As if he was supposed to do otherwise?
and did nothing until the ships were within that range.
A smart and effective move that won him the battle.
When they steamed past it the men were ordered up from under the fort and the guns opened fire hitting the boilers of the ships which killed most of the men killed.
As I said, heavy fire and precision hits won the battle.
The soldiers never became relevent since they did not land.
And that precisely is the impact of the victory. 44 men with six guns, two of them immobilized, in an earthen fort stopped a 5,000 man invasion flotilla accompanied by 4 warships with over 20 ships total.
It in no way compares to Thermopylae
It does indeed and your simply saying otherwise, which is all you've bothered to do so far, does not make it any more so than you calling your car and airplane gives it the power to fly. As an interesting sidenote, the battle itself earned the nickname the Thermopylae of the war between the states among its contemporaries and in its own time. They evidently saw enough similarity to make the comparison, and who better knows the battle than those who participated in it?
and was not a significant battle.
Again, your simply saying so does not establish anything, and that's all you've done so far. I asserted earlier and continue to maintain that, were it not for that battle, Texas history would have been significantly altered.
Sherman and Grant would not have been fooled
Why not? What did Sherman and Grant know about Dick Dowling and his dockworkers in an earthen fort that Butler did not?
and would have destroyed the fort and its men
Exactly how could they have done so and how do you know they would have done so? You made the assertion, now defend it. Neither Grant nor Sherman were invincible against surprise attacks or attacks waged against the odds. Or need I remind you of what happened at Cold Harbor?
Texas history would not have changed in any way
And as I earlier noted, you simply saying so bears no relevance onto what actually happened or would have happened. So what's your point?
except that Blacks may have had a brief period of freedom and a degree of power as they had when the murderous vengence of the Slaveocrats
You mean the ones that accounted for something less than 5% of the Texas population?
was prevented by the victorious Union army from exercising its full power over them.
That's funny. Last I checked, slavery continued in many areas held by the north until 1866, long past the war. I also recall Lincoln rescinding several individual orders by his generals that had sought the freeing of slaves under areas they had conquered. Simply having the union army around was no guarantee of emancipation no matter how hard you want it to be.
As far as I am aware there weren't thousands of Blacks murdered after the war there as there were in the Deep south. Since the Slaveocracy was not as strong in Texas the ex-slaves could always go to the west where the cotton culture was non existent.
If you admit the slave institution was not strong in Texas, why then do you appear to take some perverse joy in the fact that the yankees tried to invade and subdue by force a state where over 95% of the population was slave-free?
Texas turned its back on its greatest citizen
To some degree. More than anything else, it was a policy disagreement. Houston was a constitutional unionist and finished second to John Bell for that party's nod for president in 1860. The majority of Texans favored secession. Houston led a political campaign to keep the state in the union and lost. It's as simple as that. And as an historical side note, Houston's son fought for the confederacy and the general himself eventually came around to the confederate side before his death.
when Sam Houston was forced by the Slaveocracy to resign his Senate seat
Not so. Houston left the senate when his term expired in 1859 to run for Texas governor, the office which he held until 1861 when Texas seceded and formed a confederate state government under which the governor's office went to Edward Clark. Prior to secession, Houston twice declined offers from Lincoln of the use of federal troops to prevent it by the point of the bayonet rather than the democratic process (as Lincoln did in Maryland). Following secession, Houston gradually became a public supporter of the confederacy until his death in 1863.
Or in other words, learn some history before you shoot your mouth off again.
This insignificance of the Sabin skirmish is illustrated by the complete lack of even a mention in the Historical Atlas of Civil War Battles which I consulted last night. Not only did the War essentially end at the Louisiana western border but the lack of Union interest in that theater is clearly shown by the small forces Butler was allowed to send into action. No invasion of any importance is stopped by the destruction of two ships. But to you that was an "armada" lol. Grant's entire strategy was to complete the splitting of the South. Texas was utterly irrelevent to that strategy having already been split off by Vicksburg's fall. Sherman and Grant would not care about the maybes at the fort they would simply lay seige to it until they took it. They understood war unlike Butler. Certainly they would not have plans which would be destroyed by a couple of lucky hits on their "Great Armada."
The only comparison to Thermopylae is in number of letters in the name Them-11, Sabine Pass- 10. This is the entire valid equation. Whatever the six people who heard of the "Battle" called it, it was no Thermopylae. Such claims call in question any statement made by people who believe them and spread them.
Thanks for the information on Sam, I forgot the details of how the State turned its back on its most important man and wisest politician and plunged into insane mass lunacy for no good reason.
However, it is totally false that slavery existed in the north at anytime after the war. Where does that insane lie come from the same source that compares a trivial skirmish to Thermopylae? Slavery was illegal in the North BEFORE the war except for the Border states. What does Lincoln (trying to defeat rebellion not free slaves) controlling the political actions of his generals have to do with anything except to give desperate Defenders of Slaveocracy a chance to look idiotic?
I don't see where I expressed any kind of joy about Union forces subduing the treasonous insurrection in Texas but it certainly was required by the constitution.
Perhaps you can kindly point out all those historical currents in Texas that were changed by the victorious skirmish at Sabin. I mean other than to give you an opportunity to scale the heights of hyperbole.
While I admit to knowing little Texas history I certainly know enough American history to understand the unconstitutional nature of the attempted insurrection led against the Union by the Slaveocrats. This is an area within which the D.S.'s are fatally deficient and are reduced to parroting easily disprovable lies about the nature of the War and its meaning.
This war came about in spite of the efforts of the best and most important of the founders: Washington, Hamilton, Madison, Jackson. Only Jefferson, at his least rational, gave any contenence to the idea of secession and his understanding of the constitution was weak at best.