HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Mac
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:32:29 GMT
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <5496@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu writes:

: more ramblings
: 
: the general's name is George Brinton McClellan  (no d)
: 

Sorry about that, but if spelling counts I might as well resign form this
group now. I usually have trouble with the c's and l's in McClellan's name.
I guess that I was worrying about that so much that a "d" snuck in somehow. 
The surprising thing to me was that I was consistent about it. I honestly try
to use the spell utility before posting (my personal dictionary includes the
names of the more famous C.W. generals) but sometimes time is short.

This spelling defect must be genetic. I read my great-grand father's pension
application (from the National Archives) and he reported that he had served in 
"the Army of the Patomack".

: the way McClellan fought was not to move/attack until "everything" was
: absolutely ready.  this strategy means that while he would never really
: LOSE a battle, he would never WIN one either.
: 

There is no debate that McClellan(no d) was the wrong man for the job. My
posting was objecting to the notion that Lee had a great deal of success
against him. Yes, in the strategic sense he embarrassed McClellan(no d)
during the Seven Days and caused Lincoln and Stanton (sp?) to loose faith in
him, and yes he did act foolishly in destroying the supplies at the White House
on the York River, and repeatedly retreating despite winning victory after
victory, but he did make the Confederates pay a price they could ill afford,
and his troops loved him (even years after he was dismissed) because they
felt their lives would not be squandered foolishly (as Lee squandered his
troops at Malvern Hill). 

: On Lee:  unbuttoning the top button on his COAT would be a sure sign that
: he was sick.  Values at the time meant that a gentleman's coat must be
: buttoned at the top at all times (this is in the Army regulations) except
: in quarters or while on fatigue.  Note, however, that in general, the 
: american soldier, whether officer or private, was a practical man, and
: would most likely unbutton when he felt the need and not on duty.  But
: Lee was a FFOV - a GENTLEMAN.
: 

FFOV = Famous (or First) Family of Virginia?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: More ramblings
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:40:56 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara


it seems to me that the South was faced with the following facts:

1. a "northern" controlled house
2. a "free state" controlled senate
3. a "free soil" President (which subtly means a "freesoil" Court)

 1861 was the first time the government had been controlled by the north -
a seemingly anti-slavery government at that. true, there had been
northern presidents before (Van Buren, Adamses), but that was in the days of a
unified democratic party.  Now, an "abolitionist" (sic: FREE SOILER)
had been elected.  This was not a good sign for the future of the south.

While the Republicans did not hold a majority in Congress (yet) it seemed
only a matter of time.  thus, FREE SOIL for free men, even w/o Fremont.
Free soil equals free states equals a "big" free state majority.  
Thus, eventual elimination of slavery either by politcal means, or
by "natural causes," i.e. the inability to expand into fresh lands.

in a way, the south did "take their ball and went home" when things did
not go "their way".  i think, however, that since the beginnings of the
"united" states, this major explosion was inevitable.  the major
political problems it seems were between north and south (as Madison had
predicted).  And thus the "compromises"  - 1820, 1850 and the 
Kansas Nebraska Act of 54.  All concerning the slave
question in some way or another, and which in the short run held the
Union together, but in obviously unable to do so in the long run.

Bleeding Kansas is all too painful a lesson in what
the conflict was all about - the future of slavery.  


Another interesting note on secession. 
When South Carolina threatened
nullification and to secede in '32, NO Southern state threatened to go
with her.  In fact
most states were strongly opposed to such an idea.  while virginia was
sympathetic to SC's plight, the biggest opposition to this secession idea
in the south came from the Cotton states of Mississipi and Alabama,
one of whose legislatures went so far as to say something like
"we abhor the doctrine of nullification, as it leads to ... secession ...
and civil disorder"  or something like that. i do not have the quote with
me.  thirty years later, things had changed quite a bit.



Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 02:58:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.133740.12137@bnlux1.bnl.gov> KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>
>I think the remarkable thing about the Union Army's performance at Gettysburg
>is that their generals still screwed up (not Meade so much but Sickles, Howard
>etc) but they still managed to win.
>
Howard didn't perform badly at either Gettysburg or Chancellorsville. In
both cases his corps got mashed by huge flanking assaults. At Gettysburg, he
couldn't do anything about it: he was engaged in front and Ewell's corps
marched in behind him. At Chancellorsville, he was told he was in a safe
sector of the line and was ordered to send his reserve brigade to Sickles
who wasted it.
When he was sent west under Sherman, he fought very well and eventually
became an army commander. Catton's main complaint against him is that he
was apparently not a very good administrator, but as a combat officer he
was fair to good.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 18:09:08 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.145456.5600@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay) writes:
>Yeah, Hood and Johnston did not have a very high opinion of each other. 
>IHMO Hood was the on at fault. You only have to look at the result of the
>Battles around Atlanta, Franklin, and Nashville vs. Kennesaw Mountain
>to see the answer.

