New View: See the Civil War Sub Raised From the Ocean Floor in 2000
- Posted on January 13, 2012 at 11:47am by
Buck Sexton
- Print »
- Email »
It was the first submarine in history to sink an enemy ship, and now for the first time since the Civil War the public can clearly see all that’s left of the Confederate submarine H.L. Hunley.
On Thursday, an enormous steel truss that had surrounded the wreckage of the H.L. Hunley was removed, allowing for an unobstructed view that had been impossible for 150 years. The truss weighed more than 8 tons, and had shrouded the sub since it was pulled out of the water off the coast of South Carolina in 2000.
The Daily Mail has put together some of the best photos of this amazing piece of naval history taken by the Associated Press, which you can see below:
The attack that cemented the place of the submarine Hunley in naval history was against the USS Housatonic using a torpedo, which was propelled from the submarine with a pole. The crew of eight men inside powered the propeller by turning a hand crank, which gave the vessel a maximum speed of around 4 knots.
There was enough air to keep the crew alive as a result of two four-foot pipes that extended just above the waters surface, though the hull itself could contain enough air for approximately 30 minutes of submerged operations.
The Hunley required multiple sea trials before it would see combat, as it sank and was recovered three times before its fateful sinking of the Union’s Housatonic, which was part of a federal blockade effort.
Accounts differ on exactly what transpired during the Hunley’s missions against the Housatonic, but On Feb. 16, 1864, under the cover of darkness, the Hunley sank the USS Housatonic off Charleston. The Hunley itself sank soon after the Housatonic went under for reasons that are still under debate.
Some postulate the sub was knocked out from the concussion from the blast. Others say the Hunley was struck by another Union ship rushing to the aid of the mortally wounded Housatonic.
The wreckage was discovered in May 1995 off the coast of Charleston and in August 2000 it was finally recovered.
Now that the world has a clear view of the Hunley, the next step in the undersea excavation project, according to the Daily Mail, will be:
“Modifying its conservation tank so chemicals can be used to dissolve the salt and encrustation on the hull. Mardikian says that should happen in about six months and then, after three months in the chemical bath, scientists will again drain the tank and begin using hand tools to remove the deposits.”
The remains of the Hunley’s crew were found nearly 150 years later, still at their stations, apparently nowhere near the escape hatch. Their bodies were buried in 2004 in what some called the “Last Confederate funeral.”
For more photos of the Hunley, and additional reading on the excavation efforts and process, check out the Daily Mail’s coverage here.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 710 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 562 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 383 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 364 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 383 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 311 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 149 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 374 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (138)
BurntHills
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:24pmamazing it looks so much like a modern day sub.
Report Post »Viet Vet
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:39pmPowered by Armstrong.
Report Post »M 4 Colt
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 7:19pmSome very brave solders that took on the union blockade.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 7:24pm“The remains of the Hunley’s crew were found nearly 150 years later, still at their stations, apparently nowhere near the escape hatch.”
I wouldn‘t guess you would try to get to the escape hatch if you’re underwater
Report Post »Bluefish49
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 7:44pmLets strap an Evinrude on the back of this sucker and take her straight up to Potomic….by god the South has her Navy…..yeee….hawww!
Report Post »little big man
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 9:56amI think Iran is still using this type of sub.
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 2:14pmThe South was technically ahead of the North but didn’t have the factories. In addition to the submarine, the South also invented land mines, naval mines, and were the first to use observation balloons. The South also originated the idea of putting armor plate on wooden ships that instantly made all the other Navies including the mighty British Navy obsolete. One Southern iron clad could have defeated a fleet of British or Yankee war ships. Think what would have happened if the South could have put steam on their sub.
Report Post »paleoman
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:17pmThe union lost 360,000 men & the South lost 258,000 men. The South won the fight but the low life grant & sherman decided to take the fight to the women & children of Georgia. Burning & killing all the way in his march to the sea. Not much of a man to do that while the MEN were off fighting a battle. sherman should have been hung for war crimes against the women & children of GA. Not having streets named after him.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:21pmThey also named the “Sherman” tank after him.
Report Post »libwhacker
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:36pmBut it won the war though it worked see war is hell you win wars by any means that is how you win. I am not being a jerk i am just looking through historian eyes.
