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?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I have not read the entire OR, so I cannot make that statement. Can you?

I have not read the entire OR. I have, however, looked at the index and have read all of the pages relating to activities around Ft. Sumter in April, 1861. Have you?

The New England Jour. of Med. being equated with what?

The Southwest Historical Quarterly. That is what you dismissed as a "local publication," wasn't it?

As you know, he is quoting a blog with a reference to a newspaper.

Wow. Who would have thought that a 1936 scholarly journal article would quote a blog?

How's that master's degree coming?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Eyewitness, experienced sailor, officer on board, and professional writer B. S. Osbon

Osbon was not an officer on board the "Harriet Lane."

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

There are a half dozen national or regional coast guard pages that deal with that topic.

Especially if you count the same one multiple times.

[Non-Sequitur]

And I would add to what you say the fact that you use the word "claim". To be precise, it is not a claim but a fact that the Nashville was fired on by the U S Navy. Nothing changes that fact.

But your claim made in reply that the Lane's firing a warning shot and halting the Nashville was "arguably the first true act of war" is certainly not fact. Most accounts agree that the Nashville was halted on April 12th, not the 11th. By the time the Nashville was halted the first act of the war had occured. When the rebel batteries opened fire on Sumter.

Wrong. Eyewitness, experienced sailor, officer on board, and professional writer B. S. Osbon, flately stated that the Harriet Lane fired on the Nashville before midnight of the 11th. See his book.

In his book he also states on page 117 that when the Lane arrived on station on the 11th, the Pawnee and the Baltic and the Pochahontas were already there. The OR clearly states that the Lane arrived on the 11th, the Pawnee on the 12th and the Pochahontas on the 13th. So who are we to believe? B.S. Osbon and you? Or the Official Record?

You go on to claim that the Nashville was allowed to “proceed”. You cannot provide any quote or order that verifies that. You simply make the assertion based on what you see written on the subject by others who also do not have any such documentation.

What about your own sources? You provided links to the OR that clearly show the Nashville was off the bar on the 12th when firing on the fort was going on.

The Nashville received fire on the evening of the 11th and then anchored off the bar. Your exciting picture of fire and brimstone did not start until over four hours after the Nashville hove to outside of anything that was going on, which if you were a student of the action down there, would know was mist, fog, and the sound of halyards flapping in the wind.

Except that once again, your fantastic claims are contradicted by the OR. The account Fox wrote on the resupply effort clearly states that the Nashville arrived on the 12th and with an number of other merchant vessels reaced the bar and awaited the results of the bombardment.

Well, as you have seen, your points remain in error.

Then the Offical Record of the War of Rebellion is wrong too. Or so you would have us believe.

We here at the group often see the errors of amateurs such as yourself. I do not see that you have been able to refute the fact that the Nashville received fire from a US Navy vessel and proceeded to anchor outside the gathering Federal fleet. Later fire erupted, but the blockade and war actions had begun with the obstruction provided by Capt. Faunce.

Complete and utter nonsense. But where is that a surprise?

[BroJoeK]

from 2,101 rustbucket: "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..."

Sure, but just what was USMS Nashville?

"...United States Mail Steamer Nashville on her monthly route from New York with passengers and merchandise to Charleston..."

And what factual evidence have you seen, ol' pal, to suggest that USMS Nashville was NOT a Union ship on Union business when she departed "New York with passengers and merchandise to Charleston"?

Is there any evidence to suggest that the Nashville's lack of a Union flag while approaching Charleston Harbor was anything other than simple prudence, considering the firing from shore batteries?

[BroJoeK]

from 2,102 rustbucket: "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."

• ...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
• It was the North that refused to negotiate...

rustbucket ol' pal, if there's nothing else that you understand about what I've been arguing all this time, then please understand this:
the language & logic you use above is not that of someone who seeks peace in a very delicate situation. Indeed, it's the language & logic of someone who full well understands that war was not only inevitable, but necessary, and who sees no point in needlessly delaying what must happen anyway.

That's been my point from the beginning. Got it?

[rustbucket]

Sure, but just what was USMS Nashville?

Sorry, but Google gives me: "Your search - "USMS Nashville" - did not match any documents."

Please find me something in addition to Wikipedia that designates the ship as USMS Nashville. As far as I know she was the SS Nashville, with SS standing for steam ship. See: History of the Nashville.

