HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Hood
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:05:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara

Hood allowed Schofield`s army of the Ohio to march past him.
The army was not PLANNING TO WITHDRAW, rather, getting into a better
defensive position, and moving towards Thomas` army of the Cumberland.
Schofield reached the lines about Franklin, and the result is "well" known.

It is also of some importance to know that Hood was on opium, the 
"medicine" often prescribed to relieve pain at that time
, he missing a leg, and with a crippled arm.  Though, i would not use
that as the only excuse for being a "bad" army general.  i think he used
his army as he would use a division.  but while a division is expendable
to a degree, an army is not.  however, being on opium may have cause
him to not "pounce" on schofield as he should have.


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: sterling@crash.cts.com (Mike Sterling)
Subject: Slavery
Date: 22 Aug 92 18:55:15 GMT

The north profited from slavery indirectly also.  The majority of shipping was controled by Nothern interests, and if they were not involved in the importing of slaves, they certainly where involved in the exporting of goods produced with slave labor.

Another point to consider, the majority of Northerns in 1860 would not have considered themselves abolitionists.  Lincoln himself supported a Constitutional Ammendment that would have protected slavery in the areas were it already was in exsistence.  What more people in the North were opposed to was the spreading of slavery into new territories.

In 1862, Lincoln responds in editorial to the question of freeing the slaves by stating that he will only do what is necessary to put down the rebellion.  If that involves freeing none of the slaves, some of the slaves, or all of the slaves was the issue for Lincoln.  In 1863, the Emmancipation Proclamation only calls for the freeing of slaves in areas in which the rebellion was in progress.  The three boarder states that allowed slavery, but remained loyal to the Union, were uneffected initially.  At the 



time of the Emmancipation Proclamation, desertion rates withen the Union army increased significantly.  Many Northerns did not like the idea of being killed to free the slaves.
ke
Mike Sterling
 .
?
From: steveo@think.com (stephen anthony)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: R E Lee
Date: 14 Aug 92 14:26:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: olen.think.com


A question I've been meaning to ask regarding RELee, is what is the
significance of the appelation/moniker "Marse"?

Foote used it often in Burns' TV series, but never explained its origin.
After V1&2 of Foote's book, I don't recall seeing an explanation, although
perhaps I'm just not recalling it.

Can anyone shed some light on it? Was is just a family nickname?

Steveo
-- 
Steve Anthony                     |  "Ain't nobody gettin' outta here |
Application Engineer              |   with out singin' the blues"     |
(617) 234-4000                    |                                   |
steveo@think.com                  |  - Albert "The Iceman" Collins    |
From: jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua M. Sabloff)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Let's get a decent title for the slavery thread
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:12:15 GMT
	<1992Aug20.230840.17364@cco.caltech.edu>
Organization: Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 20-Aug-92 Re: Let's get a
decent titl.. Jones Maxime Murphy@cco. (2439)

> Hmm. Would you care to point out the statement "all white people are racists"
anywhere in my posts?

I seem to remember statements to the effect that white culture is built
on the exploitation of Africa.  Let's not get into rhetorical
technicalities.  Ah, here is that statement:

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 18-Aug-92 Re: A fresh start.
Negroes .. Jones Maxime Murphy@cco. (4362)

> Your culture and heritage are built on the blood and suffering of mine. 

Thar she blows.... :-)

Finally,

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 20-Aug-92 Re: Let's get a
decent titl.. Jones Maxime Murphy@cco. (2439)

> Yeah, and someone make me an offer for that bridge I see out of my
> office window
> with a nice view of Brooklyn *and* Manhattan.:)

Hey, wanna buy the Brooklyn Bridge? :-)

-Josh Sabloff (jsa5@andrew.cmu.edu)
"Now go away before I taunt you a second time-a!"
Organization: Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 09:34:37 -0400 
From: "Joshua M. Sabloff" <jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: West Virginia (was Re: You started it, ...)
	<12AUG199222183096@vxcrna.cern.ch>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 12-Aug-92 Re: West Virginia
(was Re: .. CASPER,DAVI./PPE@vxcrna. (1739)

> I recall that after Richmond fell, Lincoln allowed the Va. Legislature to vote
> to withdraw from the CSA. 

