HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF)
Subject: Re: Is it time to rm this group?
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 02:08:54 GMT

In article <1992Dec20.232142.25053@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai) writes:
>jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF) writes:
>>I think this is a legitimate example of a group stranded in alt. -- a lot
>>of people consider alt. worthless except for widely known groups such as
>>alt.folklore.urban, and also, it can be mind-boggling to scan through a
>>list of alt. groups searching for something that sounds interesting.
>
>	I have to disagree here.  I find the alt.heirarchy
>a lot more interesting than the soc.sewer.heirarchy such as
>soc.culture.whatever or soc.history which have extremely low
>s/n ratios, and too much acrimony.  If it aint broke don't fix it.
>
>	The most recent attempt to rmgroup an alt. to soc.
>lost 729-151, and caused normally easy going groups to have alot
>of bad feelings.  This group should build a consensus first.

Yup, and you may recall the general of the anti-hijacking side in the
alt.folklore.computers hijacking war was one J. Furr.  I'm well aware of
the fact that moving groups around after pie-in-the-sky greater readership
is a flawed concept.  In the case of alt.folklore.computers, though, the
group was well-known and quite popular.  This group seems to be suffering
from people not knowing about it.  Further work needs to take place to get
the word out about it so more people will ask their news admins to carry it.
From: steveo@custard.think.com (stephen anthony)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Banks and Trains
Date: 23 Dec 92 11:12:15
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com
In-reply-to: dzik@access.digex.com's message of 23 Dec 1992 01:02:15 GMT

In article <1h8dqnINNfqn@mirror.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:


   In article <tecump.725061988@tangent> tecump@tangent.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
   >
   >A very good and hilarious movie based on the [Andrews] raid stars Buster Keaton.
   >

   There was also a Disney live-action movie based on the raid that I recall
   seeing in my childhood.  I don't remember the name, but I was rather
   impressed with it at the time.  This one was serious and definitely
   pro-Andrews.

Yup, I remember this too; and Fess Parker played Andrews.
--
Steve Anthony                     |  "Ain't nobody gettin' outta here |
Software Engineer              	  |   with out singin' the blues"     |
(617) 234-4000                    |                                   |
steveo@think.com                  |  - Albert "The Iceman" Collins    |
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: E.V. Sumner (was General Lee and Union Army Command)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 07:40:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.204304.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>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.

It strikes me as likely that the resignation of AS Johnston alluded to in
the first post might explain a change of heart on Lincoln's part regarding
Lee's value. I can't remember what state Johnston was from. Was there any
reasonable hope that he might have stayed with the Union? If so, one can
easily imagine Lincoln turning to Lee once those hopes were dashed.

>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).

He was one of the more effective commanders on the Peninsula, but then
again the competition was Heintzelman, Keyes, Porter, and Franklin, not
precisely distinguished company. Catton's opinion of him seems to be that
he followed orders well enough but that was about it. Also, Sumner really
booted his attack at Antietam and then chickened out, ordering two attacks
cancelled that could probably have won a crushing victory for McClellan.

>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?



-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: resplitting hairs
Date: 28 Dec 92 22:35:19 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

A short while back there were some questions regarding my comments on: 
Fort Sumter as Federal property, emancipation on Union army morale, and 
emancipation's effect on popular opinion in Europe. I've had some trouble sending long posts, so I'ld like to try splitting these up. Thanks for your 
forbearance.
JTHoppers
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Union Command at Wilson's Creek
Date: 29 Dec 92 21:57:39 GMT

cwa@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Carlton W. Andrews) writes:



>    I also had wondered about the command structure at Wilson's Creek.
>    If we use the Order of Battle from Battles and Leaders, and remove
>    the officers that were detached with Sigel on a flanking manuever,
>    we have :
>       1) B.G. Nathaniel Lyon         killed        Commanding Army
>       2) Col. George W. Deitzler     wounded       Commanding Brigade
>       3) Col. Robert B. Mitchell     wounded       Commanding Regiment
>       4) Lt Col. George L. Andrews   wounded       Commanding Brigade
>       5) Lt Col. William Merritt     wounded       Commanding Regiment
>       6) Lt Col. Charles W. Blair                  2ic of Regiment
>       7) Maj. Samuel D. Sturgis                    Commanding Brigade
>       8) Maj. John M. Schofield                    Lyon's A.G.

although the 2-5th were wounded, it does not mean that they were "out of it"
It is interesting, i think, that Sturgis was given command of the First 
Brigade in Lyon's army - if that means anything.

Lyon was in fact, wounded twice before he was killed ("Lehman, I am killed"
were his last words).  Sturgis no doublt was the most qualified.

Blair, was, if a remember correctly, Senator from Kansas.

dom
From: ldillard@digi.lonestar.org (Tom Dillard)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Stonewall at Gettysburg (was Jackson at the Seven Days)
Date: 22 Dec 92 19:12:02 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

RE: the capture of Vicksburg:

As a side note to this, I seem to remember reading in Wyethe's(?)
biography of N.B. Forest that either he, or some other high-ranking
officers in the CSA were wanting "that Devil" Forest to be cut loose
to patrol the Mississippi.  I would think that had this been allowed,
this most resourceful leader would have seriously hampered the Union's
movement of troops and supplies.

