Replies

"The point of which was to give lie to your constant refrain..."

In the interest of accuracy, the 'constant refrain' that you refer to came from "Charleston's Maritime Heritage" by P. C. Coker, III.

"that southern ports were somehow disadvantaged by trade laws..."

This has all been covered, but if you are still not satisfied, see "State of the Union Speech" in the Us House of Representatives, Jan 15, 1861, by Congressman John H. Reagan, and "Charleston's Maritime Heritage".

"Your pointing to Charleston's statistics, when Charleston was a secondary port at best compared to New Orleans, would be the equivalent of my insisting that Portland, Maine's statistics should be taken as evidence of trade in the north."

Fallacious comparison. Charleston's trade data in comparison to New Orleans reflects no magnitude of accuracy relative to Portland, Maine vs. New York City.

"And again you misstate and lie."

And again you misrepresent. I stated that the Harriet Lane fired across the bow of the Nashville, and that the Nashville then stood off the bar. (Documented in the O. R. in Fox's statement).

You said: "The Harriet Lane fired a shot across the bow of an unflagged ship (which was true).

"which is standard procedure for customs ships from long before 1861 to this day."

And I can say with accuracy that the Nashville was a regularly scheduled civilian ship whose arrival times were posted months in advance. Her outline was known to the navy. There was no doubt who she was. I could also say that it is likely that Capt. Faunce knew what and who she was, and used the situation to stop incoming shipping from interfering with the naval invasion.

Point is that you do not know for certain and neither do I.

What is known is that the Nashville received fire and stopped. That is no misstatement. That also puts to the lie your contention that the "Nashville continued on her way" which she is well documented as standing off after the firing on her.

There is no mis-statement and no lie if you stick to the facts.

"This action happened outside Charleston harbor, not in it."

Faking a relevance with that sentence?

"And you have no answer to the fact that I nailed you on your selective quoting of the Baltic's log, showing that the commandeering of the ice schooner occurred after the firing on Sumter had begun, not before it."

Wrong again. No selective quoting. The post was to prove that the ice schooner was seized, which I quoted and the log verified.

What you did was to finish a sentence and yell out "selective quoting". It is selective only if it changes a meaning by leaving out a modifier. I did not. You just choose to make a red herring out of another fact that you can't dispute.

It is selective only if it changes a meaning by leaving out a modifier. I did not.

I think that if you''re trying to imply that the Union naval forces somehow started a blockade of Charleston before the firing on Sumter began, and present as evidence of this the seizure of the ice schooner, it most certainly does change the meaning if you selectively omit the part where we are told that the seizure occurred after the firing on Sumter had begun.

see "State of the Union Speech" in the Us House of Representatives, Jan 15, 1861, by Congressman John H. Reagan,

You mean this part?

"You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights and institutions. And now you tender us the inhuman alternative of unconditional submission to Republican rule on abolition principles, and ultimately to free negro equality and a government of mongrels or a war of races on the one hand, and on the other secession and a bloody and desolating civil war, waged in an attempt by the Federal Government to reduce us to submission to these wrongs. It was the misfortune of Mexico and Central and South America, that they attempted to establish governments of mongrels, to enfranchise Indians and free negroes with all the rights of freemen, and invest them, so far as their numbers go, with the control of those governments. It was a failure there; it would be a failure here. It has given them an uninterrupted reign of revolutions and anarchy there; it would do the same thing here. Our own Government succeeded because none but the white race, who were capable of self-government, were enfranchised with the rights of freemen. The irrepressible conflict propounded by abolitionism has produced now its legitimate fruits-- disunion. Free negro equality, which is its ultimate object, would make us re-enact the scenes of revolution and anarchy we have so long witnessed and deplored in the American governments to the south of us."