Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
Only trying to respond to unfair criticisms of my arguments.
DM:"You agree that you were in error on your contention that the Harriet Lane landed troops in Florida in April of 1861."
Why would you misstate my argument, when it's right there staring you in the face?
What I said was that my source, Civil War Almanac, reported for April 8, 1861: "Federal troops on board the US revenue cutter Harriet Lane land to bolster the garrison of Fort Pickens, Florida." But since I can't confirm that, I suspect the report is in error.
This report tells us the troops landing at Fort Pickens occurred on April 11, but does not tell us the name of the ship which had been sitting there since around March 12.
DM: "Next you acknowledge the contradiction of the discussion of the Union troops firing on January 8 and the Citadel cadets firing on January 9."
Acknowledge the contradiction? There's no contradiction in facts.
The question is whether either (or neither) of those incidents can be considered "the first shots of the Civil War"?
According to Wikipedia "Some historians suggest that these [Jan 8, Fort Pickens] were the first shots fired by United States forces in the Civil War."
On the other hand, this Wikipedia article says, "The first shots of the Civil War occurred January 9, 1861, when the Star of the West was fired upon by cadets from The Citadel,"
DM: "No where in any of these examples did war break out."
Obviously, "some historians" disagree with you on that.
Even some of our pro-South posters here, such as rustbucket, seem rather attracted to the idea that the North fired the first shots of the war at Fort Pickens. Possibly because this implies the North started the war at Fort Pickens?
DM: "In fact, in your two scenarios, Ft. Barrancas and Charleston, after each of the events, peace continued to exist. In both areas, armistices had been negotiated, which remained in force for months."
I would note first, according to this 1871 article, the "armistice, [was] not reduced to writing, seems to have been faithfully observed".
On the other hand, this piece claims: "These documents were filed with the United States War and Navy Departments. Any violation of an armistice without proper notification is an act of war"
So, when did the Civil War begin? I'd put it this way:
When did the war really start? Take your pick.
I didn't access those links until now, but I had seen them before. I have stated that some argue that the Nashville was fired on by the Harriet Lane on the night of the 11th, and others say it was fired on during the 12th. The last link of post 1725 suggests that the firing on the Nashville happened after 3 AM, but it is not conclusive in that regard since in that communication Fox mostly talks about the ships in his convoy. I have posted before elsewhere on the seizure of the ice schooner Fox refers to.
However, the following 1865 document by Fox suggests the Nashville did not arrive until sometime during the 12th. [Link]
A careful reading of your link would show that Pickens was reinforced the night of April 12 or before dawn on the 13th. The sea was too rough on the night of April 11 to get the message to reinforce to the ships that had the troops. Here is what your link said:
So another messenger, Lieutenant John Lorimer Worden, was briefed, told to memorize and destroy his orders, and sent off overland. He reached Pensacola on the morning of April 11 and requested permission to communicate with the United States fleet. This was a privilege expressly granted by the January 29 armistice, and that afternoon Worden was aboard the dispatch boat. But there was too much sea to cross the bar that night, and it was not until noon on April i a that he delivered his message to Captain Adams.
At about the same hour General Braxton Bragg, commanding the Confederate forces at Pensacola, received from his war department this telegram: "Lt. Worden of US Navy has gone to Pensacola with dispatches. Intercept them." The unfortunate Bragg had to reply that Worden had come and gone, that alarm guns had just been fired at Fort Pickens, and that reinforcements would probably be landed before morning. He was correct; Captain Vogdes’ men, along with a hundred fifteen marines, went ashore that night.
Here is a link to a Harper's Weekly sketch of the landing of one set of troops supposedly on Saturday morning April 13. [Link, scroll down]
And here is a link to a communication of Captain Adams, in command of the US ships in the Pensacola area, that says the landing occurred during the night of April 12 with the harbor light house extinguished earlier that night. [Link]
I would note first, according to this 1871 article, the "armistice, [was] not reduced to writing, seems to have been faithfully observed".
There apparently was no single document signed by both sides, but the terms were put in writing, which is more in line with what your next link said. As I posted above (Post 1519) Florida Senator Mallory sent a telegram proposing the armistice and the US government responded by putting Mallory's terms in writing in its instructions to its commanders in the Pensacola area.
the FACT is that you "win the prize" as the LEAST ADMIRED member of FR, as you are roundly regarded as PREJUDICED,TOO DUMB to be alive & UNCARING about common decency.
fyi, your continued PRESENCE on FR makes decent people GAG.
free dixie,sw
Don’t you get tired of saying the same old pointless crap over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...?
the FACT is that the VAST majority of Freepers DESPISE the FEW ignorant VULGAR-talking members of this forum & simply want them GONE.
in one PM that i received from a "a well-known member" of the NJ chapter, she said, "Thanks for sticking up for common decency in writing on this forum. Your "former friend" may believe that anyone accepted his weak excuse for an apology for his use of obscene language on freerepublic.com, but I for one did not. Gentlemen shouldn't use such language anywhere, but especially should not in any place where impressionable children may be exposed to their filth. I certainly do not want my children exposed to such words on a site that is supposed to be 'friendly to' Bible-believing people. Reb, you have a new friend in NJ."