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:45pm@paleoman
Report Post »Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:17pm
You have the truth there.
Lincoln told Grant who told Sherman to do what ever was Necessary to end the war as they were losing.
Though Abe did this I bellieve he would have kept the Carpet Baggers from stealing in the South after the war. The Carpet Baggers are the ones that created the dislike of the *****. The baggers and the Army used them to take OUR property and holdings. This was against Abes intention of keeping the Union intact.
NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:48pm@libwhacker
Report Post »Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:36pm
Too bad the USA has not employed that type of unrestricted distruction SINCE then.
flatbrokeranch
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:59pmSherman and his men were equivalent to home grown domestic terrorists, the very definition of terrorism. The union army was no better than Al Qaeda. Our military to this very day knows that you don’t win wars by purposefully killing innocent women and children, there‘s some things that you just don’t do, even in war.
Report Post »tradexpertbuysell
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:25pmPaleoman,
You don’t know squat about history. Let’s reframe the debate put this into proper prospective. Sherman and Lincoln were to the South as Truman was to Hiroshima. Skip the war crime crap.
Now start over. Let’s have a real debate.
Report Post »408 CheyTac
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:27pmThe British gave The M4 tank the name “sherman” not the USA.
Report Post »Viet Vet
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:37pmSherman’s march was like Truman dropping the A-bomb on Japan. In both cases the eventual victors were going to prevail, but the action’s led to an earlier end to the war, saving thousands of lives. After Gettysburg the verdict was never in doubt, just the date of the war’s end.
Report Post »bertr
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 3:40pmThe older generation claim that Sherman’s men drug infants from the houses near winnsboro sc and bashed thier heads open. Rather or not this actually happened or if its myth and rumor will probably never be known, but Sherman’s campaign should never be glorified as it often is, just because you’re on the right side doesnt mean murder and rape of innocents is ok.
Report Post »Theodwulf
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 3:55pm“The South won the fight but the low life grant & sherman decided …”
This is all I need to know about you as a man. You are an awefull person and a complete idiot. A “low life” treats human beings as property, barters over the value of men woman and children like they would barnyard animals. Lee should have been hung along with every soldier that had given an oath to the Constitution and then fought with an illegal insurrection.
Enough with the Rebel apoligists, NOTHING the Confederacy did had any legal or Constitutional standing.
Report Post »Theodwulf
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 3:56pmA “low life” treats human beings as property, barters over the value of men woman and children like they would barnyard animals. Lee should have been hung along with every soldier that had given an oath to the Constitution and then fought with an illegal insurrection. NOTHING the Confederacy did had any legal or Constitutional standing.
Report Post »thegreatcarnac
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 4:35pmYou are 100% correct. Sherman was a butcher and a war criminal.
Report Post »NOTvotingforRomney
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 4:51pmJust wait until the next civil war. That will be a bloody mess also.
I figure in about 30-50 years as the Patriot Act and (TSA and Border Patrol mission creep extends beyond the border and airports even further than it is has extended now beyond the borders and airports now) and with Congress allowing the military to arrest Americans on American soil and throw them into Guantanamo with no lawyer or stay limitation – arrested on the WHIM of the president who decides who is our enemy because Congress GAVE up their declare war duty AND with police down-loading cell phones when people are stopped for traffic violations and judges appointed by the RINOs and liberals say that is is Constitutional, etc. etc. YOU KNOW TO KEEP US SAFE we give up our liberties … MAYBE THEN the SHEEPLE and RINOs who voted the Obama’s and the McCains and the Bushes and now possibly Romney into power FINALLY GET IT THROUGH their thick skulls what is happening and FIGHT BACK.
Report Post »schlepnier
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 8:12pm@paleoman
Report Post »Are you insane? what sherman did was brillaint. break the will of those who supported the war effort.
destroying supplies and support is valid military tactics in war.
tradexpertbuysell
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 8:32pmPaleoman,
Another objective of Shermans’ march was to make the war so terrible and disgusting that people on both sides of the conflict would also repudiate civil war. As a result not only did it end the war early and save lives it also save us from a constant 20 year cycle of civil wars. And Lincoln and Sherman both knew from history that this was the only way. If Sherman were alive today you couldn’t give a damn what you think of him but he did care more about forever solving the problem of constant insurection and unending strife for future generations.
