The Civil War Navies Message Board

Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
In Response To: Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa ()

I will answer your details one by one, as they are full of assumptions, errors, and misleading statements, as are your sites on Yonge, Brooks and a couple of the other crew members.
I updated all my web pages on the CSN sailors in June, not because of anything to do with Godwin, but because I had added a whole lot of new data on a number of the English and other foreign born sailors of the cruisers (as well as other bits and pieces on the CSN sailors), such as Francis Glassbrook and his excellent list and other data on the CSS GEORGIA crew. If you had bothered to look at the date shown at the end of each page, you would have noted that the updates were in June (I received the information from Elizabeth in May), so to accuse me of replacing the information on Godwin the same day you posted your letter, some days ago, is utterly false. The gentleman who assisted in uploading the new information can vouch for me, so don't make statements that are entirely false. And I do believe that the flawed information on Godwin was originally yours, so it all comes back to you. That is why I feel that I should attempt to correct all such information on the ALABAMA crew, as much of this flawed information originally came from you (as you like to keep on insisting).
As for seeing all my web pages, when you place my name at a search engine, I am sure no one expects to see something pop up about "Al Qaida," do they, since that is not my forte. Furthermore, and I seem to have to repeat this constantly, each and every one of my web sites give very good source notes, for those who wish to pursue the matter further, easy access to these sources. If I remember correctly, your site on Yonge contains no reference notes, so I assume that you claim all this as your own work, as you like to do. Even when I use primary source material, such as birth, death and marriage information, you will see references to these particular sources. To claim plagiarism for my information shows the ignorance of the accuser, and a lack of knowledge of the meaning of that particular term.
As for the Liverpool Echo news item, did you know that I received a scan of this article from an English correspondent, and I would advise against railing against this person, as anyone is allowed to obtain material from the newspapers? Are you going to claim also, that the material that I had obtained from the Liverpool Daily Courier, as included in my Param Brooks entry, is also yours, as I can also direct you to contact the University of Queensland Library at Brisbane, which holds microfilm copies of many, many newspapers from different parts of the world, including that of Liverpool, and even London, etc., some of these dating back to the period of the Civil War? I would be most happy to provide a contact e-mail address for the UQ Library, so that you can confirm this if you wish.
And I don't know what you are talking about, about making yourself accountable to me. I never ask for such accountability, and other such nonsense about being a subject of Terry Foenander. This all started back in 2001, when I originally offered to provide some material (which you obviously still don't have, as I have checked the sites, and I do know that only a small amount of your info is online) and for an exchange of information. It was then that you started your attacks against all and sundry, without basing anything on facts. You accused me of plagiarism even though I correctly quoted the volume I used for my information as Marvel. If Marvel got all the information on the crew members from you he has not indicated as much, and leaves the reader to assume what is yours, and what was provided by other sources. I then decided, and on advise from several other English correspondents, who have had similar experiences with you, not to continue corresponding. However, in recent months I have come across your 2001 accusation at the Internet page, and also the further accusation at this site, and I decided that it was pointless to remain silent. You accuse me of childishness, yet three years before this accusation you do exactly the same thing on the Internet. However, everyone can see that I at least have the decency to exclude the mention of names at my site.
You constantly state that I give credit to the wrong people, but it was these sources that provided me with the information, not you. Anyone can see this as being factual. All the statements you have provided on some of the sailors, in the last few postings, I have not even bothered to note, as I know that at least three of your pages include important errors, with two of these pages containing not one or two errors, but several. Have you bothered, or has anyone at the research group bothered to check further data on Param Brooks? You state that he was promoted Chief Engineer while he was still in France, but if you contacted the Georgia Historical Society, they will provide you with Page's appointment of Brooks, dated after the STONEWALL had left France. Brooks had also been sent aboard the RAPPAHANNOCK within a few weeks of the sinking of the ALABAMA, but your misleading article gives everyone the impression that from the ALABAMA he then stayed in France before going directly to the STONEWALL. There are several other similar errors at this page as well, but it is obvious, like the Yonge article, you intend to let these errors remain instead of checking further data, and then correcting the information.
You state that within the Yonge article the date of November, 1862 is shown, and then shortly after, that of January, 1862, but how would a novice be able to confirm which is correct, especially since you do not provide any source notes at that site for where this material came from. Yet you constantly accuse me of not providing the proper source of the material on the ALABAMA crew, even though I have cited Marvel, from whom I gathered the data. Would you have preferred that I leave all source notes out, as has been done on numerous other web pages on the Internet?
Furthermore, does having the two contradictory dates shown, entitle you to allow this misleading and incorrect data to remain at the web page?
I don't know why you are claiming to have started research on the ALABAMA crew before others, as there are indications of other research on these crew members being conducted, though mainly on an individual level. For sure there would have been many researchers conducting studies on the officers, but I am sure that some of the men were also being researched. To make such unsubstantiated claims is to go blindly, as you are unaware, I am sure, of the research projects of numerous persons around the world, some of whom remain anonymous. Once again, as with many other statements that you make, you are assuming events and happenings.
As for removing errors at my sites, I do this as documentary information comes to hand, or information from descendants. Whether you wish to remove your errors or not, is your choice, and that does not bother me. What bothers me is that those who seek information from your sites are being mislead, and do not know (especially in the case of the Yonge page) where to look for the original data, so are assuming that Yonge's court martial did happen, or that he did indeed served as paymaster on the LADY DAVIS, etc.
As for the number of vessels that went under the name of ALABAMA in the 1860's, I have already given you the recorded data in a previous posting, but once again, you are ignoring this documentation. Perhaps I should repeat it, for the benefit of viewers who have not seen it previously. There was only ONE CSS ALABAMA in the Confederate States Navy. This was the only vessel COMMISSIONED with such a name in the CSN.
I have already provided you with the official documentation, written by none other than Semmes himself, stating the amount of documentation saved from the ALABAMA, and it was not a case of MOST, but only SOME, and none of these, for the personnel involved in the final months, is of importance. Ransom bonds certainly have nothing to do with personnel. Just because the PRO holds some personnel records, does not mean that these personnel records cover every crew member that ever served. Even the US Consular Despatches are somewhat vague. Once again you are ignoring the statements in the ORN dispatches.
I did not give a lambasting to Jerry Williams, but queried him on your accusations, after I came upon the web site where you bandy those names around so freely. Fortunately others have also been able to provide me with details of accusations you make against so many, some of whom have been on good terms with you, and given you much credit, previously.
As for Normal Delaney, you know as well as I do the data he holds, and where this comes from. Is it any problem for me to go directly to the sources?

Messages In This Thread

Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
William Simpson.
Re: William Simpson.
Sam Risien.
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: CS Navy Records
CSS Alabama crew.
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
CSS Alabama
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa
I'm a McGlennon.......
Re: Crew of CSS Tuscaloosa