[ought-six]

“The Harriet Lane stopped the Nashville and had her identify herself. Once she did she was allowed to continue into Charleston. Interestingly enough, she was promptly seized by the confederate authorities from her lawful owners, a New York shipping firm. So Southern theft took many forms.”

Details please. Who gave the order to fire on the “Nashville?” What was the chain of command that ultimately authorized the action? If a standing order, who wrote it, and when? Did the “Harriet Lane” give the “Nashville” a warning before firing, as required under maritime law? Or did it violate maritime law? If it did signal the “Nashville”, what specifically did the warning state? Was it by semiphore? Did the warning comply with maritime law? Was “Harriet Lane’s” action a war crime? If not, why not? You see how ridiculous this can get? We can play this idiot game forever.

[Non-Sequitur]

Details please. Who gave the order to fire on the “Nashville?” What was the chain of command that ultimately authorized the action? If a standing order, who wrote it, and when? Did the “Harriet Lane” give the “Nashville” a warning before firing, as required under maritime law? Or did it violate maritime law? If it did signal the “Nashville”, what specifically did the warning state? Was it by semiphore? Did the warning comply with maritime law? Was “Harriet Lane’s” action a war crime? If not, why not? You see how ridiculous this can get? We can play this idiot game forever.

Now, now, now, it's not nice to sulk. The Lane's captain fired a warning shot to stop the Nashville and get her to identify herself. As a revenue cutter, the Lane was tasked with preventing smuggling and requesting the Nashville stop and identify herself was well within the scope of her duties. It did not violate international law or maritime law because the Lane was a U.S. Revenue Cutter and the Nashville was an unidentified ship trying to enter a U.S. port. Firing a shot across the bow was an internationally recognized sign requesting a ship stop and identify and was the warning; no other warning was required. The Lane wouldn't signal by semaphore because there would be no reason to expect a merchant ship to be able to understand it; semaphone was used by the military for communications, not civilians. The Lane's act was certainly not a war crime as defined by Vatel or U.S. law or any other recognized international law of the time.

You see how ridiculous this can get? We can play this idiot game forever.

And you have been playing the idiot game for some time. All I want is the date of the proclamation you claim Lincoln issued before Sumter. Is that too much to ask?