Report Post »TROONORTH
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 8:39pm“Our military to this very day knows that you don’t win wars by purposefully killing innocent women and children”
Really? Speak to the people of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki etc. etc. You go to war to win it. If ‘innocent’ citizens ( and these are the people working at the war factories to support their side) get killed, then so be it. As Churchill said, in order to win we will make the rubble bounce. He did. We won.
Report Post »JoKerr
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 11:50pmSo then Andersonville was a perfectly fine and acceptable thing in war??
And Sherman “burned his way to the sea”, he didn’t murder babies to the sea, that was propaganda from the south. They DID burn and loot everything they could get their hands on, and tore up/burned all the railroads. Cutting off the souths supply lines ane keeping them from waging war off of their soil.
As a side note “Murderin’ babies to the sea.” would be a great motto for a Planned Parenthood mass marketing scheme.
Report Post »Reelist
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 12:18amflatbrokeranch:
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:59pm
“. . . there‘s some things that you just don’t do, even in war.
Well said flat, There is many things indeed. But there are one more as well.
Report Post »Armed Patriot
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 8:48amWe did the same thing in WWII, against both Germany and Japan. That was the nature of war, total destruction.
Report Post »UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 10:47amIn fact Lincoln’s employment of “total war” against civilians and non-military targets was considered a war crime at the time. Need I remind all you Patriots that the very reason we aren’t flying the Union Jack and singing “God save the Queen” is because Great Britian did not adopt this tactic in either 1776 or 1812. Much to his credit, neither did George Washington.
As far as tactics go, the War Between the States did change how wars were fought. From the use of trenches and “game changing” techonologies – such as the Hunley. Also widely known is that it employed “total war” for the first time since the Dark Ages.
Total War at the time of the WTBS was no more brilliant than any other cheater who wins a contest. The cheater relies on the opponent to remain honorable while he/she behaves dishonorably. Its effective, and I’ll not argue that. However, it did change the rules by making “total war” the universal norm. Its the new norm that to this day has Iran, and every other little country, working on nuclear weapons.
We reap what we sow, so we’d better prepare ourselves on all levels to reap the wrath of “total war”. Whether its actual war, or dealing with the socialist political onslaught – its all total war. Just so we all undestand, honor is only for the victor – and will be defined only after the winner is determined. That is the new rule, thank you Abe.
Andersonville? Let’s talk about Camp Douglas, Elmyra NY, Point Lookout MD.
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 2:19pmThe only thing the Civil War proved was that an industrial nation could defeat an agrarian nation. The South did better on the battle field because Lee devised battle field tactics that emphasized firepower instead of troop masses. Lee discovered that using smaller Southern army units against larger Yankee units resulted in victory.
Report Post »Marsh626
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:15pmJust goes to show that the popular image of the Confederates being a bunch of toothless imbred rednecks was utter nonsense.
Report Post »freeweever
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:29pmDitto and right on the mark…they had to demonize the South like the progressives demonize America and conservatives alike.It is no coincidence that they were called the Union Army lol kinda like the Union Army of today and the Occupiers. Long Live Freedom and America.
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:49pmSimpy true
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:50pmOr it could be spelled “Simply true”
Report Post »Viet Vet
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:42pmThe south lost the war because they couldn‘t spell ’victory’.
Report Post »Viet Vet
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:57pmNo one ever said they were toothless.
Report Post »inexiletill2012
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:14pmOut with all the racial comments !
Its about the history ! Had they not done it then, would we have subs now ?
Report Post »TROONORTH
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 8:42pmYes we would. The Germans seemed to like them.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 7:29amand the Germans still like them
Report Post »Johnny2Guns
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:03pmI love this kinda stuff.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:20pmI agree, it’s pretty cool.
Report Post »goodgrubguy
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:00pmHow about we just say how neat this is without re-fighting the civil war…
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:10pmBoy, I wish.
But no…This will soon go the way of all civil war threads. People simply have no sense of perspective…
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:10pmSo true…The story of the two Iron clad ships between the North and the South was always a facinating part of history also…It is bad enough that Obama is dividing the nation now.Divided we fall.Wake up America!!