Having only read Hood's side of it, I don't pretend to understand it, but
Hood's argument is that Johnston's defensive policies were causing mass
desertions from the army which meant that the army would dissolve in a few
more months. By taking the offensive he stopped the desertions and at least
had a chance to win a major battle; not a good chance, but then the
Confederacy had very no good chances left in the winter of 1864 anyway.
It always seems logical to me; Johnston's policy seems like one designed
to turn defeat into slightly slower defeat, whereas Hood could conceivably
have achieved something. Hood claims he would have won Franklin and Nashville
if he had had better cooperation from his corps commanders, for whatever
that's worth.
"The logical outcome of defensive warfare is surrender."
>
>One Brigade = ~1,500 troops.
>While Longstreet (in hindsight) certainly should have done this, It is not
>unreasonable for him not to have. What if there was a breakthrough and that
>one brigade was not availible because it was wondering around the boonies?
>Remeber they had not recon on the flanks due to the lack of Cav. And beyond
>all this I don't think one Brigade in the mist of 85,000 troops is going
>to be decisive. On the other hand, I certainly could have help take Little
>Round Top (which might or might not have been significant)
>
The Union army was sending massive reinforcements to Cemetary Ridge on the
second day; a brigade in their rear would have slowed down the process
considerably, maybe long enough to make the Confederate attack successful.
That's what I was thinking, anyway. As far as reconnaissance goes, Hood
sent out his foot scouts and had established that the Union flank was in
the air; I'm not sure the cavalry could have established much more.
However, they could probably have established it earlier, making it 
possible to make a real flank attack instead of the one brigade assault
Hood proposed.


-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Benefits of slavery to non-slaveholders (was a fresh start)
Date: 21 Aug 92 15:33:26 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

I don't know that the effort to incorporate  slaves into maufacturing was 
u
unsuccesfull, I recall the use of slave labor at Tredegar Iron Works prior 
to the civil war (at least one "employee" was given/bought his manumission 
papers as a result of 'faithful service'). This always comes to mind when 
someone says to me "but slavery would have just died out eventually, don't 
you think?". No, it would have been adapted to whatever profit-making, labor 
intensive enterprises Southerners developed.

JTHoppers
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: mancus@norm.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Value of U.S. Greenbacks 1862-1866
Date: 21 Aug 1992 16:20:45 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <171sv2INNrfo@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>, jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
|> I have now got a file containing a synopsis of the fluctuations in
|> the value of U.S. greenbacks for the period 1862-1866, and I will
|> e-mail it to those requesting it (if sufficient interest, I'll post).
|> 
|> Among the interesting tidbits is that the U.S. public debt in Oct. 1866
|> was a whopping $3 billion (3,000,000,000 dollars).  These days the 
|> government looses that much between the couch cushions.
|> --
|> Justin M. Sanders    "Politics, like prison, seems to impart some 
|> Dept. of Physics        dubious skills to those who serve too  
|> Kansas State Univ.        many terms." -- Joseph Sobran 

  Wait a minute.  Wasn't the price of gold about $20/ounce back then?
That means that $3E9 x $350 (approx current price) / $20 ~= $50 billion.
Still small by 1980-1992 standards, though...

-- 
| Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         |
|                 N5WVR                                                  |
|  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
|  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Captain Coffee)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: News of The World
Date: 17 Aug 92 17:43:14 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

"Sons of Confederates Thank Black Soldiers"

Wilmington, N.C., Aug. 10, (Reuters) -

The Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose ancestors fought in the Civil War, 
have voted to formally thank blacks who fought for the Southern cause and
to renounce the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups. 

The 13,000-member group said today that 1,100 delegates at its 97th annual 
convention here this weekend also voted to absolve Lieut. Gen. James 
Longstreet of any blame for the Confederate defeat at the battle of Gettysburg 
in July, 1863, which many historians cite as the turning point in the Civil
War. 

