Targeting Lost Causers

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/09/2009 | Richard Williams

[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?

[rustbucket]

FYI, there are other versions of what happened with the Nashville. See Report by Nashville crewman. Thanks to Bubba Ho-Tep for originally posting this.

Finally, in the morning of April 14, even before Sumter officially surrenders, Nashville completes her mission by removing the US flag, then on nearing shore, raising a Palmeto flag and landing unmolested.

The firing stopped on the 13th. A white flag was run up at the fort that afternoon. All negotiations for surrender concluded by 7 PM on the 13th. The Nashville sailed into the harbor on the morning of the 14th. The ceremonial surrender occured that afternoon.

So, at what precise point does the Union ship Nashville become a Confederate Nashville? I'd say not until AFTER she lands and is first seized (or bought?) by Confederates.

How do you know that the Nashville didn't simply run up the US flag to stop being fired at by a US vessel? Other vessels fly false flags. Even the Powhatan flew "English" colors when it approached Pensacola Harbor that April. When exactly did the Powhatan become an English ship?

[rustbucket]

This caused Washington, for example, to free his slaves in his will, and it caused Jefferson to make some extraordinary remarks in his draft of the Declaration of Independence -- remarks later edited out:

Yes, I know all about that. As you point out Jefferson's good intentions regarding slavery did not carry the day with respect to the DOI. And the clause in the DOI responding to Lord Dunmore's Proclamation that I pointed out above confirms that.

Please note that "Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms" included Benjamin Franklin for 18 YEARS trying to get the Brits to listen to sweet reason...

Sorry, but the South didn't feel like bowing to a king for 18 years. They had a right to leave the Union if they so chose. There was nothing requiring the South to offer to negotiate, but they did. It was the North that refused to negotiate.

Like I said above, it was in the North's interest to not negotiate, because a fair division of the properties owned by the US would have given much more to the South than the forts, etc., inside their boundaries.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I believe my statement was "Here's what was given in the Official Records, and the Coast Guard homepage."

Actually your statement in question had two parts, the operative part being:

Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane was moving about the harbor entrance and firing on civilian shipping. According to the report by Osbon, this was before the firing on Sumter began."

To support this claim, you cite two sources, the OR and the USCG site. I asked where, in the OR, it supports your claim that the "Harriet Lane" was firing on civilian shipping. What you come back with fails to address the question. The fact is that the OR makes no mention of the "Harriet Lane" firing on civilian shipping. All you've demonstrated from the OR is that the rebels knew the "Harriet Lane" was out there.

As for the other part, I'll see your USCG web page with another official USCG history page citation, which puts the shot across the Nashville's bow on April 12.

http://www.navyandmarine.org/ondeck/1800uscg.htm

http://tmlha.exis.net/rcs.htm

Go back and read the byline on those two pieces. IT'S THE SAME ARTICLE! And you're working on your MA?

"On April 11, 1861, the Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane fired the first shots of the maritime conflict in the American Civil WarAmerican Civil War". http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/United_States_Revenue_Cutter_Service

Hmm. Funny thing about that citation. It seems you didn't include the entire sentence. Here's the entire sentence: "On April 11, 1861, the Revenue Cutter Harriet Lane fired the first shots of the maritime conflict in the American Civil War of 1861-1865. The cutter fired a shot across the bow of the Confederate steamship Nashville as it tried to enter Charleston Harbor during the bombardment of Fort Sumter." DURING the bombardment ON April 11. Since I think even you will agree that the bombardment didn't begin until the pre-dawn hours on April 12, that this source is, to say the least, challenged. Of course, that didn't stop you from cutting off the troublesome part and putting it up anyway.

Then you offer another unsubtianted comment from a local publication that does not offer any official citation.

A "local publication"? I suppose that by your lights, the New England Journal of Medicine is a local doctor's magazine. The Southwest Historical Quarterly is the longest-running scholarly journal in Texas. It has been continuously published since 1897. It is associated with the Texas State Historical Society and the University of Texas and it's articles are peer-reviewed in accordance with the standards of historical scholarly journals. The author of the article was a faculty member of the Coast Guard Academy. One of the sources he cites in the article's bibliography is an account of the "Harriet Lane" by an officer on board at the time.

[rustbucket]

Unsubstantiated assertions?? Which of the following do you dispute?

We are arguing the same points yet again. This is getting pointless.

None of those few states' "signing statements," nor any of the Federalist Papers discuss the terms "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union."

You are correct that they didn't include those specific words. To that I say, so what. The words about teassuming their own governance are pretty clear to me, as I've said above in post 1552. Those three states and the four others that insisted on a 10th-Amendment-like statement reserving powers to the states or the people (see my post 2021) argue against your position.