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:56pmThe South will rise again the libs are forcing that.
Report Post »Before it was about the textile mills of the North trying take over King Cotton not slavery anyway. Buisness will always try to make slaves, remember the child labor in the textile mills for instance and now the child labor in offshored buisness.
That war is called anything for profit
ThoreauHD
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:42pmBesides the sub being a icon of the civil war, I think people get a little testy when they see the same thing happening today initiating a second civil war. That’s all.
Report Post »DD313
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:58pmI will have to go to Charleston once the Hunley is cleaned up for permanent display, as this is an amazing piece of engineering and naval history. INMHO the most fascinating thing about the boat’s recovery was the identification of the remains of the Captain through the recovery of the $20 double eagle gold piece he was carrying as a good luck charm. It also verified the story told by descendants of his lady friend that she had given the coin to him before he left for war and that, while in his pocket, it deflected a bullet at the Battle of Shiloh. He had the dented coin inscribed with the battle, date, and the notation “My Life Preserver”.
Report Post »Viet Vet
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 3:02pmI guess we‘ve learned a little bit about Life Preserver’s over the years.
Report Post »LOTO
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:56pmI have been unexplainably fascinated with the Hunley and its brave crews since childhood.
Report Post »I would love to see it. Hopefully someone will make a replica and a museum.
The Civil War was about taking states rights. Rightfully abolishing slavery distracted from and was used to justify a war forcing states not to secede from the Union. Slavery was on its way out. This war was fought once before and it may be coming again over states rights and limiting the power of the Federal government.
Lets pray not.
NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:03pmExcept it was not started over slavery. It was over business, they were afraid of the Souths King Cotton. The cotton industry had announced it was going to double its output and the textile mills of the North and Britian were worried they would create a monopoly and raise the prices.
Report Post »Remember its always about the money!
Viet Vet
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 6:38pm@NoRoomForSocialismHere
So it was the industrialized South that worried the North?
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:43pmSince this was a man-powered sub, they must must have known about global warming and went “Green” on this sub.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on January 14, 2012 at 7:33ambut they had a cruise missile
Report Post »gwssacredcause
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:40pmWhile the brave men of the Hunley deserve our respect we should all remember the pioneer of the worlds first submersible, American Patriot David Bushnell in 1775 who built and piloted the “Turtle”. The Turtle was built to attach bombs to the British ships. A man that helped fight for the original concept of freedom.
Report Post »BOMUSTGO
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:49pmThe “Turtle” another green sub.
Report Post »EchoHawk
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:40pmAs naval archeology goes, yes very interesting, as patriotic hero’s go, not so much. The Confederate States of America were by definition rebels and traitors to the United States of America, the union of states that existed before and triumphed in the Civil War. I’ve come to expect no less then these antebellum attitudes from the Blazer rabble.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:50pmlol, talk about stirring the pot!
Heh, this should be a great thread.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:52pmEchoHawk
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:40pm
As naval archeology goes, yes very interesting, as patriotic hero’s go, not so much. The Confederate States of America were by definition rebels and traitors to the United States of America,
===================================================
……as were Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams when they rebelled against the British crown in 1776.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:54pmBefore anyone responds to this a-hole they should first check his other posts. Do this by clicking on his name. This is a blatant troll just stirring the pot. This can degenerate into a hateful argument, I see it every time we have a civil war article. Think twice before you give this idiot the satisfaction.
Report Post »Psychosis
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:01pmcool……………..i want to be as dumb as you when i grow younger
Report Post »sapper
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:57pm@ECHOHAWK
Actually, the constitution has no prohibition against secession and after the civil war Jefferson Davis was to stand trial for treason but the supreme court warned union officials that they would lose a trial against Davis for treason as secession was not treason and there was no law against it. Davis never was tried for anything. While the constitution doesn‘t spell out a right to secede it doesn’t prohibit either. The founders considered this inherent and understood as a right. Many of them disagreed but you should note that the Articles of Confederation enumerated a perpetual union and specifically prohibited secession……..language that is interestingly absent from the Constitution. That would indicate they intended a right of secession. Supreme court ruled after the civil war that Texas did not have a right to secede…..on their own……but that secession along with other states to revolt was in fact legal. Therefore the Confederacy was legally a soveriegn nation and the union invaded. Just because Lincoln refused to recognize it as such doesn’t make it less legitimate. That said, the north won…end of story. However, Texas did, does and will have the right to secede. Nowhwere in the joint annexation resolution does it preclude Texas from the same right of secession any of the other states had. To wit, the ratification does say that Texas is admitted as a state on EQUAL footing with all other states.
