HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: E.V. Sumner (was General Lee and Union Army Command)
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 15:37:53 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.074008.305@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec22.204304.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>>As far as I can tell Sumner did not attend West Point. Maybe that had 
>>something to do with with his being passed over (by McDowell,
>>McClellan and almost Lee).
>
>I'd be shocked if this was true... Catton comments that he was commissioned
>second lieutenant in 1819 when he first joined the army, and I believe that
>starting at 2nd L. means you were a West Point grad... but I can't find
>Catton actually saying so anywhere. Anyone else know for sure?

I believe Mr. Cowan is correct.  Sumner's entry in the Dictionary of American
Biography mentions no schooling at all, and a reference to West Point is
pretty much standard in that work for other Civil War figures who were
graduates.  In 1819, the Academy was still fairly new, and small, and there
was still plenty of room for the scions of wealthy or prominent families
to go directly into the officer pool--kind of like the British army.

Does anyone out there have ready access to an Academy roster so we can 
make this definite?
--Chuck


-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
From: tecump@tangent.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Banks and Trains
Date: 22 Dec 92 22:06:28 GMT

The Vermont incident was a bank robbery deal as mentioned before.

The Train incident was the (in)famous ANDREW'S TRAIN ROBBERY of
1862.  (Col?) Andrews and about 20 others, rode down to Georgia as
civilians to steal a train from the Confederates.  I believe they
started in Big Shanty, near Marietta and got as far as Dalton, or so.

the Confederate engineer pursued his stolen train - the General,
first on handcar, then on a couple of other engines. 
The raiders dropped of a couple of cars from the train to try to 
block their pursuers, necessitating either putting the cars on a side
track, or causing the Confederates to switch  engines. 
The pursuers finally got aboard the Texas, which
was faced the wrong way.  By this time, the General was running out of
full, and the Texas was gaining.  the raiders abandoned the General,
and ran of into the woods, many of whom were captured.

of the 20+ men, i believe about 1/3 escaped and 2/3 were captured.
About half of those captured (7) were hung, including Andrews.  
The surviving prisoners were later exchanged.

From this incident, came about the MEDAL of HONOR.  - The Andrews
Raiders were the first people to recieve it.


The General is now housed in Big Shanty, near Marietta.  
The Texas is house in the Cyclorama building in Atlanta

A very good and hilarious movie based on the raid stars Buster Keaton.


thats all

dom
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF)
Subject: Re: Why Merrimac
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 02:12:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.155629.23272@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec20.040929.24509@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF) writes:
>>I live in Virginia.  I drive through Appomattox all the time.  I have
>>driven over the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge-Tunnel (I-664 to you) across the
>>James and seethe every time I do so wondering why the hell it's not called
>>the Monitor-Virginia Bridge-Tunnel. 
>
>I've been curious about this.  Even a confirmed Yank such as myself refers
>to the Battles of Manassas, but most everyone on both sides stills clings
>to the original name of the re-christened CSS Virginia.  I regard it as 
>confirmation (kitsch, but confirmation) that the Franklin Mint medal struck
>for the occasion of the 130th anniversary used Monitor-Merrimac.  Is the
>power of alliteration just too strong for sectional differences?

I think alliteration is the reason.  If memory serves, not much of the
U.S.S. Merrimac survived to become to C.S.S. Virginia.  The ship was
burned to the waterline and all that survived to become the Virginia was
the keel and engine.  So why cling to calling a ship the Merrimac when
about 80% of it burned up and was replaced by a pound or two of Confederate
armor?

Ships change navies all the time.  When the U.S.A. sold the U.S.S. Phoenix
to Argentina, the Argentinians renamed it the General Belgrano.  When the
Belgrano was sunk during the Falklands War, it certainly didn't make the
headlines as "British Sub Sinks Phoenix."
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: E.V. Sumner (was General Lee and Union Army Command)
Date: 22 Dec 92 20:43:04 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec22.215047.20178@rayssd.ssd.ray.com>, cwa@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Carlton W. Andrews) writes:
> 
>     From the Memoirs of Robert E. Lee by A. L. Long
> 
>     The most valuable testimony concerning this question, however, is that of
>     General Lee himself, 

Okay. I'm convinced. Since Lee was largely silent about the war after it was
over, I assumed he had said nothing. In various reading on the subject I have 
not noticed his memoirs referenced.

