Replies

from 2,161 rustbucket: "You know as well as I that the SS Nashville did not get designated the CSS Nashville until it was purchased by the Confederates. However, that information says nothing about the true loyalties and sympathies of the owners of the ship before that point in time, which I don't know.

"The Nashville was not owned by the US, but it apparently made periodic trips to Nashville carrying passengers, mail, and cargo. "

Didn't we establish that Nashville was owned by a large shipping company in New York? So, would their "loyalities and sympathies" not most likely be to their business, and also the laws of their country? Wouldn't they be most unlikely to do ANYTHING to cause trouble with either?

rustbucket: "At that time, Klein says that foreign ships flew their foreign flags, Southern ships flew the new Confederate flag or the South Carolina (Palmetto) flag, and Northern ships did not fly flags. The Nashville might well have been used to flying the Palmetto flag for it carried one in April which it used to enter Charleston Harbor after Sumter surrendered. Mixed loyalties perhaps?"

Or how about: 100% common sense -- when in Rome, you know, do as the Romans do? If other Northern ships flew no flag in Charleston Harbor, does that make them suddenly Confederate ships? I'd say it was just a matter of doing what you have to do.

And by all evidence that is certainly true of April 11 & 12. Later, of course, things changed. But as of the incident with Harriet Lane, Nashville was still a Union registered ship.

Look, this whole issue is of no importance whatever -- zero, zip, nada -- except in the context of claims by folks such as DomainMaster that in firing its warning shot at Nashville the USS Harriet Lane fired the "first naval shot" of the war -- or that it somehow committed an act of war by "blockading" the Nashville.

But if Nashville was owned by a Union company, doing its usual commercial and Union business, and normally flying a Union flag, then in no sense can the incident with Harriet Lane be considered a "first naval shot" of anything.

Do you disagree?

Didn't we establish that Nashville was owned by a large shipping company in New York?

The New York company weren't the only owners. See my post 2164. A large group of Charlestonians were also owners. Thus, it would seem that in Confederate waters the ship had the right to fly South Carolina colors (or a US flag if a US warship was shooting across her bow).

But if Nashville was owned by a Union company, doing its usual commercial and Union business, and normally flying a Union flag, then in no sense can the incident with Harriet Lane be considered a "first naval shot" of anything.

Take your argument up with the Coast Guard historians. Coast Guard.