In a pair of resolutions approved with minimal dissent, the convention 
declared that it "does hereby publicly acknowledge and express our grateful
appreciation for the valuable and courageous service performed by faithful
Confederate soldiers of African-American descent."

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Ordinarily I submit these articles without comment, but I've got to 
say something about this one. 

The recognition of black soldiers in the Confederate Army by a group
of descendants, coupled with their renunciation of race hate groups 
can only be welcomed. There may be those who will call it a gesture
to polish the reputation of the Confederacy and to trivialize the
fact that the Confederates fought (in some sense) to preserve slavery,
but I think this is a good step on the road to separating the heritage
from the hatred. 

On the other hand, who do these bozoes think they are to "absolve" Longstreet
from "blame"?!?!?!?! There are those (including Lee himself) who never
blamed him in the first place. They could apologize to him and his heirs,
but absolution implies a certain superiority that, in my mind, doesn't exist. 

JZ (Back from Vacation)
From: hall@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Date: 23 Aug 1992 15:59:32 GMT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company

>Certainly you cannot be maintaining that either Northern politicians such
>as Lincoln (born 1809) or Sumner or Wade, or leading abolitionists such as
>John Brown profited personally from the slave trade.
>Maybe you could be a little more specific about who you are accusing of
>hypocrisy here? This version doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Or, if you mean
>Northern society as a whole, it is not unreasonable to think the North had
>a societal change of heart in 52 years. To suggest that Northern abolitionists
>were being hyprocritical is a little like suggesting that whites who favor
>integrated schools are hypocrites because schools were segregated in 1940.


>-- 
>Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

What I am trying to point out is that the evolution of the institution of slavery
in the Southern states was assisted by "merchants" from other areas of the
country. Many of these were from the North. Suggesting that the morals of the
Northern merchant class changed in the 52 years after slavery was abolished does
not seem credible to me. I would guess that if slavery was still legal and
profitable in 1860, people from Boston, New York and other Northern shipping
centers would still have been involved in it.

Some of the people engaged in this discussion seem to want to paint the
population of the Confederacy as some type of amoral monsters fighting against
the white knights from the North whose only interests were in relieving the
plight of the slaves - BS in my opinion.

I recently read an account of the Gettysburg Address and its impact on the course
of our country's race relation. It seems that Northern papers roundly lambasted
the phrase in the speech that indicated that our country was founded on the
principle that "all me are created equal". Their position was that our founding
fathers had no such intention and that the idea that blacks were the equal of
whites was preposterous. While the population of the North may have been
dedicated to freeing the slaves on general moral principles, I don't believe the
majority of the population was willing to embrace the idea that all of the
ex-slaves would move into their neighborhoods and compete with them for jobs on
an equal footing - This can be seen even in recent history where outbreaks of
overt racism by whites are as likely to occur in Boston or Philadelphia as they
are in Atlanta or New Orleans.

Slavery was certainly a reprehensible institution but certainly not a unique
product of a morally bankrupt pre-war Southern society as suggested by some of
the postings to this thread. Most of the people in the
South were not slave-holders and not in favor of slavery - 
defense of slavery was not their motivation for fighting - 
defense of their homes and "country" was. 

PH
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Re: g-burg
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 15:27:36 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <5502@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu writes:

: Ewell was too far to the left. (was not he the left wing of the army)
: that is 7-9 mi. to get to the right of Lee's Line, in additon to the
: fighting they had done the day before.
: 

Let me remind you that on the morning of July 2, Longstreet's First Corps was
still strung out on the road to Chambersburg. Even his closest division
(McLaw's) at Marsh Creek was about 7 miles from the Round Tops. Add to that
the extra distance marched due to the U-turn and I'd say Ewell had a better
chance to get their "furstest with the mostest".

: i think Sicles should have called for help to support
: i.e. the 2nd corps to his right.  Hancock had to send some men into
: the wheatfield later, anyway.  Maybe he did, but 
: perhaps Meade "could not spare them" then, but when the urgency is great
: you can "always spare men"   But Sickles advanced sans permission, perhaps
: it was good in the long run, perhaps not, but in any event, he got a 
: medal of honor for his actions at gettysburg 35 years later.
: 

Sickles had his staff officers all over the Union lines looking for support.
The other Corps commanders complained that his staff diverted regiments that
could not be spared. The fact is, one big problem with Sickles's position was
that he was so far from any possible support.

