Mr. President -- Invoke Abe!

2/6/07 | HMV

[PeaRidge]

Hiding under the cloak of appearing to wax authoritatively by quoting historical minutiae does nothing to bolster your weak commentary.

Attributing ensuring safety to Slemmer is not limitless authority. He resorted to unauthorized occupation.

And speaking of who was in the position to cause great harm, in addition to the ships named above, Union soldiers in Florida occupied the Apalachicola arsenal at Chattahoochee, containing arms, 5,000 pounds of powder and about 175,000 cartridges; Fort Barrancas, with 44 cannons and ammunition; Barrancas barracks, where there was a field battery; Fort Pickens, equipped with 201 cannons with ammunition; Fort McRee, 125 seacoast and garrison cannons; Fort Taylor in Key West, with 60 cannons; Key West barracks, 4 cannons; Fort Marion, with 6 field batteries and some small arms; and Fort Jefferson on the Tortugas.
.
Nothing refutes the fact that Slemmer fired his weapons and the Florida people did not. He offers no explanation other than his own assumptions, and you then want to make a "fact". Get serious.

And speaking of Chase's "threat: '800 is not enough, I can easily bring thousands more', what exactly did Chase do then?

Did he fire on the fort? Did he charge the walls? Did he order up more troops?

Go ahead and finish the story of your "out of context-out of truth" quote.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Attributing ensuring safety to Slemmer is not limitless authority. He resorted to unauthorized occupation.

From the OR, vol. 1, pg. 334: Slemmer's full report:

On the morning of the 9th I received through the mail a letter, of which the following is a copy:

Headquarters of the Army
Washington DC, January 3, 1861

First Lieut, A.J. Slemmer
First Artillery, or Commanding Officer Barrancas Barracks, Fla:

SIR: The General-in-Chief directs that you take measures to do the utmost in your power to prevent the seizure of either of the forts in Pensacola Harbor by surprise or assault, consulting first with the commander of the navy-yard, who will probably have received instructions to co-operate with you.
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
GEO. W. LAY,
Lieutenant-Colonel, A.D.C.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Sounds good, but the causes of the war of Northern Agression was due to the restrictive taxes and tarriffs levied on the Southern states by the Northern states in an attempt to keep Britan out of the textile trade that the Northerners were trying to protect after the invention of the cotton gin and bailer. thats not what the revisionists want you to think, though.

You may call it northern aggression, but if that's the case a little northern aggression was the best thing that ever happened for honest southerners by getting the degenerate slavery-based regime off their necks. In many places in the south, the advancing Union army was greeted as liberators. Some aggression!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Nothing refutes the fact that Slemmer fired his weapons and the Florida people did not.

From Slemmer's report: (OR, Vol 1, pg. 337)

On the night of the 13th a body of some ten men where discovered apparently reconnoitering. A shot was fired by them, which was returned by the sergeant. They then retreated.

[smug]

someone who knows who Dave Gardner is!!!

Who doesn't know who Dave Gardner is, or Louis Grissard, or Jerry Clower. Oh yeah I forgot about them Yankee's, they would'nt know.

[Kenny Bunk]

Your post arrives just as I am finishing Stephen W. Sears'

A Landscape Turned Red
The Battle of Antietam

Your timing and reasoning are impeccable.

[Non-Sequitur]

Attributing ensuring safety to Slemmer is not limitless authority. He resorted to unauthorized occupation.

Nonsense. Slemmer acted in the face of threats from town. He did not make his move until after Florida militia had tried to sieze one of the forts. According to Lt. Gilman, second in command under Slemmer, the sentries challenged the men and fired only when they weren't answered and as the men continued to approach. Absolutely nothing illegal about that.

