Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Weapons are available for viewing, finally!

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Weapons are available for viewing, finally!

 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2011
On 6/17/2011 11:56 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-06-17 07:34:00 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 6/16/2011 11:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:


<condensing snip>
>>>
>>> A little more research reveals that the 3rd Texas Infantry was posted
>>> along the Mexican border for most the war, with one brief absence in
>>> September 1863, and reoccupation in 1864, at Fort Brown (Brownsville),
>>> and that there was regular traffic across the the Rio Grande to and from
>>> Matamoras, Mexico.
>>> Matamoras was used as a destination for French, English and German
>>> private blockade runners since that port could not be blockaded due to
>>> its neutrality. Also interference with the foreign flagged ships would
>>> breach current International marine law.
>>> So there is another possibility.
>>>

>>
>> IMHO The most probable alternative.

>
> I think that is the strongest possibility, but it would be nice to have
> some confirmation from an academic who might have the true answer.
>


Unless the opinion is supported with authenticated documentation, the
best any one can do is make an educated and well reasoned guess.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2011
On 6/17/2011 11:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-06-17 07:32:05 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 6/16/2011 10:55 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-16 18:49:56 -0700, otter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> <<< The rest of the story is in the early editions >>>
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is interesting. With the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson (near
>>>> Baton Rouge LA) in July 1863 the Union had control of the Mississippi
>>>> River and split the South in two parts. If this cannon were cast in
>>>> the East in 1864, how did it make it to Texas? I suppose it could
>>>> have been smuggled across the river when the Union gunboats weren't
>>>> around.
>>>
>>> There is a good chance there was a rearming effort by the last of the
>>> Western Gulf blockade runners. Galveston was recaptured by Gen. John
>>> Magruder on Jan 1, 1863, and they retained control until the end of the
>>> war.
>>> From March 1864 not much was getting out of Wilmington, or Savannah.
>>> Mobile was closed to the CSA in August 1864. Any time after that is
>>> unlikely, and even then the CSN had lost most of its government
>>> transports. Some private foreign blockade runners were still taking the
>>> risk, so that is a possibility.
>>>
>>> Otherwise the only other option would have been overland through Union
>>> lines, and that would have been tough, but not impossible.
>>>

>>
>> I haven't figured out how one can travel from the East Coast to Texas,
>> overland, without crossing the Mississippi, while keeping South of a
>> line not more than about 100 miles North of the Mason Dixon line.

>
> Complicated and interesting.
> That might not have been easy, but not outside the realm of possibility
> given that the Mason-Dixon Line was not a defining boundary, <avoid confusion snip>.....<



The Mason Dixon line was intended to resolve a border disputes between
Pennsylvania and Maryland. It is also interesting that on the Delmarva
peninsula the line runs roughly North and South.

<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0410_020410_TVmasondixon.html>

In 1820 in The Missouri Compromise extended the line from the East and
States to its North were free states and to the South, slave States.




--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-17-2011
On 6/17/2011 3:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2011-06-17 11:34:09 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> On 6/17/2011 11:53 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2011-06-17 07:32:05 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/16/2011 10:55 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2011-06-16 18:49:56 -0700, otter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>>>
>>> <<< The rest of the story is in the early editions >>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is interesting. With the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson (near
>>>>>> Baton Rouge LA) in July 1863 the Union had control of the Mississippi
>>>>>> River and split the South in two parts. If this cannon were cast in
>>>>>> the East in 1864, how did it make it to Texas? I suppose it could
>>>>>> have been smuggled across the river when the Union gunboats weren't
>>>>>> around.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a good chance there was a rearming effort by the last of the
>>>>> Western Gulf blockade runners. Galveston was recaptured by Gen. John
>>>>> Magruder on Jan 1, 1863, and they retained control until the end of
>>>>> the
>>>>> war.
>>>>> From March 1864 not much was getting out of Wilmington, or Savannah.
>>>>> Mobile was closed to the CSA in August 1864. Any time after that is
>>>>> unlikely, and even then the CSN had lost most of its government
>>>>> transports. Some private foreign blockade runners were still taking
>>>>> the
>>>>> risk, so that is a possibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> Otherwise the only other option would have been overland through Union
>>>>> lines, and that would have been tough, but not impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I haven't figured out how one can travel from the East Coast to Texas,
>>>> overland, without crossing the Mississippi, while keeping South of a
>>>> line not more than about 100 miles North of the Mason Dixon line.
>>>
>>> Complicated and interesting.
>>> That might not have been easy, but not outside the realm of possibility
>>> given that the Mason-Dixon Line was not a defining boundary, <avoid
>>> confusion snip>.....<

