Posted on 03/07/2003 9:35:10 PM PST by WhiskeyPapa
The Shannon was an unarmed schooner whose only 'crime' was to fly the Stars and Stripes. It committed no hostile act and the confederate authorities did not try to establish its purposes, but simply fired on it anyway. If flying the American Flag qualified as a hostile act then that would mean that the confederacy considered itself at war with the Union as early as April 4th.
...but only after the yankees hindered it by firing a warning shot upon it.
And when it came to the Shannon the confederates fired a warning shot into it.
Charleston was their harbor, therefore they had the right to control access to it. The same cannot be said of the yankee states, who were hundreds of miles away from their own borders.
Nonsense. The Harriet Lane was a revenue cutter. Charleston was a harbor in the United States. The Lane had a responsibility to identify ships entering the harbor. Especially when, unlike the Rhoda Shannon, they were not flying any flag.
Walt has done so many times on this forum. Here's what he said about September 11th:
"All these deaths of U.S. citizens --the death of EVERY U.S. citizen killed by Arab terror in the United States, can be laid directly at the feet of George Bush I." - WhiskeyPapa, 11/15/02 SOURCE: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786927/posts?page=452#448
His Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, and Gore votes are admitted and his radical leftist blame-america-first politics are well known to those who have seen him post, but for some reason he escapes the penalties given to others for lesser offenses. Perhaps a double standard is at play here? You tell me...
Regardless, Virginia had not seceded. A blockade is an act of war, and by extending the blockade to Virginia even if to counter the activities of some within that state, Lincoln declared war on the state itself as a whole.
Both attacks were attempts by the confederate government to keep what they thought were supply efforts from reaching Sumter.
The confederate government did not even exist when the Star of the West incident happened. Only two states had even seceded, the second one on that same day. As for the Rhoda Shannon, it is simply absurd to describe it as an effort to start a war. A ship got off course, showed up at the wrong port, was mistaken for a hostile yankee ship attempting a sneak landing and, in the spur of the moment, fired upon. At worst the incident was a consequence of mistaken identity and navigation by both the ship and the confederates. To pretend that it was some sort of conspiracy for war by the confederate government is simply absurd.
When the confederates fired directly on Sumter then there was no other choice.
Nonsense. As you have been shown repeatedly, no connection necessitating war as a consequence of Sumter exists, nor have you or anyone else ever shown any. You cannot claim ignorance of this as it has been brought to your attention repeatedly. By continuing to claim that one exists as you still do, you perpetrate an act of blatantly dishonest and deceptive fraud. There is no other explanation for your actions.
The man should have his own award for cutting -n- pasting.
In fact, if they gave an award for "A Dim shill that hates President Ronald W. Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush; that despises all thing conservative and southern; that cannot comprehend the Electoral College or the Constitution", he'd be a lock.
So in other words, you are now admitting what you just denied - that Lincoln attempted to enforce his tariff at Sumter.
Charleston was a harbor in the United States.
The de facto situation of secession says otherwise.
ROTFLOL! So true...
You better not share those documented facts about Walt's liberal democrat blame-america-first Bush-Reagan hating anti-southern PC mongering Mondale-Dukakis-Clinton-Gore supporting politics with anyone though. Things like that seem to be frowned upon of late...
Virginia had voted to join the rebellion and took the first hostile action.
A blockade is an act of war, and by extending the blockade to Virginia even if to counter the activities of some within that state, Lincoln declared war on the state itself as a whole.
The blockade was a tool used by the Lincoln Administration to combat the rebellion. He was within his powers as president to do so.
As for the Rhoda Shannon, it is simply absurd to describe it as an effort to start a war. A ship got off course, showed up at the wrong port, was mistaken for a hostile yankee ship attempting a sneak landing and, in the spur of the moment, fired upon.
To consider an unarmed schooner hostile merely because it was flying the Stars and Stripes must mean that the confederacy considered itself at war with the United States. What other reason could there be for reacting to the U.S. flag in that manner? They fired on it without trying to find out what its purpose was. And this was not a single shot across the bow like the Lane fired. This was salvo after salvo directed at the ship and hitting it. The fact that the Shannon was not sunk is more a tribute to the wretched confederate gunnery than through any deliberate attempt. The confederates were itching for a war. Their actions on April 4th showed that. Sumter refused to accomodate them until they fired directly on the fort.
As you have been shown repeatedly, no connection necessitating war as a consequence of Sumter exists, nor have you or anyone else ever shown any.
Your claim would be like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor needn't have resulted in a war. Or if the Cubans bombarded and overran the naval base at Guantanamo Bay then there is no reason for the U.S. to react. Firing on the fort and forcing it to surrender was a deliberate act of war, the third such act on the part of the confederates. Davis attacked and forced the surrender of a U.S. facility. Once he started that then there was no other recourse than to accept the war that he wanted.
No, the Revenue Service was tasked with protecting the ports and coastal waterways of the United States. They are the precursor to the modern Coast Guard, but were under the command of the Secretary of the Navy. They were not tasked with collecting duties, that was the Treasury Department.
The de facto situation of secession says otherwise.
De facto my foot. The confederacy was not an independent nation in 1861 and was never recognized as such by any country at any time. Charleston was a city in the United States.
South Carolina seceded and governed itself as a seceded state from 1860-65. Its secession was de facto through the course of that period. Wars are not football games, BTW.
So your argument is that if they had successfully seceded it would have been acceptable? Might makes right?
Not so. The vote did not occur until May 23, 1861. Lincoln extended the blockade to Virginia a month earlier on April 27th.
and took the first hostile action.
The first hostility by a government was Lincoln's blockade, an act of war.