[rustbucket]

the language & logic you use above is not that of someone who seeks peace in a very delicate situation

Sounds like you are describing Lincoln's language and logic.

[rustbucket]

I do, however, find references to calling her the United States Mail steamer Nashville: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D06EFDB103AE334BC4E53DFB566838F649FDE

[rustbucket]

I suspect that any ship contracted to carry US mail was called a US Mail steamer. I note that DomainMaster pointed out to you above that the Nashville was contracted to carry mail.

This 1862 article says "Some five or six years ago she [the Nashville] was temporarily chartered for the mail service between Harve, Southampton, and New York, and made a few voyages each way with the mails." That might explain the New York Times article I linked to above. See: 1862 article.

[BroJoeK]

from 2,104 rustbucket: "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. "

Btw, I did not at the time directly address your arguments on this in 2,021. Now might be a good time to do so:

rustbucket: "In addition to Va, RI, and NY saying that they understood the Constitution to mean that they could reassume their own governance, the following states insisted on various forms of what eventually became the Tenth Amendment, the basis of the right to secede:"

You list South Carolina, North Carolina, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. In every case, their language only repeats just what the 10th Amendment says. Therefore, these provisions no more (and no less) argue for constitutional secession than the 10th Amendment itself.

In short, if the 10th Amendment means: "secession is constitutional," then so do these four states' "signing statements," but if it doesn't, then neither do they.

And I have argued there is NO WAY the 10th Amendment is a "get out of Union free card," because such a provision is vastly too important to have been passed over without ANY comment at the time.

So, what about those other three states -- VA, RI & NY -- which were more explicit in their "secessionist" language?

Well, first, I went all the way back to post 1,500 trying to find where you had quoted their language exactly, but must have overlooked it. My memory is, as you say here, they include words like, "resume their own governance."

So, it might prove fruitful to look more closely at exactly who said what when. But for now, let's address the phrase "resume their own governance."

If this means, as you claim, a right to "unilateral secession," and "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," then why, precisely, did they NOT actually say what they meant? I would argue they did not say it, because that is NOT EXACTLY what they meant, because:

You argue, no doubt correctly, that the vote in some state legislatures was very close, and only inclusion of a "signing statement" persuaded a majority to vote in favor of Union. But their language does NOT exactly say, "unilateral secession," or "unapproved withdrawal from the Union," and I argue the reason it does not say that is because such blatantly obvious secessionist language would NEVER have been approved -- by either a majority of those legislators OR the US Congress.

In short, this language of "resume their own governance" is political "language of art" intended to satisfy all parties by seeming to say whatever they might want it to say.

It was deliberate language of political compromise which allowed the Union to first form, but which remained vague & undefined for the next three generations.

Finally, you ask a very cogent question above: "How in the heck do you think the Constitution would have gotten ratified if it had said you had to have permission to secede?"

The answer is simple: the US Constitution required only nine of the original 13 colonies to approve it. Those who did not approve remained outside the Union until they did approve. The approval process was a simple "yes" or "no" with no legal provision for states' "signing statements."

If any states had decided to remain permanently outside the Union, they would, in the due courses of time, have been subject to foreign domination during, for examples, the 1790s "Quasi War" with France, or the War of 1812 with Great Britain. Possibly such foreign domination would have persuaded them of the sweet benefits of joining the American Constitutional Union. Do you think?

[BroJoeK]

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

Sorry, pal, but you are unworthy of using the name "John Galt." You are a disgrace to that name and to it's creator.

So sign off, check out, close down your account. Then you can legitimately sign back on as who you really are: Stand Waite Jr., or the Hero of Pea Ridge, or some other Confederate partisan warrior who might strike your fancy.

But the name "John Galt" is too good for you. Give it up!

[BroJoeK]

from 2,122 DM: "Actually the Nashville was a civilian steamer that made regularly scheduled runs to Charleston once a month. It was contracted to carry the U S mail. You can look that one up if you are interested."

Here we go again:

"USRC Harriet Lane again transferred to the Navy 30 March 1861 for service in the expedition sent to Charleston, South Carolina, to supply the Fort Sumter garrison after the outbreak of the American Civil War. She departed New York 8 April and arrived off Charleston 11 April.