Lincoln was about to do this.  However, the Radicals blocked him before
the Virginia Legis. could meet.

-Josh Sabloff (jsa5@andrew.cmu.edu)
"Research physicists need Porsches too!" -- Oliver Wendell Jones
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Secession
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:38:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara

the Late Unpleasentness was full of legal confusion as has lately been
pointed out on this list.  Some thoughts: 

Did the south legally secede?  Was it out of the Union?

if it was out of the Union, then West Virginia could be made a state without
any question.

but lincoln contended that the south was not out of the Union, a state could
not secede.  But he placed a BLOCKADE on southern ports.  You do not
BLOCKADE your own ports!  You "close" them.   

When the war is over, and the Rad. Republicans in power, for a state to
get back "into" the union, it must ratify the so-called slavery amendments.
But, if they were OUT of the Union, as the Radicals insisted, how could
they wield powers of a state IN the Union (ratification).  So they, as
Lincoln contended, were actually IN the Union, but would not be IN IN
unless they ratified the new amendments.

these are just some things to think about.

Now, the southern states for an alliance/treaty which was against the 
constitution.  thus, is secession illegal?  well, yes, and no, because
the states seceded separately and then formed an alliance.  maybe.

the confederacy itself tolerated no secession.  some county in georgia, or
somewhere (Jones?) declared themselves indept of the CSA, and that 
"rebellion" was soon put down.

in either case, the south took over Federal installations and fired 
upon the flag of the United States - whether rebellion/treason, or flat
out war between two "countries" it was a bad scene.  :) 

i'm still confused.  but if we go to Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"
we find that secession was bad medicine.

please excuse the many posts i have made,

your servant,
dom  Dal Bello
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Bragg/Longstreet
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:30:19 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara


Steve:
i believe there was some discussion between Bragg and Longstreet
as to who was to command on the field at chickamauga.  I believe
they were both Lieut. Gens at the time, with Longstreet holding
seniority.  a minor point, but being a fair student on the
battle of chickamauga, and if memory serves me well, Old Pete
was senior.


your servant,

dom:
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: "Coloured" troops in the Union Army
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 06:47:21 GMT

whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:

>The Emancipation Proclamation authorizes ex-slaves to "garrison forts,
>positions, stations, and other places, and man vessels of all sorts." As
>I stated, this did not allow them to serve in combat.

This is simply not the case, even ignoring the fact that blacks were already
fighting in the Union army.

>The decision to enlist colored troops was made May 22, 1863 when the
>Bureau of United States Colored Troops was established by order of
>Edward D. Townsend, AAG, not in "late 1863", and some USCT did see
>combat in November and December 1863. Serves me right for not checking
>first. The argument is not substantially altered by the facts.

The establishment of this USCT was simply a recognition of what had been
going on for some time. It did not inaugurate a combat role for Africans.

>All of the above information comes from the book United States Colored
>Troops 1863-1867 by William A. Gladstone.

And mine comes from "Breaking The Chains", by Loren Katz, and other sources. I
like Katz' book because it's relatively light reading.