IIRC, the ratification votes were close in those three states. How in the heck do you think the Constitution would have gotten ratified if it had said you had to have permission to secede? A majority of the delegates to those ratification conventions said they could leave if it comported to their happiness. If that was how the majority felt, why would those delegates have subjected the right of their state to secede to other states? I certainly wouldn't have had I been a delegate. Again, see post 2021.

The US Constitution itself provides lawful methods for amending or even abolishing and replacing it, but not for secession

I've posted to you in post 1355 that Northern Republicans tried to pass an amendment that would require states to get permission to leave. It didn't float. Secession didn't require an amendment. It was a power retained by the states.

The Constitution also ENUMERATES federal powers to declare War, and use the military to enforce federal laws, suppress insurrections, plus deal with rebellions, "domestic violence," treason and invasions of the United States.

Had the states remained in the Union and under the Constitution you would have a point, but they didn't. They weren't subject to the Constitution any more.

Indeed, rustbucket ol' buddy, ol' pal, your mention of the Confederate attack on "Old Fort Kearney" in NEBRAKSA constitutes an ACTUAL INVASION of United States Territory, months before Confederate President Davis officially Declared War on the US.

I doubt if the fort was occupied by US troops. It had been abandoned more than ten years before. Putting a flag on an abandoned fort in Nebraska was probably the work of local people who sympathised with the South. Oh, I forgot -- Lincoln imprisoned many newspaper editors and other people who argued that the South was right. And General "Beast" Butler hanged a man for taking a US flag down before the US army actually occupied New Orleans. It was appropriate that the New Orleanians then put a picture of Butler on the bottom of a chamber pot.

BTW, I think Davis argued that Lincoln declared war with his proclamation calling for 75,000 troops to coerce the South. That proclamation drove four states out of the Union.

[rustbucket]

This should have been italicized in my last post.

The Constitution also ENUMERATES federal powers to declare War, and use the military to enforce federal laws, suppress insurrections, plus deal with rebellions, "domestic violence," treason and invasions of the United States.

[Who is John Galt?]

Apparently you’re so far gone you can’t tell cranky from bemused, You ain’t John Galt, because I’ve got nothing to be cranky about.
And you’re way short of winning anything yet gramps because we have yet to debate...unless you’re talking about the little conversation you’re having in your head.
Sleep tight grampa...

Whatever you say, Squat-to-Post...

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

And it's so sad, to see someone using the name "John Galt" behaving so poorly. Oh well... ;-)

As I noted above, Squat-to-Post (you self-confirmed idiot):

The name you cite ("John Galt") belongs to different Freeper, you idiot...

No big surprise: your remarks indicate that you have a distinct aversion to letting any actual facts 'sink in' - obviously your loss...

;>)

[rockrr]

...and he/she/it cedes the field once again (this time leaving a little yellow stain). Losing seems to come naturally to you grampa...

[Who is John Galt?]

...and he/she/it cedes the field once again (this time leaving a little yellow stain). Losing seems to come naturally to you grampa...

LOL!

WIJG, Post 2088: And you’re really cranky when you've lost a debate...

Thanks for proving my point (yet again), Squat-to-Post...

;>)

[Non-Sequitur]

Gee, war must really be hell after all.

You will note the towns and villages of Hardeeville, Grahamville, Gallisonville, McPhersonville, Barnwell, Blackville, Orangeburg, Lexington, Winnsboro, Camden, and Cheraw were burned.

Well, no. If you read the story it says that barns, warehouses, gin-houses, etc. were burned - economic targets and legitimate targets of war; provisions of every description appropriated or destroyed - it's called foraging and it's no different than the way Lee fed his troops in Pennsylvania; horses and mules carried away - again, legitimate targets for foraging; and sheep, hogs, and cattle were either taken for actual use or shot - again legitimate foraging and/or denying the confederate army food and supplies.

And I'm sure the folks in Chambersburg and Lawrence would have a few stories to compare.

[rockrr]

You have yet to state a point grampa. You blather a lot of nonsense but nothing coherent. But you feeeel that you’re making one and winning something so perhaps you can get one of the nurses to pin a big gold star on your jammies - and get you an extra serving of Maypo...

[Who is John Galt?]

You have yet to state a point grampa. You blather a lot of nonsense but nothing coherent. But you feeeel that you’re making one and winning something so perhaps you can get one of the nurses to pin a big gold star on your jammies - and get you an extra serving of Maypo...

And thanks for proving my point (yet again, LOL!), Squat-to-Post...

;>)

[rockrr]

Oh, that's right - your point that you're a Lost Cause Loser. Sometimes it is so subtle that it loses itself in the obvious.

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

Oh, that's right - your point that you're a Lost Cause Loser. Sometimes it is so subtle that it loses itself in the obvious.

And thanks yet again, for proving my point, one more time, Squat-to-Post...

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

(LOL!!! ;>)

[rockrr]

OMG, you're down to...

I know you are, but what am I?!



How pathetic grampa...

[Who is John Galt?]