based on her comment, i would say that one more you find yourself "out of step with" most DECENT FReepers, LIAR. the TRUTH is that NOBODY (not even the other DYs) believes anything that you spew out onto this website- your reputation is that of a LIAR & NOTHING more than that. furthermore, what i like about your reputation is that you did it to YOURSELF. (NOBODY but you is responsible.)
free dixie,sw
laughing AT you, BIGOT.
free dixie,sw
And speaking of making things up, would you care to clear up just what you meant when you said that the El Paso Thanksgiving was "100+ years" before the Pilgrims landed? Does that mean 100 years and one day, 101 years, or what?
you & the rest of the members of "The DAMNyanklee Coven" are roundly believed to be a motley collection of BIGOTS, misfits,HATERS,losers,LIARS, halfwits & LUNATICS.
furthermore, MANY members of this forum don't "speak up publicly" because they don't want to be ATTACKED by the HATERS of the lunatic fringe of "The DY Coven" and/or their message boxes filled with FILTH as "certain persons on these threads" have done to mine. (i've kept every one of those PMs, as "evidence" should it ever become important to PROVE what GARBAGE a FEW people here are.)
the unvarnished TRUTH is that some FReepers don't want to associate/communicate with "GARBAGE in semi-human form", lest they dirty themselves by such association with BIGOTRY/FILTH.
free dixie,sw
I don't know if you saw my post to Greetings From Boston Man, but I found an article in the Southwestern Historical Quarterly July 1935 issue written by Lt. Cmdr. David P. Marvin, USCG, ret'd., a faculty member at the Coast Guard Academy. In that article he says:
Lying at the rendezvous off the bar, Captain Faunce observed a steamer approaching, and as she had no colors flying, the Lane fired a 32-pound shot from the bow gun, as an order to halt. This shot, at 11:20 a. m., April 12, 1861, was the first of the conflict to be fired from the deck of a Federal vessel.The stranger proved to be a merchant steamer from New York, the Nashville, with passengers and freight, and was allowed to pro- ceed to Charleston; she was later taken over by the Confederate government, used as a cruiser, then as a ram, and was lost in battle.
You're either a shameless liar or completely delusional. Which one I think you are changes from day to day.
So how come none of the other pro-southern partisans on these boards complain about being personally attacked, or having their mailboxes filled up with filth?
(i've kept every one of those PMs, as "evidence" should it ever become important to PROVE what GARBAGE a FEW people here are.)
Yeah, I've got the ones where you tell me that you can find out who I am in five minutes because you have friends here, and the ones where you tell me that you have inside information about the date one which I was going to be banned.
Not going to answer about the El Paso Thanksgiving, huh? What a surprise.
I did find records where the Lane had exchanged its Revenue Cutter flag for a Navy flag, so perhaps the various paintings of this shot that show the Revenue Cutter flag are incorrect. See Flag link, see lower left.
From my observations it is clear that he is both delusional and a shameless liar.
The problem is that those terms are so overused that they are relatively worthless (as is Squat2pee).
No matter, he provides a steady supply of unintentional humor.
don't you wish that you had just been HONEST in yours posts on FR, inasmuch as EVERYONE knows that you "LIE like a rug"???? (for starters, you wouldn't have to try to remember WHO you told WHICH LIE to.)
i'm FREQUENTLY wrong (there are FEW people who are are or almost always are correct. otoh, MOST of the ones who CLAIM to be "experts on everything" are either SELF-deluded or DISHONEST.) BUT i am NOT a KNOWING, serial LIAR.
free dixie,sw
besides, it's a GOOD THING to have a NUT to make fun of, when they are in "the enemy ranks".
free dixie,sw
Thanks! Now I have a new tagline.
Say, that’s a fine tagline you’re sporting there Bubba! Timeless in its appeal and so factual ;’}
I've already expressed my problem with some of Jefferson's ideas. And, in response to your challenge, have been looking for quotes, but CAN NOT FIND ANY:
Indeed, what quotes I do find complain about President Jefferson's efforts to "oppress... in the name of Republicanism." For example:
A petition against Jefferson's Embargo Act of 1807, from the port town of Alfred, Maine,:
""We are poor inhabitants of a small town, rendered poorer by the wayward, inconsistent policy of the general government; but life and liberty are as dear to us as to our opulent brethren of the South, and we flatter ourselves that we have as much love of liberty and abhorrence of slavery as those who oppress us in the name of Republicanism. We love liberty in principle but better in practice. We cling to a union of the states as the rock of our better salvation; and nothing but a fearful looking for of despotism would induce us to wish for a severance of the band that unites us. But oppression did sever us from the British Empire; and what a long and continued repetition of similar acts of the government of the United States would effect, God only knows!"
Possibly nineteenth century historian, Henry Adams, said it best about Jefferson:
"he believed the world, except within his own domain, to be too much governed."
So, bottom line, perhaps I should suggest a new "historical theory." My "theory" is: there was not one Thomas Jefferson, but two.
Indeed, the Jefferson twins must have been so identical, you couldn't tell them apart (but I'll bet if you dig up Jefferson's grave, you'd find two identical bodies there!).. < /sarc > ;-)
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.