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]

For someone who claims to be a "noted historian" (or, alternately a "research assistant") you really aren't very good at this, are you?

It looks like it amuses you to inflate your analogies, so you can continue to equate the New Eng. Jour. of Med. with some regional historical journal, and go on and on. That relationship does not exist, and never will.

You're the one who dismissed the Southwest Historical Quarterly as a "local publication," apparently without any actual familiarity with it. Since I assume that you merely saw the title and dismissed it out of hand because of the word "Southwest," I don't think it's too far a stretch to believe that you'd also classify the New England Journal in the same fashion. The fact remains that it is a long-running academic journal. If you want to impugn them, have at it.

None of that changes the stature of the author of the quote you cited, that is of David P. Marvin, US Coast Guard, retired. It seems as if he wrote a 1000 word article with only one basic contention.

Why don't you just come out and admit you haven't even read the article? First off, it's nearly twice the length you describe, 1983 words. And it's about far more than what time the "Harriet Lane" fired the shot across the "Nashville's" bow. That you can even say such a thing exposes you once again as the pompous fraud you manifestly are. The fact is that the mention of the time of the shot is a passing mention, and hardly the single "basic contention" of the article.

I could not find a single confirmation of that assertion.

Really? Because I can find abundant accounts of the shot describing it as taking place during the bombardment of Sumter. And as Rustbucket has pointed out, the confederates reported hearing a shot out to sea sometime before noon on the 12th.

As you know, neither could Mr. Marvin, or so it would seem since he does not bother to add a single footnote to that comment. If you can find anything on that, I would like to see it.

Mr. Marvin, a former faculty member at the Coast Guard Academy, includes a bibliography. Maybe you missed it as you missed most of the article.

And with regard to my statement: >>>>>”he is quoting a blog with a reference to a newspaper.”>>>>>that comes from the internet site that you quoted>>>>>>>

Here are the relevant paragraphs from your actual post, in case you've forgotten:

You continue>>>>”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.>>>>

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

Now your contention is that you weren't talking about the article in the Southwest Historical Quarterly when you wrote that? For a "noted historian" you sure are sloppy.

Rustbucket tried to locate the article and could not.

Which is not to say that the author of the blog is lying, as you apparently believe. Rustbucket's library did not have the issue of the New York World in question.

[BroJoeK]

from 2,040 rustbucket: "The US did not own the Nashville. Apparently the owners of the ship contracted to carry mail."

C'mon pal, 'fess up the truth -- all the evidence says: on April 11 & 12 the USMS Nashville was a Union civilian ship (much like Star of the West), on official Union business, and normally flying the Union flag. So her challenge by the Harriet Lane was strictly Union on Union action, not a "first naval shot" of the Civil War, as so often claimed.

And there is no evidence -- zip, zero, nada -- to suggest otherwise, is there?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

That does not change the fact that there are multiple sources for that information.

So where are the footnotes to those sources?

You know, I think I'll let you say it best:

"Mocking you is great sport, but does not change the fact that you supported the contentions of a simple college term paper and posted an edited article out of context.

Yes, you should be reprimanded. You are not a scholar, sir."

[Who is John Galt?]

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

Sigh. The name you cite ("John Galt") belongs to different Freeper. As I noted in my Post 2090 (which you apparently never bothered to read, even though it was posted in direct reply to your Post 2071):

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

Thank you for your (typically irrational) opinion - you "squat-to-post" idiot.

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.

Dream on, you historical revisionist newbie.

Maybe you should run back over to DU.

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

Thanks again you for your (typically irrational) opinion. Frankly, the name "Squat-to-Post" is too good for you - but you've definitely earned it...

;>)

[BroJoeK]

from 2,145 DM: "This page will identify the Nashville as simply a privately owned steamship"

But links already posted by rustbucket and myself clearly identify Nashville as a United States Mail Steamer:

History of the Nashville, note "originally built in 1853."

Abstract from NY Times, April 23, 1855. Note: "United States Mail Steamer Nashville."

The full NYT 4/23/1855 article.

According to Wikipedia: "The next day [April 12, Harriet Lane] 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."

That's why I say: there is no evidence to suggest that Nashville on the evening of April 11 & 12 was anything other than a civilian Union ship, on Union business and normally flying a Union flag. In that sense, Nashville was much like the earlier Union hired civilian ship Star of the West which South Carolinians had happily fired on in January.

So the exchange between Harriet Lane and Nashville was just Union on Union action, having nothing to do with "first naval shots" of the Civil War.

As to whether Nashville was or was not "allowed to proceed" -- had she proceeded, she would surely have been hit by fire from shore batteries aimed toward Fort Sumter. And Nashville certainly did "proceed" again, on the morning of April 14, just as soon as it became certain the way was safe.

[Who is John Galt?]

Pardon the typo(s)...

;>)

[BroJoeK]

from 2,149 BJK: "Sorry, pal, but you are unworthy of using the name "John Galt"...

WIJG: "Sigh. The name you cite ("John Galt") belongs to different Freeper. As I noted in my Post 2090 (which you apparently never bothered to read..."

You obviously did not read what I said above: "unworthy of USING the name "John Galt." Do you even deny USING that name?