This distinction is quite academic, in any case. There is not a substantial
difference between Union troops per se and "state-recruited" troops, as far
as the military advantages of emancipation are concerned. Your fixation with
the issue is inexplicable, given the other more substantial issues that you
are leaving alone.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: West Virginia (was Re: You started it, ...)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 04:58:49 GMT

In article <36767@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> carraghe@cs.ucsd.edu (Robert Carragher) writes:
>wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>>The case of West Va., however, was clearly illegal. Article 4, section 3
>>states "no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction 
>>of any other state...without the consent of the legislatures concerned
>>as well as of the Congress".
>
>Well, that depends on your interpretation of the legality of the
>Unionist Virginia legislature which voted to seceed from Virginia.
>If we have that "original" Virginia senators gave up their voice
>in Congress, and Virginia legislature the affairs of their own state
>(a very shaky ground, I admit), then the Unionist legislature was

At no point did the state legislature give up their voice in the affairs
of the state. It split into two parts with each having legitimate claims
of being the rightful government of Virginia. The governor and a lot of the
legislature went over to the CSA but a number of cabinet members and 
legislators went to the union. 

>in their rights to create West Virginia.
>
The Provisional Government of Virginia was made up of many of the original
members of the Viginia legislature. The elections of 1862 made this
government very pro-union and since it was recognized as the legal government
of Virginia the vote taken was considered legal. If I recall correctly, all
the states were represented by provisional governments. The only reason
that West Virginia decided to split from Virginia was that a number of people
in the northwestern part of the state (roughly a line from Parkersburg to Grafton
and northwards) did not have anything in common with the tidewater regions
of Virginia. An examination of the voting records from 1800-1860 show that
that part of the state *never* voted the same as the tidewater.

In any case there was precidence for the formation of another state from
within a parent state. Maine was formed from Territory belonging to Mass.

>It seems this act is no so clearly illegal as might be supposed,
>although it really depends strongly upon how illegal secession
>was.
>
>			Bob Carragher
>
>-- 
>Reply: rcarragher@ucsd.edu       "Imagine all the people,
>    or rcarragh@ucsd.edu          Living life in peace...."
>if the above didn't work
>                                          -- J.L.

Charles Buckley


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY)
Subject: Re: Text of 1861 mustering call--(West) Virginia
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 09:40:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.060853.25273@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>For those interested in taking a break from the burgeoning Blue-Gray flame war,
>this old mustering call might be of interest.  It is for the mustering of
>troops in 1861 in what became West Virginia.  I have had it for some time,
>happened across it the other day, and thought it might make an interesting
>post.  The text is verbatim.
>
>(The paper that I have is a reproduction, of course).
>
>**************************************************************
>
>TO THE PEOPLE of the Kanawha Valley, embracing the following counties, viz:
>Mason, Jackson, Putnam, Cabell, Wayne, Logan, Kanawha, Boone, Wyoming, Raleigh,
>Fayette, Nicolas, and Clay: According to the following order, by the Governor
>of Virginia:
>
>                                     Executive Department, April 29, 1861.
>
>
[Muster order deleted]

This is interesting to me as this is the same date that my great-great grand-
father enlisted at Gaulley Bridge which is located in the Kanawha Valley.
He served with the 10th Virginia Calvary, Co. G (I believe, the CO was a
man by the name of Phelps). His enlistment was for one year. At the end
of his enlistment, he returned to his home in Frozen Camp, WV near Ripley.
Union sympathizers attempted to hang him (a common problem). He was saved by
his 3 year old son who kept hugging his leg. Apparently the union sympathizers
had a heart, which is just as well as one of them was my great-great grandfather
on my other side. He returned to his old unit where he felt he was safer and
served the rest of the war before his capture by union troops the day before
Lee's surrender.

Charles Buckley

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Subject: Re: You started it, we finished it (was Re: Confederate Flags)
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 00:17:11 GMT

>In article <1992Aug7.153853.21568@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>So, if their justification for secession was the Declaration, they do,
> in fact, have a 
>leg to stand on in terms of legal precedent. 