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:07pmWe had the right to Secede I thought? As any state does to this day, right?
Report Post »EchoHawk
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:15pmTROLLTRAINER, is that your occupation or just a proclivity?
Report Post »cannon12pdr
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:38pmI was there when they buried the last crew. We shot the 20th shot of a 50 shot artillery salute during the burial ceremony. The procession stretched from Battery Park to Magnolia Cemetary. I will go back when the vessel is on display in its own museum at Patriots Point.
Report Post »idarusskie
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 6:04pmI look at that sub and wondered how they would have ever gotten out in a hurry anyway. If one guy near the hatch in out they all go down. They likely were taken down by the concussion of the explosion. It would not have taken much to pop the seams on that tank they called a boat.
Report Post »dlmcilvain
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:33pmFunny how we have to have the europeon media cover our own history…
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:16pmI would like to see the EU out of the USA
Report Post »Zoe
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:32pmAnd who says it’s wrong to Fly the Confederate Flag?
Report Post »Stoic one
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:11pmbigots …
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:13pmBigots and racists aka HATERS
Report Post »jjoy
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 9:36pmYep…
Report Post »Gary Fishaholic
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:18pmYes very brave indeed and patriotic.
Report Post »notreally
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:15pmCan’t imagine being cooped up in that thing. It was probably like being in a WW1 tank, without the bumps and engine heat/fumes.
Report Post »SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:13pm.
Report Post »Oh how I wish the land of Cotton had won…………..
Pro-Palin
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:28pmDo you also wish the Germans would have won WW2?
Report Post »dlmcilvain
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:31pmyeah, we probably would still have slavery then…personally I am glas they lost.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:34pmWhat does one have to do with the other pro-palin?
Report Post »boats48
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:34pmWhy? Are you racist? Or do you just like cotton farming by 19th century methods. The South was more divided than the country, politically, during the Civil War.
Report Post »Better Dead Than Red
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:35pmyou are a true moron.
Report Post »KidCharlemagne
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:50pmdlmcilvain
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:31pm
yeah, we probably would still have slavery then…personally I am glas they lost.
====================================================
If the South had taken the original deal to return to the Union in March of 1861, then slavery would have become permanent in the United States afterward:
——————————————
“The Corwin Amendment is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the 36th Congress, 2nd Session, on March 2, 1861, in the form of House (Joint) Resolution No. 80. It would forbid subsequent attempts to amend the Constitution to empower the Congress to “abolish or interfere” with the “domestic institutions” of the states, including “persons held to labor or service” (a reference to slavery).
Ohio Republican Representative Thomas Corwin offered the amendment in an attempt to forestall the secession of Southern states. Corwin‘s resolution emerged as the House of Representatives’s version of an earlier, identical proposal in the Senate offered by New York Republican Senator William H. Seward. However, the newly formed Confederate States of America was committed to independence and so it ignored the Corwin Amendment.”
Report Post »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment
SpankDaMonkey
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:53pm.
I Love Exposing PC White Guilt Moron Obama Voters…….
Ya’ll are an easy bunch to lead by the nose……………
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:02pmBoth sides were honorable…Much more honorable than we ourselves are today. We also cannot fully understand the motivations of the war and reasons why people did as they did with our 21st century understanding of the world. There were good reasons to fight in both sides. There were bad and wrong reasons to fight on both sides. Both sides had heroes and villains. Heroes and cowards. Atrocities and bravery. We do not know what this country would look like today had the south won. I like to think slavery would have still been short-lived. We cannot know. I do know that both sides were fought by God-fearing men and that the outcome was divinely inspired. God brought this country through it. The ironic part is that the survivors of the war, the vets who fought it, had a much deeper respect and sense of honor towards their enemy than we do today.