After all, we were playing "What if ..." weren't we :)?


-- 
====================================================================
 L.T. Dillard III                        ldillard@digi.lonestar.org
 DSC Communications Corporation
 1000 Coit Rd, MS 120, Plano Tx 75075
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: Info wanted: McCausland's Chambersburg Raid/McCausland autobiography
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:18:01 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.223437.10390@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.220354.8885@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>>Does anybody know if there is an autobiography of CSA Gen. John McCausland?  
>>Also, I am looking for an account of his 1864 raid into Pennsylvania in which 
>>he burned the town of Chambersburg.
>
>His entry in the Dictionary of American Biography (written after his death
>in 1927) does not mention any biography, auto- or otherwise, so I think you
>can be fairly sure none exists.  Just in case there was a posthumous 
>publication, I also checked Melvyl (the University of California catalog) and
>found no works by or about him.
>--Chuck

You might try the article by Clarence Donnelly, "General 'Tiger John'
McCausland, the man who burned Chambersburg," in the journal West Virginia
History, vol. 23 (1961), pp. 139-45.  If Ohio State doesn't have it, your
friendly local reference librarian should be able to get you a photocopy.
There was a book about Chambersburg during the war which was published
in Chambersburg itself in 1884 which contains an account of the burning.
There's another account in a history of the Cumberland Valley in the 1860's,
published in 1961.  If you're really serious about this, I can get you
full citations for those two books.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Battle of Bladensburg ad the potential razing of DC
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:13:07 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <STEVEO.92Dec21122107@custard.think.com>, steveo@custard.think.com (stephen anthony) writes:
> 
> 
>    I have never seen this discussed, but surely the disaster at the
>    Battle of Bladensburg in the War of 1812 (and the subsequent burning
>    of Washington by the British) must have figured strongly in the
>    thinking on both sides regarding the defensibility of the Capital.
>    Certainly the routs of the Union Army at 1st and 2nd Manassas must
>    have had Lincoln worried that history would repeat itself.
> 
>    -- 
>    Paul Cowan     
> 
> I'm not convinced that history would repeat itself so easily in this case.
> I could be wrong, but L'Enfant designed the street intersections in DC
> to create natural fortifications, and I don't think this was done to any
> great extent by the War of 1812, whereas it was done to a great extent by
> the Civil War. The Confederate army would have had a hard time making their
> way into the core of the city, IMHO.
> --
> Steve Anthony                     |  "Ain't nobody gettin' outta here |

I may be all wrong, but I thought L'Enfant's intention was to make Washington
difficult to defend (specifially by a revolutionary mob). Thus the broad
thoroughfairs, the criss-crossing diagonal avenues. My understanding was that 
L'Enfant, working after the French Rovolution, wanted to avoid the fate that
his native Paris had endured.

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

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: afallen@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (E. Allen Arrington)
Subject: Re: Senior Union Officers at Start of War
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: 1st Kentucky Cavalry Co. C
Date: 28 Dec 1992 12:04 EST  

In article <1992Dec24.230153.29839@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes...
>In article <1992Dec24.170803.9928@rayssd.ssd.ray.com> cwa@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Carlton W. Andrews) writes:
> 
>>        18. Philip St. George Cooke        50-60; West Point graduate
> 
>Commanded a Confederate brigade at 1st Bull Run, I believe he retired in
>the winter of 1861 (?).
> 
Possible confusion here; I think that Philip St. George Cooke was a Union
                                                          ^ 
Cavalry officer during the war (and father-in-law to Jeb Stuart); Philip St
 George Cocke was a Confederate general. (I'm working from memory, so this
           ^
may very well be all wrong; I may have the two reversed)


E. Allen Arrington  
        Trooper, 1st Kentucky Cavalry, Co. C 
        Mounted Memorial Unit    
and Mason (a darn fine horse)
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Washington captured, not
Date: 29 Dec 1992 13:31:28 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <00965C33.4FFD82A0@OCTAVO> jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:
>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.

Harry Turtledove writes many superb alternate histories.  If you are 
interested in such, look for other of his work as well.  (I just finished
reading a novella by him based on "what if the Mediterranean basin had
not filled with water the last time it did."  Interesting stuff.)


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Info wanted: McCausland's Chambersburg Raid/McCausland autobiography
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 22:34:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.220354.8885@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>Does anybody know if there is an autobiography of CSA Gen. John McCausland?  
>Also, I am looking for an account of his 1864 raid into Pennsylvania in which 
>he burned the town of Chambersburg.