The blockade was a tool used by the Lincoln Administration to combat the rebellion. He was within his powers as president to do so.
Call it whatever you like. It is still an act of war and it still occurred before Virginia seceded.
To consider an unarmed schooner hostile merely because it was flying the Stars and Stripes must mean that the confederacy considered itself at war with the United States.
Not at all. A far more plausible explanation is that they saw an unidentified and unexpected ship in the distance heading into their port at a time when they were fearful, with reason, of a yankee attempt to reach Sumter. They apparently believed it to be a sneak attempt to reach the fort, when in fact it was a civilian vessle that had gone off course.
What other reason could there be for reacting to the U.S. flag in that manner?
The one that I described above.
Your claim would be like saying that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor needn't have resulted in a war.
Nonsense. Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack by an expansionist power upon a U.S. Navy sitting without hostility in its own due territory. Sumter was an announced attack upon a hostile military northern installation sitting within the southern borders and instigated to another hostile effort to reach that installation with ships of war for the purpose of making war. Your analogy is simply not comparable.
Once he started that then there was no other recourse than to accept the war that he wanted.
As you have been show, that is simply not so. No necessary connection exists and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise despite being given ample opportunity. I may thus conclude that you are engaging in an act of willful and intended dishonesty when you insist, in violation of the law of causality, that the war was a necessary result of Sumter.
No wonder he idolizes Lincoln ! This explains a great deal.
My skirmishes with Walt have always been rather short. You've done the heavy lifting many times - and know history better than I do.
As a transplant from Seattle to Houston I've had to rethink many of my previous opinions of the south. While racism obviously still exists, relations are much better in Houston than in Seattle any day.
I would not think of suggesting Walt be banned. He's a wily debater, and any thread on the War of Northern Aggression or on Lincoln would not be the same without him.
Not in this situation. The Lincoln specifically sent the Harriet Lane there along with other ships to participate in military activities involving Fort Sumter.
De facto my foot.
Barring a previous amputation of your foot, de facto indeed.
The confederacy was not an independent nation in 1861
It declared its independence, identified its own boundaries, set up its own government, and operated under that government without control of another. That is de facto independence.
and was never recognized as such by any country at any time.
That is not so. It was recognized by the Vatican, which by precedent is the oldest and original form of diplomatically recognizing a nation's legitimacy in the world.
Indeed it does. I found him on a newsgroup bragging to some Europeans about how he voted for Al Gore and "explaining" the electoral college to them. I identified it as his because the name of the poster was Walt and its email address matches the one he lists in his profile on FR. The post was made during the 2000 recounts and he was repeating the usual liberal line that it is a colonial holdover designed by "rich white men." It is a clear double standard that he posts here, but I do agree with you though - he is far too entertaining to ban.
The Lane was part of a fleet who's primary purpose was to bring food and supplies to Sumter. Troops and munitions were to be landed only if they were opposed. The south chose to oppose it. The south cose war.
It declared its independence, identified its own boundaries, set up its own government, and operated under that government without control of another. That is de facto independence.
You can declare yourself King of the United States. That doesn't make you de facto royalty unless someone calls you 'Your Majesty'.
That is not so. It was recognized by the Vatican, which by precedent is the oldest and original form of diplomatically recognizing a nation's legitimacy in the world.
That is not so. Diplomatic relations were never established and the confederacy was never dealt with as an independent country, not by the Vatican, not by anyone.
The Virginia legislature voted to secede on April 17th and committed its first hostile act by seizing the Harpers Ferry arsenal on the 18th.
The first hostility by a government was Lincoln's blockade, an act of war.
The first hostile act was seizing the government arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
Call it whatever you like. It is still an act of war and it still occurred before Virginia seceded.
But after Virginia voted to secede and committed the first hostile act by seizing the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry.
Not at all. A far more plausible explanation is that they saw an unidentified and unexpected ship in the distance heading into their port at a time when they were fearful, with reason, of a yankee attempt to reach Sumter. They apparently believed it to be a sneak attempt to reach the fort, when in fact it was a civilian vessle that had gone off course.
Not plausible at all because that wasn't what happened. The Shannon entered the harbor with the Stars and Stripes prominently displayed. The confederate forces fired on it. The confederate forces must have considered themselves at war with the U.S. The confederate forces fired the first shot.
Sumter was an announced attack upon a hostile military northern installation sitting within the southern borders and instigated to another hostile effort to reach that installation with ships of war for the purpose of making war. Your analogy is simply not comparable.
Does that mean that if Cuba shelled and occupied Gtimo then you wouldn't consider the U.S. within its rights to respond?
No necessary connection exists and you have yet to demonstrate otherwise despite being given ample opportunity.
I've shown that the south fired on the U.S. on several occasions. The south fired on Sumter in spite of the fact that no hostile action had been taken by the fort. The south obviously considered themselves at war as early as April 4, otherwise why would they have fired on the Shannon. The south was the aggressor. The south started the war.
But that should have made it easier for you to relate to him.
It is comforting to know that in an inconstant world, there are some things that are unchanging - like your bullshit.
When the colonies seceded from the British crown the British government fought a tangible body of people that had declared their independence. Whether or not the British, or anyone else for that matter, recognized the colonies as legitimate meant nothing - they still fought regardless of "official" recognition. Isn't the island of Cyprus divided today, with only Turkey recognizing one of the parties?
The pope is the sole governmental leader of the Vatican and Papal State. I was aware of that recognition, and another poster noted a few days ago that Britain (via the Queen & Treasurer?), France (Napoleon), and several other European nations recognized the Confederate States as a belligerent party in the war.
If I remember the text of the post properly, the Pope addressed Davis as "President", a formal recognition of his political standing as leader of the Confederacy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.