And speaking of who was in the position to cause great harm, in addition to the ships named above, Union soldiers in Florida occupied the Apalachicola arsenal at Chattahoochee, containing arms, 5,000 pounds of powder and about 175,000 cartridges; Fort Barrancas, with 44 cannons and ammunition; Barrancas barracks, where there was a field battery; Fort Pickens, equipped with 201 cannons with ammunition; Fort McRee, 125 seacoast and garrison cannons; Fort Taylor in Key West, with 60 cannons; Key West barracks, 4 cannons; Fort Marion, with 6 field batteries and some small arms; and Fort Jefferson on the Tortugas.

Each and every one of which was a U.S. Army fort or arsenal. So why is it threatening for the army to hold what was theirs to begin with? Now did the soldiers in any of these facilities attack anyone or anything? Make any threats? Cause any damage or casualties? So where was the provocation?

Nothing refutes the fact that Slemmer fired his weapons and the Florida people did not. He offers no explanation other than his own assumptions, and you then want to make a "fact".

Well, if you have something that refutes his account then by all means produce it. Something that indicates the people were not there to seize the fort but were instead out for a stroll? Without anything to refute it why shouldn't we accept Gilman's account?

And speaking of Chase's "threat: '800 is not enough, I can easily bring thousands more', what exactly did Chase do then?

Read it for yourself Link

[Leatherneck_MT]

You're right, they probably wouldn't know. But seeing Dave's name in print for the first time in almost 30 years brought back alot of memories.

[BillyBoy]

Yeah, the war of "northern aggression" (they aggressively died to defend their own fort against southerners attacking them) was all about tariffs and textiles, obviously.

Nevermind the fact that that the Confederate Constitution is practically a line-by-line copy of the U.S. Constitution, and contained all the phrases and clauses which had led to disagreement among the states in the original Union -- including a Supremacy Clause, a Commerce Clause, and a Necessary and Proper Clause, thereby giving the "confederate federal government" virtually all the powers that the U.S. federal government had, and even a few clauses which made the national government more powerful than the original U.S. version. They could have opted for a weaker federal government like the U.S. originally had in 1774, but of course, none of the slavery loving "framers" in 1861 choose to do so. Funny how that worked out.

It's purely coincidental that the confederate Constitution say NOTHING different about taxes, tariffs, textile trade, states rights, sovereignty, right to secede, and interstate commerce, and the ONLY major difference in the confederate constitution is the following "right to slavery" clause NOT found in the U.S. Constitution: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress] "

"It's foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery... is his natural and normal condition."
-- Alexander Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy, on the creation of the Confederate government

Yep, clearly all about tariffs.

[smug]

it provided a simple crucible -- a clear choice between right and wrong.

It provided a political means to block England and France from Negotiating a cease fire with Southern separation. Lincoln's EP was "thinking out of the box".

Bush has already redefined the war. He now must find his own way of silencing his critic's. I don't believe there is anything politically he can do to shut-up the leftist. His only choice is militarily. He needs to capture his own "Atlanta".

[PeaRidge]

From the OR, vol. 1, pg. 345, To Captain Brannan, commanding Key West, from G. W. Lay, Lt. Colonel:

"Sir: It is the direction of the General-in-Chief that you transfer the whole of your company to Fort Taylor."

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

What about Brannan at Key West? Aren't we talking about Slemmer at Pensacola?

[PeaRidge]

Slemmer seems to be eager to rationalize his actions, which does not match up to reality.

Link--

"At the beginning of 1861, Fort Pickens stood empty. Fort McRee, across the harbor inlet from Fort Pickens, was occupied by a caretaker and his wife. The only U.S. troops in Pensacola -- a small garrison of artillerists of Company G, 1st U.S. Artillery -- were quartered in Fort Barrancas, an old Spanish fort just west of town.

"Their commander, Lieutenant Adam J. Slemmer, recognized his precarious position. He learned that Florida troops were gathering in town, and he suspected that Fort Barrancas would be seized along with the nearby naval shipyard.

"Shortly before midnight on January 8, 1861, guards at Fort Barrancas fired shots at figures lurking near the fort. Slemmer, fearing for the safety of the garrison, sensed that further hostilities were imminent. He reported that 20 men had been seen, although later accounts indicated that there were only two.

