thought it was important strategically and symbolically to nominate a War Democrat, such as former U.S. Senator Daniel Dickinson of New York. Dickinson’s election, though, would likely put pressure on Secretary of State William Seward, another New Yorker, to resign from the cabinet. The convention swung to Andrew Johnson, the Union military governor of Tennessee, who had the double distinction of being a War Democrat and a Southern Unionist. He was nominated overwhelmingly on the first vice-presidential ballot. Since most radicals were satisfied with the party platform and the direction, though not the pace, of the Lincoln administration on emancipation, Johnson’s nomination was palatable to them.”
The above would seem to further refute your inaccuracies.
Which begs the question, Where did you get your opinion?
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.