Report Post »UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 1:26pmWhat if the south had won? .
Slavery? Lincoln’s “Union” contained five slave states. Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. The insitution of slavery in these states was protected, enforced, and existed by all the previous US Constitutional interpretations and associated legislation until well after the war ended. There was no Federal-level law on either side of the Mason-Dixon that differed regarding slavery The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in any of those states nor Union controlled territory within the Confederate states at the time it was signed.
What would southern government have changed for themselves?
1.) subsidies would have been unconstitutional – for any industry
2.) no direct payments by the treasury to any branch of industry
These two provisions alone would have ended the political graft we see today. If the Federal government was constitutionally unable to erroneously skew the economy by subsidy to select sectors of their choosing, K street lobbyists would never have existed.
3.) No General Welfare Clause – no entitlement program would have existed
4.) Presidential term limit – 80 years before the US adopted it after FDR.
5.)Federal Judges, and other officers, could be removed by the respective State Legislatures.
6.)Recess appointments had to be approved by the Senate upon their next session.
Those were the real differences between the two governments, not slavery. Do you disagree with these 6 ch
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:18pmIt was not about slavery!
Report Post »It was about the textile industry wanting to control OUR COTTON, yes it was about MONEY!
PATRIOT802
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 3:19pmOf course he doesnt, But if OBama wins again ultimatly China will ! Dont be a Butt Head…
Report Post »Look Away Dixieland…..Geaux Saints !
UnreconstructedLibertarian
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 4:34pmLet’s just clarify how it was about money, and how that fits our modern time.
The antebellum south was the cash cow of the nation. Their agriculture and industrial endeavors were operating without any government subsidy. The northern states had petitioned the Federal government for subsidies and protectionist legislation, and had gotten exactly that. The tax dollars generated by tarriff on the import/export through southern ports were being redistributed to the northern states. The Georgia declaration of secession makes note of how much money was being paid “per annum” in bounties (subsidies) to northern interests. To quote Georgia, “to the south, none”.
Now lets have a look at our modern dillema. The government is actively redistributing wealth from the taxpayers to its chosen reciepients. This is not only burdening the average Joe, but disadvantaging small businesses by the subsidy of big businesses. Most of the legislations we’ve seen in the past 25 years are to advantage big business, big finance, big socialism. Its no different than in antebellum times where the tax burden is better borne by the big boys who deal in volume. This stifles the little guys by having to bear a disproportionate tax burden per output – regardless of any other competitive advantage he may have come up with. A simple mechanism to keep competition in check for the big players and secure their volume of market share.
If you opposed TARP, consider yourself a Confederate.
Report Post »Todd P
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:13pmI read about this as a kid, and saw a replica on display in Pigeon Forge TN about 18 months ago.
Very cool!
Report Post »sub veteran
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:12pmIt unbelieveable the amount of courage it took for these men to sail this vessel especially after the history of test failures prior to thier voyage. Being found still at their post is also a tribute to thier courage. As a submarine veteran,t I salute them and their contribution to the submarine service.I am glad they have been laid to rest with the honors they deserved
Report Post »jungle J
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:43pmkind of like going ito a hot lz several times a month.
Report Post »HellHorse
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:10pmWhat an amazing piece of history.
Report Post »gmoneytx
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:07pmThat was a cool article, about time…
Report Post »paulusmaximus
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:05pmInteresting and not political thanks
Report Post »NoRoomForSocialismHere
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 2:29pmPolitical it was and is…
Report Post »Son of the American Revolution
Son of Confederate Veterans
Son of the Republic of Texas
My family is a major part of USA history and politics since 1609 thank you very much
sooner12
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:05pmAwesome.
Report Post »Coyote6
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 11:59amThis is the coolest thing the Blaze has posted in a while. I love Civil War stuff. Kudos to the Daily Mail who originated this story. Very Cool.
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 11:57amAwesome.
Awe inspiring…Those men had guts to get into that thing.
Report Post »Rightsofman
Posted on January 13, 2012 at 12:06pmGuts is right – two previous crews suffocated to death in the thing before the last crew took it out.
Report Post »