C'mon pal, you are a disgrace, an embarrassment and insult to the name "John Galt," and it's creator. Drop it. Pick something else more suited to who you really are.

Look, if you really like question mark names, how about, "Who is Stand Waitie?" or "What was Pea Ridge?" Wouldn't those make you feel better? You'd be amongst friends who really love you, an not pretending something that has nothing to do with you...

Think about it.

[Who is John Galt?]

Look, if you really like question mark names, how about, "Who is Stand Waitie?" or "What was Pea Ridge?" Wouldn't those make you feel better? You'd be amongst friends who really love you, an not pretending something that has nothing to do with you...

Thanks for finally recognizing your own error - you newbie idiot...

;>)

[BroJoeK]

from 2,121 DM: "We here at the group often see the errors of amateurs such as yourself."

Come again?? "We here at the GROUP"?? The group?

Do I read this correctly to imply that our own "DomainMaster" is not one individual -- flawed or not as presumably "he" may be -- but rather is some sort of "group" effort?

If so, that would explain a lot -- especially DomainMaster's curious inability to remember either his own words or those of others. If DomainMaster is a group, then his problem would not necessarily be normal creeping senility, but simply one poster really not knowing what the others said.

Maybe we should go easier on DM?

[Who is John Galt?]

Come again?? "We here at the GROUP"?? The group?
Do I read this correctly to imply that our own "DomainMaster" is not one individual -- flawed or not as presumably "he" may be -- but rather is some sort of "group" effort?

That's rich, coming from a 'klown' who can't even get a user name right...

[BroJoeK]

from 2,101 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."

Indeed, a remarkable version of the story, confirming all of my argument except the designation: "United States Mail Steamer".

Note especially this comment:

"It was one of several ships owned by a merchant company out of New York."

"the new nation authorized the purchase of the vessel for $100,000. Actually, I don’t think the company was given a choice."

So, Nashville was a Union ship, owned by a Union company, on normal commercial & Union business and usually flying a Union flag, when it met Harriet Lane in Charleston Harbor. A few weeks later it was seized by force ("requisitioned") to become a Confederate blockade runner.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

I have to correct a mistake. The Marvin article is not 1983 words, as I said. It is, in fact, 2114 words.

[Non-Sequitur]

Come again?? "We here at the GROUP"?? The group?

Schizophrenic perhaps?

[rustbucket]

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?

If the war started that early, then according to the people involved and to some historians, it was started by Union shots on January 8, 1861, at Fort Barrancas.

[You quoting Lincoln]: "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." "

Or, as the New York Day Book translated that statement:

In other words, though you do not recognize me as President, I shall not molest you if you will pay taxes for the support of my government. We must have your money, that we cannot bring ourselves to decline, and if you do not let us have it peacefully, why, we shall be compelled to take it from you by force; in which case you, not we, will be the aggressors. This means coercion and civil war and nothing else.

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

And yet eight days after he was inaugurated, Lincoln sent a command to reinforce Fort Pickens without telling the South, an action that broke the agreement/armistice negotiated at high levels on both sides that kept the fort from being attacked. Was that not an act of war? Why would a peace loving person do that?

To use one of your arguments, it took the US years to resolve the question of British occupation of forts in the Northwest Territories. But after only eight days, Lincoln secretly ordered the truce agreement to be broken without notifying the other side, likely resulting in an attack on the fort. Lincoln clearly must not have wanted peace.

[Non-Sequitur]

I would not agree with any of that. I made the statement that it is fact that the Harriet Lane fired across the bow of the Nashville, and that the Nashville retired to an anchorage outside the harbor. To those that want to make a cottage business out of assigning a “first to fire-first to blame” argument, then they receive the above message.

Well you would know all about that. After all you made the somewhat idiotic claim that the Lane's halting of the Nashville on the 12th "was likely the event that began war." Conveniently forgetting the bombardment that had started some time before.

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.

There is the quote from Gustavus Fox that the Nashville was off the bar prevented from entering the port due to the bombardment. And the account of Commander Hartstene to General Beauregard saying the Nashville was still there on the 13th. And let us not forget that in reply 1559 you were quoting Mary Chestnut's claim that the ship was actually in the harbor on the 11th. Surely one of them is correct and that the Nashville was allowed to continue to Charleston?

And the only eyewitness being quoted here says it happened on the 11th.

You're forgetting Gustavus Fox, who stated the Nashville arrived on the 12th. He's an eyewitness, too. And I would also remind you that your eyewitness got the arrival of the Pawnee and the Pocahontas wrong.

That is also not true.

Yes it is.

He was uncertain about the two latter ships, but the most important piece of information was that he was in contact with the Pawnee.

Actually he states that the Pawnee was there when the Lane arrived. According to the OR, the Pawnee didn't arrive until the 12th. Of course, he includes the caveat "...if I remember correctly..." Obviously either he didn't remember correctly...or he was off on the date.

If true this further demonstrates the fact that more than one Union ship was operating in Charleston Harbor waters on the evening of the 11th.

But it's false, because as the OR shows the Pawnee arrived on the 12th and the other two ships a day later.

We already know that Lincoln ordered a forceful entry if necessary, and here is further evidence of the existence of the blockade.

In your Southron myth perhaps.