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.
I'm glad to see you've kicked into 'angry yankee rant' mode and all, but I fail to see what point you are driving at our what it has to do with our earlier discussion. I do not have the time to argue with more than a few self contructed brick walls over the issues of the war itself at any one time, so in advance please note that you will find no audience in me. I think it a safe assertion that nothing I do will change your view of the war itself. Accordingly, I see no reason to waste my time responding to your commentary on these issues and therefore will ignore them.
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.
And I suppose your little atlas is the supreme authority and arbitur of what constitutes significance in the war? To the contrary, I need only note that in its own time Sabine Pass made national news in both countries as evidence of its significance. If you wish to dispute this further, by all means go for it. But I see no sense in doing so when your entire argument is an appeal to your own authority and a couple of modern books you happen to own.
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.
5,000 men on a 20+ ship flotilla is hardly a small force. Perhaps it is small in comparison to, say, Gettysburg figures, but in and of itself it was a sizable army.
No invasion of any importance is stopped by the destruction of two ships.
And as I said earlier, those of us in the region that was being invaded, Texas, tend to think otherwise.
But to you that was an "armada" lol.
In comparison to the size of civil war naval engagements, a battle involving a 20 ship flotilla and shore battery is pretty intense.
The only comparison to Thermopylae is in number of letters in the name Them-11, Sabine Pass- 10.
Again, an assertion made on your own authority. So again I ask, what is your point? I am simply noting the historical fact that Sabine Pass (1) was in its own time identified as the Thermopylae of the war and (2) compares very closely in terms of odds against the side defending the pass to Thermopylae, hence the comparison. In other words, your own personal dispution of this is largely irrelevant beyond your own opinion
This is the entire valid equation.
No. It's simply your own silly and historically uneducated opinion. Nothing more.
Whatever the six people who heard of the "Battle" called it
Hey, don't blame me for your lack of an education and accompanying lack of familiarity with history.
it was no Thermopylae.
Opinion.
Such claims call in question any statement made by people who believe them and spread them.
Not near as much as the demonstrated lack of historical knowledge possessed by you as evidenced by your posts.
Thanks for the information on Sam, I forgot the details of how the State turned its back on its most important man
Turned its back on him? Nah. It was really little more than a policy disagreement. Houston's stature as a state hero does not mean the rest of the state had to agree with him 100% on political policy.
Further, as I noted earlier, Houston came round as a supporter of the confederacy before his death in 1863. In fact, at the time just before his death there was widespread rumor and, in the man himself, perhaps a little truth to that rumor that Houston was considering a bid for Governor of the Confederate State of Texas.
However, it is totally false that slavery existed in the north at anytime after the war.
Maryland, West Virginia, and Kentucky would likely disagree with you on that little fact. I also invite you to check out Lincoln's first inaugural address. Towards the end, he endorsed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution permanently protecting slavery. That same amendment passed with the required 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress a few days earlier and was submitted to the states for ratification. So no, the situation regarding slavery in the pre-war and wartime union states was NOT one of complete abolition, and in fact many of those regions remained slaveholding until 1866.
Where does that insane lie come from
History.
the same source that compares a trivial skirmish to Thermopylae?
That comes from history too.
Slavery was illegal in the North BEFORE the war except for the Border states.
And that exception is precisely what I am talking about. It is also the same exception that Lincoln wrote into his emancipation proclaimation which, as one British commentator at the time noted, "freed" the slaves only in the regions where Lincoln had no control with which to enact his proclaimation.
What does Lincoln (trying to defeat rebellion not free slaves) controlling the political actions of his generals
It demonstrates precisely that - that the north did not set out to free the slaves despite your earlier characterization that the northern invasion armies were there to do just that. I'm simply noting a matter of consistency here.
Perhaps you can kindly point out all those historical currents in Texas that were changed by the victorious skirmish at Sabin.
For starters, it likely moderated the civil rights movement in Texas. States like Alabama and Mississippi were originally NOT in the "deep south." They were known at the time of the war as the gulf states, the carolina's being the "deep south." Yet the Jim crow era emerged most strongly and visibly resisted in those two gulf states, backlash against a direct invasion and conquest being among the major contributing factors. To take a prominent example, the KKK itself emerged as a backlash organization to the military invasion and consequent subjugation of those states over the next decade of reconstruction. Texas' history turned out far more mild, even though it too was a "gulf state" with strong similarities to the other gulf states before the war. But Texas was never subjected to wartime military invasion, largely because we stopped it at Sabine Pass.
While I admit to knowing little Texas history I certainly know enough American history
No you don't. The ignorant historical mistakes you have made in your posts demonstrate that much.