"The next day [that would be April 12] she fired a shot across the bow of United States Mail Steamer Nashville on her monthly route from New York with passengers and merchandise to Charleston,[2][3][4] when that merchantman appeared with no colors flying. Nashville avoided further attack by promptly hoisting the United States ensign.

"When Major Robert Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter 13 April, USRC Harriet Lane withdrew with her sister ships.

"According to Captain H. D. Smith, Lieutenant W. D. Thompson fired the first naval shot of the Civil with the thirty-two pounder he commanded on the deck of the USRC Harriet Lane at the [United States Mail Steamer] Nashville."

So here are the cogent facts:

• On the evening of April 11 and April 12, the Nashville was a United States Mail Steamer not a Confederate blockade runner.

• as rustbucket would say, "some historians" disagree with you that Nashville's encounter with Harriet Lane happened BEFORE firing began on Fort Sumter

• But even if we credit your version, the encounter happened in the middle of the NIGHT, in a situation fraught with danger. So considering everything, Harriet Lane's warning shot was a sincere "warning" of serious trouble ahead -- no possible way an act of war.

• The firing on Fort Sumter lasted throughout the 12th and into the afternoon of the 13th of April. Nashville continued on to Charleston the following morning.

• Bottom line: there is simply no way the UNION Mail Steamer Nashville was "blockaded" by anything other than the South's firing on Fort Sumter.

Indeed, had Nashville not been delayed by Harriet Lane she could easily have been caught in the crossfire of batteries bombarding Fort Sumter. So thank God for Harriet Lane!

[BroJoeK]

from 2,130 rustbucket: "Please find me something in addition to Wikipedia that designates the ship as USMS Nashville. As far as I know she was the SS Nashville, with SS standing for steam ship. See: History of the Nashville."

Happy to oblige, ol' buddy... ;-)

First, note your own link says: "The S.S. Nashville evolved in structure in reflection of her changing use during her life. Originally built in 1853 and powered by a single side lever marine steam propulsion engine,..."

Now check out this New York Times article from 1855:
refers to "the United States Mail Steamer Nashville."

Btw, I noticed that you were more than happy to accept Wikipedia accounts, when they agree with you. :-D

[BroJoeK]

from 2,131 rustbucket: "Sounds like you are describing Lincoln's language and logic."

You will agree with me, perhaps, that it takes at least two to fight a war?

So, let us return to the historic sequence of events:

• Jan 9, 1861: "Artillery manned by South Carolina state forces at Fort Moultrie and Morris Island fire on the transport Star of the West as it approaches Charleston Harbor. No damage is inflicted and it returns to New York unscathed. Technically speaking, these are the first shots of the Civil War..." Or, possibly not?

• Jan 11: "South Carolina Governor Francis W. Pickens demands the surrender of Fort Sumter. Major Anderson politely yet curtly declines."

• Jan 14: "The South Carolina legislature summarily declares that any Union attempt to reinforce Fort Sumter is tantamounbt to war."

• Jan 18: a third demand that Fort Sumter surrender

• Feb 5: "President Buchanan reiterates to South Carolina officials his determination that Fort Sumter, Charleston harbor will not be surrendered to state authorities."

Now rustbucket, let's stop right here. By Feb 5, South Carolina has THRICE demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, has said that ANY attempt to resupply Fort Sumter is tantamount to war, and has been told by President Buchanan that Fort Sumter will not be surrendered.

Is it not clear to you that as of February 5, 1861, a state of war ALREADY EXISTS in every respect except actual shooting back?

And what is the first thing President Lincoln says in his Inagural address, March 4? :

"In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." "

According to Lincoln, there could be no war if the South were not the aggressor.

[BroJoeK]

"This 1862 article says "Some five or six years ago she [the Nashville] was temporarily chartered for the mail service between Harve, Southampton, and New York, and made a few voyages each way with the mails." That might explain the New York Times article I linked to above. See: 1862 article."

I'll ask again: when, precisely, does the historical record show that the United States Mail Steamer Nashville became Confederate Steam Ship Nashville? Was it before or after her encounter with USS Harriet Lane?

[rustbucket]

Now check out this New York Times article from 1855: refers to "the United States Mail Steamer Nashville."

Yeah, I already posted an old NYT article. See my posts 2132 and 2133.

The US did not own the Nashville. Apparently the owners of the ship contracted to carry mail.