OMG, you're down to...
I know you are, but what am I?!
How pathetic grampa...

And thanks for the 'signature line,' absolutely proving my point, beyond any conceivable doubt, Squat-to-Post.

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

(And by the way, I note that you are now replying to yourself. No argument there!
LOL!!! ;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

...Squat-to-Post...

;>)

[rustbucket]

If you read the story it says that barns, warehouses, gin-houses, etc. were burned ,,,

Seeing only what you want to see again? You keep losing credibility, if you ever had any. From the link here is the whole sentence (highlighting something critical you missed):

Indignities and outrages were perpetrated upon the persons of the inhabitants; the implements of agriculture were broken; dwellings, barns, mills, ginhouses were consumed; provisions of every description appropriated or destroyed; horses and mules were carried away, and sheep, cattle, and hogs were either taken for actual use or shot down and left behind.

Here is information from other sites on the web about the burning and destruction of those listed SC towns and villages.

Hardeeville: "[sHERMAN'S MARCH THROUGH THE CAROLIINAS] Confederates skirmish at Hardeeville and federals burn the town all night/1865" Link

Barnwell: "The town of Barnwell was burned as was part of Orangeburg and Winnsboro." Link

Grahamville: "Most of the buildings in the town were burned by Gen. Sherman’s troops in 1865." Link

Gallisonville: "burned and left in ruin" Link

McPhersonville: General Logan (Union) to General Howard (Union), January 7 - March 31, 1865 report: "In accordance with your Field Order, Numbers 29, I moved the corps from McPhersonville to Hickory Hill, breaking camp at 7 a.m. Before the rear of my column passed through McPhersonville I regret to inform you that the village was in flames. This was doubtlessly induced by the desertion of their houses by the entire population, for on our entrance into the village not a human being was to be found." Link

Barnwell: "The town of Barnwell was burned as was part of Orangeburg and Winnsboro." Link

Blackville: "On February 12th the army marched out of Blackville, leaving a trail of smoke behind them. A few homes and other buildings survived due to the vigilance and fast work of the villagers." Link

Orangeburg: "Sherman's men push back the Confederate forces at Orangeburg and begin to destroy the railway there and set fire to the town. By the end of the day nearly half the town is destroyed by the fire." Link

Lexington: "The town suffered tremendous loss of buildings in 1865 under the occupation of forces under the command of Gen. Sherman (Lexington was under control of the army guarding the Western Flank of Shermans troops.) Most businesses and homes, the county jail and courthouse and St. Stephen’s Lutheran Church were all burned." Link

Columbia: "The city of Columbia surrenders to Sherman. Union troops occupy the city. A fire breaks out, and by the next day, nearly two-thirds of the city has been destroyed." Link. And: Union Captain George Whitfield Pepper reported in his 1866 book that he met crowds of soldiers returning from Columbia "waving gold watches, handfuls of gold, jewelry, and rebel shinplasters [rb: paper money] in the air, and boasting of having burned the town."

Winnsboro: "During the Civil War, it was looted and partially burned by Union troops in 1865, but many older structures remain." Link. And: "On his march north from the capital city of Columbia in February 1865, General William Tecumseh Sherman had stopped just long enough to burn most of the town, an act that was not soon forgotten." Link. And: ""There were about thirty buildings burned, including dwellings and stores. The Yankees did not seem to care whether a building was occupied or not, but picked out-houses where, in their burning, they would communicate the flames to other premises. Every particle of property burned belonged to private individuals. No public property was destroyed. ... The Yankees also set fire to, and destroyed, the Episcopal Church, situated in the northwestern portion of the town; and while it was burning they took the organ, played upon it, and sang blasphemous songs. Many of the citizens were plundered; wedding rings and mementoes of deceased husbands or parents were stolen as ruthlessly as gold coin would have been. Watches and jewelry were cut from the persons of ladies, and, in some instances, their shoes removed on the pretence of searching for rings." Link

Camden: "Ultimately, like so many other towns in South Carolina, Camden did not escape the wrath of Sherman's men. In February 1865, many of its buildings were once again burned." Link. And: “Most of Camden escaped the torch …” Link. And: "On the 24th of February 1865, during the Civil War, a part of Gen. W. T.Sherman's. army entered Camden and burned stores of tobacco and cotton, and several buildings." Link. And: "In Camden, the Federals burned the railroad depots, a bridge, two thousand bales of cotton, food warehouses, and a flour mill." Link

Cheraw: "Outlying plantations and summer homes are burned, but no in town dwellings or churches are destroyed. Valuables are stolen and there is much vandalism. The official headquarters is the Matheson House. Sherman himself stays on McIver Street. When they leave the town will be destitute, and without food for more than a day or two. Almost the entire business district is destroyed by an accidental Yankee explosion." Link

Williston (not on the list of towns, but I thought I'd include it): "The Union forces then tore up railroad tracks and burned many of Williston’s homes." Link