>>
>>
>> The Mason Dixon line was intended to resolve a border disputes between
>> Pennsylvania and Maryland. It is also interesting that on the Delmarva
>> peninsula the line runs roughly North and South.
>>
>> <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0410_020410_TVmasondixon.html>
>>
>>
>> In 1820 in The Missouri Compromise extended the line from the East and
>> States to its North were free states and to the South, slave States.

>
> That did not extend the Mason-Dixon Line. If it did it would have
> divided Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. I brought a whole new demarcation
> line into play, "36º 30'".
>
> Then there were changes between the 1790 & 1820 compromises. The reason
> it was the "Missouri" compromise, was due to Missouri being an ambiguous
> proposed slave state North of 36º 30' cut from the Missouri Territory.
> This also led to some of the worst civil conflict before, during and
> after the Civil War in any states in both Missouri & Kansas, also cut
> from the Missouri Territory, and which did not receive the slave state
> status of it neighbor.
>


The 36 - 30 line provisions were repealed by the Kansas Nebraska Act of
1854, which contributed to the continual fighting in that area.


BTW My reference to the Mason Dixon Line in context of your original
comment should have been a reference to South of the headwaters of the
Mississippi.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
otter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-20-2011
On Jun 16, 10:12*pm, otter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jun 16, 9:55*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-06-16 18:49:56 -0700, otter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> > > On Jun 16, 8:02*pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > >> On 2011-06-16 17:18:26 -0700, otter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> > >>> On Jun 16, 7:00*pm, otter <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >>>> On Jun 16, 9:07*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrot
> > > e:
> > >>>>> On 2011-06-16 06:08:37 -0700, otter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> > >>>>>> On Jun 15, 9:14 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On 2011-06-15 18:38:35 -0700, otter <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 15, 8:06 pm, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Otter: Weapons; Nice bronze cannon, it looks like an M1857 "Napoleon"
> > >>>>>>>>> 12-pounder to me.

>
> > >>>>>>>> You are probably right. According to my source, it is a bronze12- lb
> > >>>>>>>> light field gun bought by the governor of Texas in 1864 "to keep the
> > >>>>>>>> peace in the surrounding area".

>
> > >>>>>>> That would be about right for that gun. The Federals and CSA both used
> > >>>>>>> 12-Lb "Napoleons". However the two versions differed in that the
> > >>>>>>> Federal model had a a slight muzzle flair or "bulge" for strengthening
> > >>>>>>> at the muzzle. The CSA version did not have this functional adornment.
> > >>>>>>> The CSA barrel tapered smoothly down its entire length without a bulge.
> > >>>>>>> The example you show, has the muzzle flair and having been acquired by
> > >>>>>>> Texas in 1864, is probably a post Civil War surplus Federal N1857
> > >>>>>>> 12-Pounder "Napoleon".
> > >>>>>>> During the War smooth bore guns such as this became obsolete and were
> > >>>>>>> replaced with rifled guns, such as the "Parrot" and breach loader guns.

>
> > >>>>>>> Nice and well maintained and polished. Over the years most other
> > >>>>>>> surviving examples have developed a green patina to the bronze barrel.

>
> > >>>>>> It was still about a year before the end of the Civil War when the
> > >>>>>> bronze cannon were bought (there are 2 of them). I believe Austin was
> > >>>>>> still under CSA control at the time. *Not sure where the guns came
> > >>>>>> from, but possibly Mexico. *There were "cotton roads" to Mexico during
> > >>>>>> the Civil War where cotton was exchanged for weapons and supplies.