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     Note: If we go down the list of Generals and Colonels on the date of
>           this conversation (4/18/61), and eliminate those that were too
>           infirm for field command (most); Colonel Lee had the reputation
>           and seniority to be a top choice for "FIELD" army command.
>           One leading contender, Albert Sidney Johnston, had resigned a
>           week earlier.
> 
>                                                  Carlton Andrews
> 

Well, what got me wondering about this was the fact that E.V. Sumner was 
promoted to Brig.Gen. (from Col. in command of the 1st Cav.) the same
day (3/16/1861) that Lee was promoted from Lt.Col to Col. (succeeding
Sumner as regimental commander). It struck me as strange that Lincoln
would keep Sumner at a higher rank than Lee then try to  jump Lee over
him within a few weeks. Sumner may have been old (over 60 I believe;
Lee was 54 himself) but he certainly wasn't infirm. It is my
impression that he was one of the more effective Corps commanders up
until Antietam, when he apparently lost his stomach for his job (and
no wonder). At Savage Station he requested that McClellan send him
orders to "push the enemy into the Chickahominy," bit instead Little
Mac ordered him to retreat. 

As far as I can tell Sumner did not attend West Point. Maybe that had 
something to do with with his being passed over (by McDowell,
McClellan and almost Lee).

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Return of Captured Confederate Battle Flags
Date: 22 Dec 92 14:50:23 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BzMFoq.HM7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>Over the years, many of these flags were "returned" to the southern
>states (again, I presume to statehouses or historical societies).
>Can anyone provide information about these returns?  I believe that
>there was some kind of mass return of flags shortly after the turn of
>the century, while others, I think, have occurred quite recently.

The only information I could find on this (although I haven't been able to 
research it thoroughly) relates to the flags held by the US government.  I
believe it had most of them.  There was an attempt in the 1890's to return
the flags, which was voted down with some acrimony, and heavily lobbied
against by the GAR.  In 1905 (February 24, to be exact) the matter was
brought to a vote again, and passed without comment.  I suspect that the
declining membership of the GAR was one reason, as well as the surge
of good feelings between the sections resulting from the Spanish-
American War.  None of my reference books had any reference to Confederate
flags held by northern states.
--Chuck



-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cwa@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Carlton W. Andrews)
Subject: General Lee and Union Army Command
Organization: Raytheon Company
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:50:47 GMT





    From the Memoirs of Robert E. Lee by A. L. Long

    The most valuable testimony concerning this question, however, is that of
    General Lee himself, as given in a letter addressed to the Hon. Reverdy
    Johnson of date February 25, 1868. In this letter he uses the following
    language:
         "I never intimated to any one that I desired the command of the
       United States army, nor did I ever have a conversation but with
       one gentleman, Mr. Francis Preston Blair, on the subject, which
       was at his invitation, and, as I understood, at the instance
       of President Lincoln.
         After listening to his remarks I declined the offer he made me
       to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field
       ....."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: If we go down the list of Generals and Colonels on the date of
          this conversation (4/18/61), and eliminate those that were too
          infirm for field command (most); Colonel Lee had the reputation
          and seniority to be a top choice for "FIELD" army command.
          One leading contender, Albert Sidney Johnston, had resigned a
          week earlier.

                                                 Carlton Andrews
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Washington captured, not
Date: 28 Dec 92 17:23:16 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

regarding: What if's and history
I agree with the technical point of historical discipline, which 
avoids the question of "what if". Such limits are not however placed 
on novelists. In fact, I have just finished reading a novel which 
poses its own 'what if'; "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove. It 
was a cut above most alternative histories and I recommend it to any 
readers of this group who are interested in such works.
JTHoppers
JTHoppers@octavo.ucdavis.edu
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Whistler's father? (was Re: Three Generals)
Date: 23 Dec 92 19:58:16 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <tecump.725141333@sulu>, tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:

> -the commander of the 4th Infy (a col. Whistler) at the start of 1861 was
> 	84, or something, having taken over the regt. 16 years or so 
> 	earlier, when its previous old commander had died of exhaustion
> 	while putting the regt through field excercises for the first
> 	time in a long time.
> 
> dom

I wonder if he was related to the artist James A. McNeill Whistler 
(who's mother is famous).  JAMW  was a student at West point 
during R.E. Lee's term as superintendent. Lee dismissed the young 
Whistler for poor grades. An example of why this had occurred is the
case when Whistler stated in his chemistry class the "Silicon is a gas".
After the war Whistler estimated, "If silicon had been a gas, I would 
have become a Major General." Yet another case of asking "What if?" 8^)

This brings to mind the story about Longstreet and his chemistry 
instructor at the Point, but I'll save that in case things get real slow 
over the Holiday break.