Harry Pfanz points out that Sickles's move resulted in heavy losses to the 
3rd and 5th corps (and parts of the 2nd) which otherwise might have been
available  (along with the ultimately unused 6th) for a Union attack. The net
result of Sickles's move was that he was driven back to the place he started,
with heavy losses (including his leg).

Sickles's Medal of Honor is not much justification of his move. The MoH was
given out rather freely during the Civil War. Sickles was a consumate Tammeny
Hall polition, so getting a Medal 35 years aftre the fact is no suprise. In
fact, Sickles left Gettysburg while the battle was raging (taking the much
needed 3rd-Corps surgeon and a company of troops with him) to Washington, so he
could get an early start promoting his version of events.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: g-burg
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:54:49 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara

Ewell was too far to the left. (was not he the left wing of the army)
that is 7-9 mi. to get to the right of Lee's Line, in additon to the
fighting they had done the day before.

i think Sicles should have called for help to support
i.e. the 2nd corps to his right.  Hancock had to send some men into
the wheatfield later, anyway.  Maybe he did, but 
perhaps Meade "could not spare them" then, but when the urgency is great
you can "always spare men"   But Sickles advanced sans permission, perhaps
it was good in the long run, perhaps not, but in any event, he got a 
medal of honor for his actions at gettysburg 35 years later.
i
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Lee
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:39:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara

my comment on his attire was in just a speculation.
i more than most know that officers in general did not follow the
regulations regarding dress.  This is a mistake which many sometimes
make.  the "top button" is from regulation and Victorian ideals, but
A quick check of officers pictures (not studio ones) will
show that they were "bums" just like the enlisted men.

One of the more "popular" ones is with the  2nd Corps commanders -
Hancock and his div. commanders.  Hancock is in his usual well-dressed
self (he wore a clean WHITE shirt every day).  And leaning against
a tree is Brig Gen Fracis Barlow (in a sack coat?) buttons
fully opened, no vest, showing his checkered shirt.

as for grant, they always say he wore a "privates blouse" ie.
sack coat.  I have this feeling that he wore a commerical sack
coat (they are longer and with pockets), which officers could afford
to buy.
From: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Secession
Date: 14 Aug 92 20:19:25 GMT
Reply-To: <roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com> (<roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com>)
Organization: Vitalink Communications Corporation

A question for those who feel the South had a strong legal basis for its 
secession:

Why, rather than taking up arms, did the South not pursue the matter 
in the Supreme Court?

The Court at that time was dominated by Democratic appointees.  The 
chances of a "sympathetic hearing" were quite good.  

----
"If you can't reach (age) 70 by a comfortable road, don't go."  --Mark Twain
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight)
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Organization: Jes Grew Carriers -- Metaphysical Bunko Squad 
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:23:54 GMT

morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight) writes:

>Your culture and heritage are built on the blood and suffering of mine. 
>You can celebrate that if you wish. I will implacably seek to stop your 
>party.

No it isn't.  My culture and heritage go back much further than the 
period of slavery in America, as does your's.  

>>though I despise slavery and racism and agree withs some of your points, I 
>>object to being indirectly labelled a Hitler apologist because I believe in
>>some of the things the CSA stood for.

>I'd be more than happy to label you directly if you feel that refusing to 
>dismantle its evil enterprise made the South merely "objecting to being 
>prodded by an essentially foreign group of people". That's neither here nor

I bet you would.  You certainly seem to be bent on insulting me.  I have
specifically denounced slavery and racism, yet you continue to classify
me with Nazis because I believe the South had the right to secede and
can sympathize with the non-slave-holding Southerners who loved the South
enough to die for it anyway.  I truly don't understand how you can explain
away their love of their place and their honor by replacing it with simple
greed and racism.  

>unwelcome economic competition. It is their singular interest in preserving 
>this situation that motivated them above all else to defend their evil 
>empire.

That's absurd.

>>be willing to concede the plausibility of Hitler's arguments.
...
>Yes, I'm sure you don't. 

You are single-minded, thoughtless and offensive.  I am not willing to 
concede the plausibility of Hitler's arguments, and you're quite out
of line to suggest otherwise.
 
Trevor Bauknight         trev@hubcap.clemson.edu    ...gatech!hubcap!trev
 
                                                     +-----------+
                                                     | _> ###    |
                  fish on                            |     |     |
                                                     +-----------+