>
> > >>>>> They could also be a captured Federal cannon.
> > >>>>> There is a way to check on the origins. The next time you are in the
> > >>>>> area, take a look at the end of the muzzle. All Federal guns had a
> > >>>>> foundry name plus a casting and a Ordnance number cast around the
> > >>>>> opening of the muzzle. Usually the year of casting is included.
> > >>>>> I am not sure which CSA foundries cast 12-pounders, they built about
> > >>>>> 600 early in the War and most were used in the Eastern campaigns.Most
> > >>>>> CSA Artillery was made and repaired at Richmond and Macon. and should
> > >>>>> have Tredegar Iron Works or Richmond Arsenal markings. However the
> > >>>>> Texas gun is not a CSA design. Also no CSA bronze guns were cast after
> > >>>>> late 1863 when the Confederacy lost control of the Tennessee copper
> > >>>>> mines.

>
> > >>>>> If they originated from Mexico they are in all likelihood French.From
> > >>>>> 1860 through 1867 The French occupied Mexico. There would be
> > >>>>> appropriate French markings.

>
> > >>>>> BTW: The term "Napoleon" for the 12-pounder is not inspired by Napoleon
> > >>>>> Bonaparte, but Louis Napoleon. They were the state of art smooth bore
> > >>>>> guns, but the bronze was too soft *for them to be made as rifles. There
> > >>>>> were some attempts to rifle them, but those wore out quickly in use,
> > >>>>> effectively becoming bad smooth bores.

>
> > >>>>http://www.dreamstime.com/texas-capi...agefree1240966
> > >>>> There are some markings there, but I can't make them out from this
> > >>>> photo. *I'll check it out in person next time I'm down there.

>
> > >>>http://www.flickriver.com/photos/adl...0408096/#large
> > >>> Here's a better picture.
> > >>> Upper left: No414
> > >>> Upper right: 1283 (or 1288?)
> > >>> Bottom left: C. C. ?
> > >>> Bottom right: 1864 (that would match the year it was bought) or JB64,
> > >>> but I'm going with 1864

>
> > >> I went to the "original size" and cropped so I could get a better look.
> > >> <http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/No414wc.jpg>

>
> > >> The "No.414" is the number of the piece.
> > >> The "1286 lbs" is the total weight of the bronze casting, almost as
> > >> good as a fingerprint as they always varied.
> > >> 1864 is the casting year.
> > >> ... and "CO" is Confederate States Ordnance.

>
> > >> This particular 12-pounder "Napoleon" must have been one of the few CSA
> > >> guns cast using a Federal mold, probably captured from Harpers Ferry..
> > >> The CSA only built between 500-600 of these guns, and the majority were
> > >> cast without the barrel flare, or bulge. So "No.414" is a rarity
> > >> indeed. Moving it to Texas is probably what saved it.
> > >> The Feds by comparison cast some 1,800 during the war.

>
> > > This is interesting. *With the fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson (near
> > > Baton Rouge LA) in July 1863 the Union had control of the Mississippi
> > > River and split the South in two parts. *If this cannon were cast in
> > > the East in 1864, how did it make it to Texas? *I suppose it could
> > > have been smuggled across the river when the Union gunboats weren't
> > > around.

>
> > There is a good chance there was a rearming effort by the last of the
> > Western Gulf blockade runners. Galveston was recaptured by Gen. John
> > Magruder on Jan 1, 1863, and they retained control until the end of the
> > war.
> > From March 1864 not much was getting out of Wilmington, or Savannah.
> > Mobile was closed to the CSA in August 1864. Any time after that is
> > unlikely, and even then the CSN *had lost most of its government
> > transports. Some private foreign blockade runners were still taking the
> > risk, so that is a possibility.

>
> > Otherwise the only other option would have been overland through Union
> > lines, and that would have been tough, but not impossible.

>
> Well, here is another possibility:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Campaign
> It turns out that some Union artillery were captured by the
> Confederates in the battle of Mansfield during the Red River campaign
> in 1864. *The account goes on to say SOME of the cannon were
> recaptured later, which would lead me to believe that the Confederates
> managed to hold on to the rest. *I wonder if they changed the markings
> on those guns? *That would explain the Federal design, among other
> things.


More on the history lesson.

I swung by the capitol building today while doing some other things to
check out the cannon some more. Like I said earlier, there are 2 of
the bronze 12lb field artillery pieces. The marking on the one cannon
is clearly "C.C." - not "C.O.". It doesn't look like there was any
other letters there that were pounded out. So it looks like it may be
someone's initials, as was said is the common practice for Federal
cannon. On the other cannon, the initials are something like
"J.T.H.". Both cannon have "U.S." markings. So it seems clear that
these were captured Federal artillery.