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates)
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 22:17:52 GMT
Subject: "Lincoln" TV special
Organization: the HP Mtn.View Resp. Cntr.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa


Would someone be so kind as to post Lincoln's Gettysburg address?
I just saw the TV special "Lincoln" and listened in awe to the 
words of a man I consider great.  I know its a lot of typing but 
I dont have a copy of it and it was very inspiring.

The TV special was pretty good for commercial television...although
I dont think they were trying to compete with Burns's PBS Civil War
series they did pretty well, and I feel the country owes a lot
to this man whether Northerner or Southerner.   

I hope they continue to provide this type of television....
I'd like to see somthing more on the other great men of that time..
Robert E. Lee, Grant etc..  

Thanks, all.
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Wilson`s Creek
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:44:00 GMT

I said Schofield took over when Lyon was killed at Wilsons Creek.
It was in fact Major Sturgis (although i think schofield was on Lyon`s
staff.  Lyon had formed his army into 4 "brigades" the 1st Brigade
under Sturgis, consisting of a battalion of Regulars, and 2 companies
of Oesterhaus' (2nd?) Missouri., and some cavalry.  LtCol Andrews commanded
the 2nd Brigade, Col Siegal the 3rd, and Col Deitzler the 4th., for a
total of about 5500 officers and men.  When Lyon was killed, Sturgis took
comand of the army (minus Siegel's Bgde).  There were at least 4 
(volunteer) officers of higher rank that Sturgis.  I am not sure why
he took over, rather than someone else.  Most likely because he had the
most military experience, and he was Regular.  


dom.
From: rrw@sunset.cse.nau.edu (Bob Wier)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: "Lincoln" TV special
Date: 29 Dec 92 05:39:25 GMT
Originator: rrw@sunset.cse.nau.edu

From article <51430003@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com>, by tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates):
> 
> Would someone be so kind as to post Lincoln's Gettysburg address?
> I just saw the TV special "Lincoln" and listened in awe to the 
> words of a man I consider great.  I know its a lot of typing but 
> I dont have a copy of it and it was very inspiring.
> 
  I mailed Tony a copy --

  I wonder, do school kids today have to memorize it?  Back when I was
  in grade school (at "only" 90 years from the event, instead of the 
  current 130) we had to memorize a lot of stuff, which I dearly
  hated - "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" and the G. Address. 

- Bob Wier

  ---------- insert favorite standard disclaimers here ----------
                   College of Engineering
      Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff Arizona
  Internet: rrw@naucse.cse.nau.edu | WB5KXH | fax:602 523 2300
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: Antietam
Keywords: none
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 15:59:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan1.175639.7849@panix.com> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>tjb5107@zeus.tamu.edu writes:
>
>>Howdy, Could someone please recommend any good books written on the Battle
>>of Antietam.  Thanks.  
>
>Stephen Sears, Landscape Turned Red
>  Pretty good popular history.
>  Excellent, especially if used as a guide to the battlefield.
>Consists of exerpts from reports, orders, memoirs by participants.
>Shows the chaos and fog of battle.

>dhs   spencer@panix.com

Highly recommended: Antietam, the Soldier's Battle, by John M. Priest.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: syl5487@u.cc.utah.edu (SCOTT LEE/HISTORY)
Subject: Warfare in the Middle Ages
Keywords: archers
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center Student Mail Machine
Distribution: alt.war
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 92 03:46:07 GMT

How important were archers and crossbowmen during the middle ages?

Yes I am a new poster.

---------------------
Scott
scott.lee@m.cc.utah.edu
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 16:03:27 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <1992Dec16.234803.26438@midway.uchicago.edu> bitn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>I guess you've never heard of King George III ... :)

Ever here of Queen Elizabeth II?  Does that mean that Britain is not now
a democracy?
From: geoffb@coos.dartmouth.edu (Geoff Bronner)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: war list
Date: 29 Dec 92 15:20:57 GMT
Reply-To: geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Amos Tuck School
Disclaimer: I don't represent Dartmouth and Dartmouth doesn't represent me.

In <1992Dec29.032524.8785@ll.mit.edu> shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel Shoham) writes:

>Not sure about Ethiopia (it might get into the question of "do death due to
>starvation due to infrastructure breakdown due to a war that ended count?") the
>rest are off the list.

Well, since starvation was basically used as a weapon by the Ethiopian
government I think that would have to qualify.
That would also apply to the Sudan as well.

If you can't shoot 'em, starve 'em?

