The Confederate Submarine

New York Times ^ | February 17, 2014 | BY RON SOODALTER

[Brad from Tennessee]

The moonlit sea was unusually calm on the bitterly cold night of Feb. 17, 1864, when a watchman spotted a strange, partially submerged shape gliding steadily toward the side of the Union sloop-of-war Housatonic. The steam-powered warship was serving blockade duty outside Charleston Harbor, and was one of the Union’s biggest, best-armed vessels. Its men had heard reports of a new Confederate weapon, a “sub-torpedo”; still, it took a few minutes for the officer of the deck, John Crosby, to comprehend what he was seeing. By the time he did, it was too late.

The swiftly moving craft had passed under the Housatonic’s guns, and the small-arms fire now directed at it by the men on deck bounced harmlessly off its iron hull. The men onboard heard a muffled thud as the vessel planted an explosive charge in the Housatonic’s wooden side, below the waterline. Moments later, the charge detonated, lighting up the sky and sending the Yankee warship to the bottom, along with five of its sailors. The Housatonic had achieved the dubious distinction of becoming the first ship to be sunk by a submarine in combat – and the only vessel destined to be destroyed by the H.L. Hunley.

In the wake of the explosion, the Hunley’s commander signaled to the rebel lookouts on shore with a blue magnesium light, indicating that the mission had succeeded. The shore party obligingly built huge signal fires, to guide the Hunley home. But as the submarine’s crew back-powered furiously, something went terribly wrong. Perhaps the concussion from the blast compromised one or more of the seals that kept the ocean out. But shortly after the Housatonic went down, the Hunley and its eight-man crew joined her on the ocean floor. . .

[1010RD]

Excellent commentary and thanks.

[1010RD]

There’s also the story of how Robert E. Lee intervened when a black man wanted to take the sacrament. The preacher and the congregation balked, but Lee got up and stood with him. How rare a man.

[1010RD]

You can overnight on the Silversides. US Boy Scouts do it all the time.

[MikefromOhio]

The war was about slavery.

sure you can say states rights, but it was about the states rights to maintain (and spread) slavery. It was an issue every time a new state was admitted, there was the abhorrent Dred Scot decision, and basically every political candidate had to be vetted on slavery in the same manner that politicians are vetted on issues today.

Slavery was sickening, it was anti-human, and it absolutely had to end. The union ended it and it’s just too bad that the south and their wannabe apologists like yourself have warped a valid concern such as states rights to fit their view.

[golux]

Have you read the articles of succession? Do you understand nullification? Have you even read the Emancipation proclamation which freed only southern slaves? And on and on and on...?

No.

You are from Ohio, and for you, the war was “about slavery.” That’s how they got northerners to fight, that’s why all of the northern newspapers were heavily suppressed and censored, and that’s what you will always believe.

That’s what I was taught to believe, too, in Maryland. Then I started reading original documents.

But hey - OK - whatever. “It’s All About Slavery.”

[rockrr]

Have you read the articles of succession?

If you mean "secession" then yes. So what?

Do you understand nullification?

Yes. It is a legal theory. Can you cite an occurrence when it was upheld?

Have you even read the Emancipation proclamation which freed only southern slaves?

Yes. Lincoln knew that he needed a constitutional amendment to free all slaves in the states.

You are from Ohio, and for you, the war was “about slavery.” That’s how they got northerners to fight.

No it isn't.

that’s why all of the northern newspapers were heavily suppressed and censored

No it isn't.

“It’s All About Slavery.”

It was for the south.

[MikefromOhio]

It was all about slavery. Saying anything else is disingenuous. Not that I expect anything else from the wannabe Confederates on this site. It dovetails nicely with the outright lies, character assassination and usual stupidity I normally see from that side of the house....

[golux]

“Saying anything else is disingenuous.”
I love that. That’s what I learned in public school too growing up in Maryland. It also works for Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Human Rights Issue Of Our Time.

[MikefromOhio]

I love that. That’s what I learned in public school too growing up in Maryland. It also works for Anthropogenic Global Warming and the Human Rights Issue Of Our Time.

You could also learn it anywhere if you really wanted too. Listen to ANY historian, North or South, and Slavery was THE issue, it's just that some wannabes here seem to want to pervert a great and noble cause like States Rights to make it fit their narrative. But if you want to be naive feel free, just expect me and a growing number of FReepers to call you out on your garbage.

BTW the Earth IS warming, and the evidence is undeniable. However, it's not because of Man, it's a natural cycle of the Earth. Remember, we've only had accurate temperature measurements for about 200 years or so. That was during the mini-Ice Age and a lot of our long term norms aren't.

[crz]

This is all so late. If you get a chance, get the book civil war memoirs of grant and read it. Grant was a man of very poor judgment of people-his downfall when he was president. But a great general. He handled 5 armies at the age of the early 40s.
He basically said that if the south had simply said it could not live with the north and wished to be separate, he would have supported them. But they attacked military and civilian targets of the north and that convinced him to do what he did.
I read that book and marveled at the genius of the man. And there is not much evidence of him being a drunk, No drunk could make decisions the way he did.

[crz]

He forgets copperhead newspapers. Tons of them..just read Grants civil war memoirs.