Both cannon were dated 1864 as the year they were cast. We also know
they were bought by the Texas Governor in 1864 "to maintain order in
the surrounding area". So the cannon couldn't have come from the
Battles of Galveston, Sabine Pass, or Corpus Christi, which all
occurred prior to 1864. The only battles that occurred in 1864 where
the cannon could be transported overland to Texas through CSA
controlled territory were the Red River campaign in Louisiana, and the
Camden Expedition in Arkansas. Both of these were coordinated Union
attacks intended to take Shreveport, and then advance into Texas.
Both were huge failures for the Union, and in both cases the
Confederates captured Union field artillery pieces. There were 18-20
captured at Mansfield La in the Red River campaign, and 9 at Marks
Mills and Poison Spring in the Camden Expedition.

It may not be possible to pin-point the source of these two guns
without a lot more digging (the information desk at the capitol
doesn't have any idea). However, it should be noted that there is a
Texas mounument at the Mansfield battlefield, so we know there was a
Texas contingent fighting there.

I initially thought the cannon could have been bought in trade from
the cotton roads down to Mexico, but that now seems very unlikely.
Who would they trade with down there that would have access to brand-
new (at the time) 1864 federal cannon? It is much more likely that
these cannon came from Mansfield or Marks Mills/Poison Spring. My
strong guess is Mansfield.

On another note: the cannon appear to have been painted, which is why
they are so shiny. Years of abuse by kids climbing on them have worn
down the paint in spots and you can see the bronze underneath. The
paint is very shiny and looks almost like metal plating, except it
feels softer on the edges where it has worn down, and isn't flaky,
like a metal plating would be.
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Turco
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
Savageduck wrote:
>
> > On 2011-06-17 11:34:09 -0700, PeterN <(E-Mail Removed)> said:


<edited for brevity>

> > The Mason Dixon line was intended to resolve a border disputes between
> > Pennsylvania and Maryland. It is also interesting that on the Delmarva
> > peninsula the line runs roughly North and South.
> >
> > <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/04/0410_020410_TVmasondixon.html>
> >
> > In 1820 in The Missouri Compromise extended the line from the East and
> > States to its North were free states and to the South, slave States.

>
> That did not extend the Mason-Dixon Line. If it did it would have
> divided Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. I brought a whole new demarcation
> line into play, "36º 30'".
>
> Then there were changes between the 1790 & 1820 compromises. The reason
> it was the "Missouri" compromise, was due to Missouri being an ambiguous
> proposed slave state North of 36º 30' cut from the Missouri Territory.
> This also led to some of the worst civil conflict before, during and
> after the Civil War in any states in both Missouri & Kansas, also cut
> from the Missouri Territory, and which did not receive the slave state
> status of it neighbor.



Your "slave state" reference conjures up some faintly-related stories,
concerning gullible teenaged athletes...

In 1962, star football player Gale Sayers was a senior, at Omaha's
"Central High School" (in NE). University of Kansas recruiters made
a successful pitch to him, and he selected the Lawrence, KS-based
institution.

Part of their success, involved advising Sayers against attending
the University of Nebraska (at Lincoln). They'd warned him about
Lincoln's "American Nazi Party" activities.

Roughly a decade before (1955), basketball legend Wilt Chamberlain
(1936-1999) began his Kansas Jayhawks career. The Philadelphia, PA
native was shocked that Lawrence was still segregated!

Then, again, if either Sayers or Chamberlain (both black) had known
the sinister origins of the "Jayhawks" nickname...

--
Cordially,
John Turco <(E-Mail Removed)>

Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: [SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally! tony cooper Digital Photography 9 06-30-2011 06:38 AM
Re: [SI] Weapons are available for viewing, finally! Bruce Digital Photography 9 06-18-2011 08:48 PM
Re: Weapons are available for viewing, finally! Whisky-dave Digital Photography 4 06-18-2011 05:34 AM
[OT] Weapons of Mass Photography Richard Cockburn Digital Photography 10 05-15-2004 05:50 PM
is google hacked? search for "weapons of mass destruction" alfa1 Computer Support 7 07-05-2003 07:40 PM



Advertisments