At any rate, these "first shots of the war" spurred Slemmer into action.

All other accounts, such as this--and this-- say that he fired on Florida citizens without receiving fire. So, you choose what you want to believe.

[Stultis]

we have to win the war in Iraq because first and foremost it is for the very interest of the United States, our freedom, and our way of life, even more so than the Iraqi people

Granted, but even in that light I think there remains a parallel to HMV's argument:

The Civil War made it clear that a "regional transformation" was necessary wrt to the American South. Without this sectionalism and strife would inevitably continue, whatever the outcome of the immediate conflict. This transformation could only be affected by destroying the institution of slavery.

Similarly our problems with terrorism and other forms of violence and instability emanating from the Middle East will continue until that region is transformed by the more liberal forms of governance.

[jveritas]

Similarly our problems with terrorism and other forms of violence and instability emanating from the Middle East will continue until that region is transformed by the more liberal forms of governance.

Agree 100%. We need to win the military fight first which is to weaken terrorist groups and terrorist regimes a lot so they will not pose a big danger on the emerging free societies in the Middle East.

[PeaRidge]

You simply do not appreciate the gravity of the situation at the time. Although later receiving recognition, there was one overly aggressive, inexperienced Union officer who failed to understand the necessity of exactly following orders while completely ignoring the likely consequences of his actions.

As has been pointed out to you Lt. Colonel G. W. Lay was the acting commanding officer for both Capt. Brannan and Slemmer. There is a very clear distinction between the orders given one and the other.

From commanding officer Key West, G. W. Lay, Lt. Colonel to Capt. Brannan:

"Sir: It is the direction of the General-in-Chief that you transfer the whole of your company to Fort Taylor."

Thus it is clear that Lay wanted Brannan to be inside Ft. Taylor.

Lt. Colonel Lay sent the following orders to Capt. Slemmer who Lay thought was located at Ft. Barrancas, "...directs that you take measures to do the utmost in your power to prevent the seizure of either of the forts in Pensacola Harbor."

Note that the orders say nothing about having the option to move or create an active Fort in the middle of the harbor.

Rather than accepting general orders to defend the area, Slemmer conspired to occupy a fort that, despite his limited understanding of tactical advantages, caused a defacto blockade of the harbor.

That was a direct act of war against the state of Florida. The citizens of the area knew that. So did the Florida militia, and so did Slemmer's fellow officers.

Nothing in Lay's orders accommodated that decision.

Add to that fact that Slemmer was firing on the citizens/militia of the area, and it becomes clear what he was doing...he was engaging in a state of war against the state.

[PeaRidge]

You know precisely what Chase did then. He did nothing. No challenge whatsoever.

Yet, the Union troops went about building their forces under the protective guns of the Union ships in the harbor.

Union troops in ships.......Union troops moving about on Florida land.....and then the blockade.

The triple threat in Pensacola Harbor.

[Non-Sequitur]

Yet, the Union troops went about building their forces under the protective guns of the Union ships in the harbor. Union troops in ships.......Union troops moving about on Florida land....

Federal sailors on U.S. Navy ships. Federal troops in U.S. Army forts. I don't see the problem.

.....and then the blockade.

In response to the Southern rebellion, yes.

[Non-Sequitur]

Oh, by the way. Happy William Techumseh Sherman's Birtday to you and yours!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Rather than accepting general orders to defend the area, Slemmer conspired to occupy a fort that, despite his limited understanding of tactical advantages, caused a defacto blockade of the harbor.

So your position is that, with something like 80 men and orders to defend the area, he did something illegal in deciding to concentrate his men in the more defensible position. Is that right?

Although later receiving recognition, there was one overly aggressive, inexperienced Union officer who failed to understand the necessity of exactly following orders while completely ignoring the likely consequences of his actions.

Sounds to me like he is utterly vindicated. He held his position until a relief force arrived and the consequence of his actions was that Pensacola remained in United States hands.