>JZ

but only one leg, jeff.  the declaration also contains the phrase
``all men are created equal'', rather than ``all white men are created
equal'', which represents a significnat conflict with the standard
attitudes of southern secessionists and apologists.

i continue to maintain that secession is based on very tenuous legal
ground.

cheers,
  richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Howard
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:20:00 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara


O.O. Howard was a good officer.  he just happened to be commander
of the XI corps, the hardest luck regiment in the Aof the Pot. which
always happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

it is of interest to note that the XI and XII corps, the least trusted
corps in the Aof the Pot, got sent out west, where in general, they
had a good time.  we all know what happened to the AoftheP in '64.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: R.E.Lee & J.E. Johnston (was "Hood was horrible")
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 20:33:12 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23


Sorry, but my first attempt to reply mis-fired.

In <1992Aug21.030630.28691@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com writes:

: Lee knew he could win with attacks against the various union
: commanders in the early phases of the war.  He was also smart enough
: to switch to defense when Grant came on the scene (Ok, Gettysburg
: probably had a little to do with this too).
: 

I would say that Lee was forced to switch to the defensive since he had
squandered his troops by his earlier agression (including against McClellan).
It may also be the Longstreet was finally able to talk some sense into him.

: Johnston
: was probably right in his strategy of strategic withdrawal toward
: Atlanta as he tried to force Sherman into a battle to his (Johnston's)
: advantage several times during Sherman's advance, but Sherman would
: not bite. 
:
: +Dick Winningstad                                                    +
: +dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +

Sherman "bit" at Kennesaw Mountain (but not again).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: ----> Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Date: 20 Aug 92 13:14:28 GMT
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23


In <bjm1.714273204@Ra.MsState.Edu> bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu writes:

: trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight) writes:
: 
: >>KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
: 
: >>The United States is a country built on a murderous and exploitative basis.
: 

I just want to make clear the the quotes which Bobbie Mann has attributed to 
me by use of ">>" were in fact made by J. M. Murphy in response to a post I
made. None of my original statements were preserved by Bobbie Mann!

: 
: Thank you!
: Roland
: 
: > 
: >Trevor Bauknight         trev@hubcap.clemson.edu    ...gatech!hubcap!trev
: > 

Who's Roland?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: You started it, we finished it (was Re: Confederate Flags)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 16:42:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.002353.13093@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>In article <Bsv6xD.Gxt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Wayne J. Warf writes:
>
>>Huh? Could you cite a case where the Supreme Court issued any of these
>>opinions? I wish it were so, but I find no basis for the assertion.
>
>Chuck has already given some specifics for which I am grateful, because 
>it saved me (for the moment) from having to go find a law library and 
>dig through the records of the Supreme Court. 
>
>Truth to tell, I read that assertion in a book on Constitutional law and 
>history in college, and it stuck with me. I've never gone and looked up 
>and specific instances. 
>
>But I will, if you aren't already satisfied with Chuck's defense....
>
>JZ
> 
>

Actually, no I wasn't. I would appreciate it you could find instances
of the court maintaining that natural law or the declaration or the
Federalist are part of the Constitution. As I said, I wish it were
so. Chuck didn't grasp the difference between that which is binding
is the Constitution and that which may used or ignored at will. There
is a VERY great difference between the two.
-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 |"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:46:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

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.  

Hmm? Then why do you consider my statements about the Confederate Flag such
a frontal attack on your culture and heritage?

>>>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.  

They say that love is blind, so I can only assume you really love the South.

>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.

I'se sorry, Massa, for being out of line. Yassuh, boss.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 18:55:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.172816.8056@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> hall@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031) writes:
>One thing that seems to be ignored in this discussion is the fact that there were
>many Northern "entrepreneurs" who got very rich by buying slaves in Africa and
>selling them to the Southern planters.
>
>The Northeners only got this attack of revulsion concerning slavery when they
>were no longer able to profit from it. Seems like everyone with motivations of
>greed and racism may not have been located South of the Mason-Dixon line.
>
Well, the slave trade was outlawed by the Constitution in 1808. I'm not
sure who you mean by Northern "entrepeneurs" but since they must have shut
up shop 52 years before the war began, it seems that any connection between
them and the Civil War must be somewhat removed as by 1860 they would have
all been dead or very old.
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

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa