Posted on 02/25/2004 11:52:26 AM PST by 4CJ
[G, 455] The first Great War was not ended by an armistice.
[#3, 458] Are you saying there was no armistice?
Apparently you do have trouble reading. I said:
The first Great War was not ended by an armistice.
Your post #446 notwithstanding.
What he expected has nothing to do with what Lincoln ordered, which was not to fit out Powhatan with 300 sailors.
this captain was not aware of that impossibility. lol
You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out
I'm sure Lincoln and Seward LOL'd thinking that they were sending Anderson's men and the expedition on a suicide mission.
Whether he saw it or not has nothing to do with the fact that he accepted that the 300 men were sailors and that they were to fight their way in. You guys were implying that a ship would not load up with 300 fighting sailors. Since this captain accepted that these were fighting sailors, that means that fighting sailors were a possibility.
They were to rendezvous prior to reinforcement of the fort. Powhatan was sent to Florida. It could have been manned by history's first transvestite army for all he knew.
So what you're saying is that the Confederacy attacked even without a ship bringing provisions. They started the war all right. lol
All I did was ask a simple question. Was there an armistice?
I also found this one:
"You will please accept my thanks for the favor of Mr. Spooner's book upon "The Trial by Jury." I have derived much pleasure from a hasty perusal of it, and hope the author will persevere and produce other works, of which he has given indications in this. Although I do not look to see his theories extensively carried out in practice, yet I think his labors must have effect for good. Investigations so decidedly able and searching, can scarecely fail to excite reflection and serious enquiry, as well with honest legislators and statesmen, as among enlightened jurists. And this result may be, at least, a step taken towards restoring to suitors some of those common-law rights, of which, in the lapse of centuries, they have been gradually deprived." - Stephen Royce, Governor of Vermont (note: the essay to which he refers was a follow-up to the Unconstitutionality of Slavery that was published along with it in subsequent editions)
But his expectations prove that 300 fighting sailors were a possibility, contrary to you guy's implications.
You will fit out the Powhatan without delay. Lieutenant Porter will relieve Captain Mercer in command of her. She is bound on secret service; and you will under no circumstances communicate to the Navy Department the fact that she is fitting out
So Lincoln sent the ship somewhere else. What's that go to do with anything?
I'm sure Lincoln and Seward LOL'd thinking that they were sending Anderson's men and the expedition on a suicide mission.
No one was killed at Sumter except a man murdered by a Confederate after surrender, apparently. What are you talking about?
You like to talk out of the side of your mouth, don't you? Well, FYI, the guy died in an ordnance-handling accident of some sort. He wasn't murdered, Drama Queen.
Why are you guys dissecting all this ant-sh!t over the characterization of the men aboard the Union ships? What does it matter, beyond one guy getting to call the other guy a nuu-nuu? You guys are priceless. Your interlocutors are dumber than you are, to stoop to discussing anything with a tendentious boor whose principal talent is a flair for brawling and slander and whose principal interest seems to be putting something on some guy he never met. "Not that there's anything wrong with that." You brawl very well, but as I note above, you could touch up your slandering a bit and try not to do it out of the corner of your mouth, since you'll wind up eating it around here, like Wlat did.
All I did was correct an error on your part:
The first Great War was not ended by an armistice.
My gosh, you guys get mad about everything. Chill out a little. The word "apparently" meant that I didn't know how he died, exactly. Glancing over the record, I read he was killed in the surrender parade and assumed some hothead shot him while exiting the fort. There are hotheads in every crowd but if that's not what happened, fine.
Why are you guys dissecting all this ant-sh!t over the characterization of the men aboard the Union ships?
Because they're implying there was no such thing as fighting sailors. Don't like it, don't read it. And you're doing the same thing by jumping all over me for getting a detail wrong about the surrender, which I acknowledged could be the case anyway since I used the word "apparently".
What does it matter, beyond one guy getting to call the other guy a nuu-nuu?
Good enough reason for me. You're just mad that I proved them wrong.
You guys are priceless. Your interlocutors are dumber than you are, to stoop to discussing anything with a tendentious boor whose principal talent is a flair for brawling and slander and whose principal interest seems to be putting something on some guy he never met.
And some try to hide their lack of intelligence by using fancy words. What am I putting on people? My first post on this thread was a simple statement of fact, a one line statement. For making that statement, I'm considered the worst enemy there is to all the noeconfederates here but one. It shows that some can't handle the truth and what I said was true, that simple truths inflame more than anything else can (to those on the wrong side of truth).
"Not that there's anything wrong with that." You brawl very well, but as I note above, you could touch up your slandering...
"Slandering"? I made it clear that I didn't know how he died, exactly, by my choice of words. Like I said, you take this too seriously, it was 140 years ago and I mentioned no names. Unlike the neoconfederates who accuse Lincoln of everything under the sun. I speak in generalities knowing we're all human. They have some self-righteous hangup that makes them think that some never sinned.
...a bit and try not to do it out of the corner of your mouth, since you'll wind up eating it around here, like Wlat did.
I'm not a Dem. Walt strayed too far from the "likeminded" mold that should exist around here in fighting Dems.
Was there an armistice?
Was there an armistice?
What does this even mean?
An army of transvestites was also a possibility. Nonetheless, that is not what occurred, because that was not what was ordered. Had this captain stated that "We could not land the provisions because we lacked the 12000 monogamous gay couples in assless chaps necessary," or, "We could not land the provisions becuase the alien mothership failed to engage the tractor beam."
How does whether these men are sailors or infantry have anything to do with your failed argument that they were to engage shore batteries with muskets? You've taken us down a path of foolish fancy with your rants about what was possible.
What happened is that ships were sent on a fool's errand; reinforcement of a fort which was deemed impossible by anyone with authority to say so. Their efforts were further crippled by Lincoln's redirection of Powhatan to Florida.
It proves that your implications that there was no such thing as fighting soldiers were false.
An army of transvestites was also a possibility. Nonetheless, that is not what occurred, because that was not what was ordered. Had this captain stated that "We could not land the provisions because we lacked the 12000 monogamous gay couples in assless chaps necessary," or, "We could not land the provisions becuase the alien mothership failed to engage the tractor beam." How does whether these men are sailors or infantry have anything to do with your failed argument that they were to engage shore batteries with muskets? You've taken us down a path of foolish fancy with your rants about what was possible.
I never said they were to take on shore batteries. I said that they were to cover the delivery of the provisions and the letter from the captain of the other ship shows that he was expecting 300 sailors to do just that, so you guy's implications that there's no way sailors would cover a provision delivery are false.
What happened is that ships were sent on a fool's errand; reinforcement of a fort which was deemed impossible by anyone with authority to say so. Their efforts were further crippled by Lincoln's redirection of Powhatan to Florida.
Whether or not that is true has nothing to do with the fact that a letter from a captain on the other ship indeed proves that fighting sailors did exist, which proves false your implications that sailors would never be used in such an operation.
Was there an armistice?
They are one in the same. Resistance to landing supplies would come from shore batteries. You could not have said both the thing and it's opposite.
and the letter from the captain of the other ship shows that he was expecting 300 sailors to do just that,
No, he expected 300 sailors aboard Powhatan's gunboats to cover the expedition, not your "fighting sailors" whatever they are (note: sailors aboard a gunship would constitute 'fighting sailors' in my mind).
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.