-Geoff
--
geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU - Computing Support Consultant, Tuck School of Business
    "I feel like a hypocrite talking to you... and your racist firends."
                            - They Might Be Giants
From: kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: war list
Date: 28 Dec 1992 18:54:38 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: sgi1.wag.caltech.edu


>In article <1hih28INNpql@gap.caltech.edu> kwp@wag.caltech.edu (Kevin W. Plaxco) writes:

Oops, how could I forget Afghanisatan.

-Kevin



Newsgroups: alt.war
From: pan2765@seas.gwu.edu (Crazyman Pan)
Subject: Terrorism as warfare (was Re: war list)
Organization: I have none...
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:15:27 GMT

In article <1992Dec28.183436.10866@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> geoffb@Dartmouth.EDU writes:

>A better question. Since a 'Civil War' is an accepted type of war does any
>internal warfare count as civil war?
>Does terrorism count as warfare? Nation States treat terrorists like
>criminals, but terrorists often claim to be military personnel.

Terrorism might be viewed as a special case of guerilla warfare.  However, I
would not count terrorism as warfare that would constitute a state of "war."
What I mean is that "warfare" can be used to describe any number of situations,
like "warfare" on drugs, or "warfare" on disease.  It is in these types of
situations that I believe terrorism fits, though on one end of that particular
spectrum: the border with true military warfare (due to terrorism's political
nature).

Terrorism viewed as a type of guerilla warfare can constitute true military
warfare when coupled with the actions of a standing formal militia or army, as
in the case in Vietnam, where there was a North Vietnamese army, along with
guerilla-style Viet Cong that carried out terrorist activities.  In the case
of civil wars, there are usually organized regular armies that are fighting.

I think the real distinction, though, is that in the case of warfare vs.
terrorism, in warfare, there are military objectives that are seized or
assaulted, with the overall political purpose as the motive.  For example:
seizing radio and television stations (for coup attempts), controlling supply
routes, capturing a capital, destroying or capturing transportation centers
like train and bus stations, capturing resources, etc...  These are seized
with the intent of either keeping them permanently, or long enough to weaken
the opponent.  In the case of terrorism, there are no military objectives
which are captured with any intent of keeping them.  Though sometimes
objectives are temporarily held in order to create havoc with the government,
none of these actions really cripples or weakens the government (though in
some cases it does, which leads to coup or revolution -- but in these cases
the mere terrorism may be considered as guerilla warfare).  The usual objective
of terrorist activities is to gain recognition for a terrorist organization in
order to stress its power (bombing a disco or airport), or to call attention
to it and its so-called "cause" (sniping soldiers and policemen in Northern
Ireland).

Terrorism's main purpose is to destabilize or to gain attention.  Warfare's
purpose is to gain control.  Terrorism is not warfare. (at least I don't think
so) :)



						-- Crazyman Pan

("I'd rather be playing guitar...")
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Romans in Greece
From: mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz (Mike Campbell)
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 06:27:22 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Me? Organized?

Some may remember I posted an article here a couple of weeks ago in 
which I described the reaction of Greek soldiers to encountering the 
wounds inflicted by Roman swords for the first time.

I have found the source for this, "Rome and the Mediterranian", by 
Livy, published as a Penguin Classic.  This volume traces Roamn 
aggrandizment from the end of the 2nd Punic War to 167BC, including 
the defeats of the Hellenistic Kings in 3 "preventative" wars.

The story starts with two bodies of horse, one Roman, the other from 
the army of Philip V of Macedon (hereafter known as Philip or "the 
King") engaging each other.  The two bodies were well matched for 
numbers and spirit, the fighting ceasing when all grew tired.  The 
Macedonians lost 40 men, the Romans 35.

Pg 53 - 54:

"Philip gave orders that the horsemen who had fallen in this 
expedition should be borne into the camp so that the funeral honours 
accorded them should be seen by all.  This he did on the assmption 
that by making provision for the burial he would enhance his own 
popularity and increase the readiness of his men to face danger on his 
behalf.  But nothing is so uncertain or so incalculable as the 
feelings of a crowd.  A ceremeny which he thought would make them more 
ready to undertake any conflict struck fear into their hearts and 
consequent reluctance.  They had seen wounds caused by spears, arrows 
and rarely, by lances, since they were accustomed to fighting with 
Greeks and Illyrians;  but now they saw bodies dismembered with the 
"Spanish" sword, arms cut off  with the shoulder attached, or heads 
severed from bodies, with necks completely cut through, internal 
organs exposed, and other horrible wounds, and a general feeling of 
panic ensued when they discovered the kind of weapons and the kind of 
men they had to contend with."

The quote marks around "Spanish" in the test are the translator's.


Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz