Posted on 06/09/2009 8:47:35 AM PDT by Davy Buck
My oh my, what would the critics, the Civil War publications, publishers, and bloggers do if it weren't for the bad boys of the Confederacy and those who study them and also those who wish to honor their ancestors who fought for the Confederacy?
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
I got an even simpler question.....
Why is there no records of the U Boat ever being on display in Galveston Texas?
According to you, and your article (which by the way no one else has ever read and so far you have never been able to produce) it is supposed to be there as a Museum piece like the U-505 actually on display in Chicago which I have personally visited.....
So where is the U-Boat Stand???????
At best I would consider it a work of fiction that somehow became reality in the some what stagnant brain of yours, one that uses very short single syllable words, such as look stand look, see the boat, etc, etc,....
But if true (and for me I am stretching my imagination to it’s limits) the question still remains what’s the U-Boat?
laughing AT you as most FReepers do.
free dixie,sw
you did NOT answer the question YES/NO, thus we must all assume that you are not willing to tell the TRUTH and/or don't know the answer.
free dixie,sw
the answer IS: YES, he did state that in his book. (you know the book that "your buddy", "bubba ho-tep" denies the existence of, BUT nonetheless said that he tried to buy a copy of = that was downright FUNNY.)
free dixie,sw
as i've said from the beginning of this "controversy", i know NOTHING more than what THE AUTHOR of the book SAID. FYI, i also asked one of our former members of FR, "Tonkin Yacht Club" (who was VERY knowledgeable on WWII naval matters) & who has since passed away, what he knew (if anything) about the reported "U-boat vs. yacht shootout in the Gulf".- "TYC" said that he knew NOTHING for SURE, but had heard enough about the incident to make him want to know more of it & that he would see what he could find out from other naval vets.
the FACT is that i still don't know anything more about the shootout than i said those many months ago.
free dixie,sw
Why am I still here?
Because I can. Because you can’t.
Take your pick moron.
I’m here because I enjoy it here. With the exception of a few bigoted morons like you FreeRepublic is a great place. I’m still here because imbeciles like you don’t have the balls or the horsepower to remove me.
Get over it and get the book squat2pee...
Speaking of books, where's Blackerby's book? The one you also claim to have read.
So now you're back to claiming that the story about the "Texas Navy" capturing a U-boat is true?
As far as my trying to buy a copy of that book goes, yeah, when you showed up pointing to a Craigslist ad allegedly selling the book, I responded. What I got back was an email that told a story remarkably similar to one you'd told on another thread, about a nice gentleman paying off the sellers entire student debt in return for the book (in your earlier account, it was a car that you were selling), and it was signed by a "Tara Bankhead."
106 days since the last time he said he ordered it. Over a year since the first time.
To date only you have provided your account of this article, and NOTHING MORE THAN YOUR WORDS
Given your proclivity to stretch the truth beyond the boundaries of common sense, I won't render any sort of judgment until I have seen the actual account that you say you have read.
The problem as I see it is that other than your recollection something you may have read way back when colored people weren't allowed in libraries in the south, you have nothing to prove what you say. And if my buddy Tonk said he never heard of it, I submit to you that at best it is a bit of fiction you would be wise to admit was only fiction, instead of the glorious Confederate victory over the Germans you have always claimed it to be.
I can if you want go back and post several links where you have said just that. It is ridiculous for you to continue to try and hide what you have always claimed when it is always so available to me.
You want to imply that Lincoln violated the Constitution by appropriating money for the resupply effort instead of Congress. Such an implication is too ludicrous to deserve a reasonable answer.”
So, you are in effect saying that if the Navy department did not have Congressionally approved funds for the action, then Lincoln would have violated the Constitution?
Well, that is precisely what he did, with the Secretary of State as an accomplice.
Absolutely not, and your claim that he did is sheer nonsense. Congress appropriates money, how it gets spent is up to the services themselves. As commander-in-chief of the Army and the Navy, moving ships and men from point A to point B is within his authority and does not need Congressional approval.
You refer to post 988 as mine. I did not post that.
Several sources flatly state that 10 ships left the New York area under orders to sail south.
An 11th, the Niagara was sent out to deliver a change of orders of one that had sailed.
You cannot use the forum poster's point to suit your purposes because it is a posting reply to another on his discussion list to provide a clarification, the opposite of your posting....which is obfuscation.
Now, you can try to manipulate changes by citing the number that were actually sent, or arrived, or were diverted by storms, or whatever you like.
The fact that Lincoln engaged in secret plans to send a fleet South is not disputed by either the Official Records or his own dispatches.
But of course you can disagree all you like.
Well, I am sure that some of our posters will give us a clarification.
So, what we have is the Vicksburg militia firing on Union shipping on January 13.
Now, one person here claims that the Charleston cannon that fired on the Star of the West was the first shot of the war.
But the Star of the West was a commercial vessel that had been engaged in coastal trade. Although hired by the Buchanan administration to deliver supplies to Ft. Sumter, the question of firing on a non-military ship as an act of war is up for grabs.
So, I might vote for the Vicksburg shot because it was between government shipping and militia.
But it has not been settled whether the first shot of the war had to be cannon, or could it be rifle fire?
That puts the federal troops at Ft. Barrancas into the running as firing the first shot.
So, the question of what constitutes a “first shot” is now on the table.
I wonder if anyone will pose the question of whether or not a shot fired is the first act of war, or maybe something else like calling up hostile troops or establishing a blockade of an opposing harbor would qualify as the first act of war.
You know, there is certainly enough information here to run this idea of "first to fire is guilty as sin" concept into the ground. But since it is important to our Union sympathizers here to affix the blame on the South, then let's see what they have to say.
You said: “...virtually all cotton exports left from Southern ones (ports).”
Not correct. According to your source, Wise, on page 229, Appendix 3, for the year 9/1860 to 8/1861, the city of New York was the forth largest exporter of cotton to overseas markets. It shipped 248,049 bales...more than Charleston, Galveston and the states of Virginia and North Carolina.
So, you are wrong.
Go ahead and quote those sources for us.
You said: "Allegiance" by David Detzer puts the total at 200.
On page 231 of "Allegiance" by David Detzer, he states that the Baltic carried 200 troops as you said. However, you conveniently failed to state that Detzer, in his very next sentence, said that "Ordered to protect the Baltic were three naval vessels, the Harriet Lane, the Pocahontas, and the Pawnee. Detzer himself failed to report, according to the Official Records, that the Pawnee was carrying an additional 200 men.
So it would be true to say that you and Mr. Detzer failed to tell the full story.
During that period 91.2% of all cotton exported from the U.S. left from Southern ports, using the same statistics you're using. An overwhelming majority in anyone's book. Considering you can look at the fact that almost 95% of all tariffs were paid in Northern ports and somehow conclude that the vast majority of that was paid by Southern consumers, then I don't feel at all uncomfortable looking at 91.2% of all cotton leaving Southern ports and terming that 'virtually all'.
No, I'm using your posts to highlight the fact that obfuscation is your stock in trade. You post on link claiming 11 ships. You post another showing only 8. You post 2,000 troops at one instance and a few hundred in another. Your claims are all over the board and it's hard to keep up with them. And now from out of left field you're tossing in the Niagara. So where did that one come from?
laughing AT you, LOUT.
free dixie,sw
i DARE you to point out ANY time that i EVER said that it was. (once more, you are exposed as a LIAR & a FOOL as well.)
laughing AT you & all the other CLUMSY, arrogantly ignorant, SERIAL LIARS of "The DAMNyankee Coven of Lunatics,WEIRDOS, Nitwits, FOOLS, Bigots, LEFTISTS & LIARS".
free dixie,sw
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.