His entry in the Dictionary of American Biography (written after his death
in 1927) does not mention any biography, auto- or otherwise, so I think you
can be fairly sure none exists.  Just in case there was a posthumous 
publication, I also checked Melvyl (the University of California catalog) and
found no works by or about him.
--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: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Why Merrimac
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:56:29 GMT

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?
--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: agwing@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (Andrew Wing)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Questions relating to ACW-era artillery.
Date: 3 Jan 93 05:16:47 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]

P.L. Cowan (cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu) wrote:

: 1) Did any (many, most) artillery pieces still use lighted fuses, or did
: all (most, some) use lanyards?

	According to Warren Ripley in 'Artillery and Ammunition of the Civil
War' (Promontory Press 1970), most army guns used friction primers, basically
modified matchsticks.  Naval guns used proper locks, friction primers or locks
with a variety of tubes.

: 2) How did a lanyard work?

	A lanyard could either trip the lock like pulling a handgun trigger
or activate the friction primer.  There are several good photos and diagrams
of locks, primers, etc in Ripleys book.

: 3) What is meant by "spiking a piece"? I have always assumed this meant 
: driving a spike into the fuse-hole.

	This is the most common method of disabling a cannon.  Also one could
drive a cold chisel into the breech, just ahead of the cascabel, in order to
weaken the piece and make it unsafe to fire.

: 4) Was an artillery piece perminantly disabled by a proper job of spiking 
: it?

	Weakening the piece would make the gun unusable with all but the 
smallest charges.  A vent spiked gun could be redrilled.  With older pattern
guns, there was usually a second vent built in, but filled with molten zinc.
Presumably when the original vent fouled, it would be plugged and the second
vent drilled out.

	You might also want to read Dudley Popes 'Guns', which covers the 
evolution of guns from the first hand held spike mounted weapons up to modern
artillery and hand weapons.  Its profusely illustrated and is well written.

: -- 
: 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
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
v2002a@vm.temple.edu     (preferred)
v2002a%templevm.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu
agwing@picasso.ocis.temple.edu    (last resort)

Any disclaimer issued by me is subject to change without notice
From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Text of The Gettysburg Address
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 05:32:01 GMT

As requested by another poster:

Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a 
new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men 
are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any 
nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure.  We are met on a great 
battlefield of that war.  We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a
final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might 
live.  It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot 
hallow--this ground.  The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have 
consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.  The world will 
little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what 
they did here.  It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the 
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.  It
is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before 
us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for 
which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve 
that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall
have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, 
for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

                                        A. Lincoln, November, 1863.

PDunn
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: Washington captured, not
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:23:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.160505.23621@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>As to the point regarding alternative history, the canons of the historical
>>profession (such as they are) forbid the asking of "what if" questions.
>>This is methodologically sound, since there is ultimately no way that
>>one can answer such questions.  Nevertheless, such questions will continue
>>to fascinate.  I might also note that, unless you are allowed to ask
>>"what if", you can't say that a general "made a mistake" in making
>>this maneuver or that; he simply did what he did, and you can only
>>say that what he did was a mistake if you are allowed to speculate
>>about "what if" he had done something else.

>I didn't mean to imply that I am so soulless as to lack the natural
>fascination with alternatives to cold reality.  (After all, I'm the one
>who thinks Aeschylus wrote the Civil War.)  I was only stating a preference
>for the alternatives that hew closely to what we know.  (Now, if Santa
>Claus had left coal in Lincoln's stocking at Christmas of '62, would Abe
>still have issued the Proclamation the next week. . .?)
>--Chuck

Agreed.  You can ask whether Early could have taken Washington, and
then argue about it.  You could then ask whether, if Early had taken
Washington, the British would have intervened.  Still an interesting
question, but one dependent on a previous hypothetical.  Then you could
ask, if the British had intervened, would the North still have won?
And then you could ask, if the North had lost, would World War I had
turned out differently?  And if World War I had turned out differently,
would Hitler have come to power....  After a while, even I lose
interest.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: steveo@custard.think.com (stephen anthony)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Battle of Bladensburg ad the potential razing of DC
Date: 21 Dec 92 12:21:07
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: custard.think.com
In-reply-to: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu's message of 19 Dec 92 16:53:57 -0800

In article <1992Dec19.165357.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:


   I have never seen this discussed, but surely the disaster at the
   Battle of Bladensburg in the War of 1812 (and the subsequent burning
   of Washington by the British) must have figured strongly in the
   thinking on both sides regarding the defensibility of the Capital.
   Certainly the routs of the Union Army at 1st and 2nd Manassas must
   have had Lincoln worried that history would repeat itself.

   -- 
   Paul Cowan     

I'm not convinced that history would repeat itself so easily in this case.
I could be wrong, but L'Enfant designed the street intersections in DC
to create natural fortifications, and I don't think this was done to any
great extent by the War of 1812, whereas it was done to a great extent by
the Civil War. The Confederate army would have had a hard time making their
way into the core of the city, IMHO.
--
Steve Anthony                     |  "Ain't nobody gettin' outta here |
Software Engineer              	  |   with out singin' the blues"     |
(617) 234-4000                    |                                   |
steveo@think.com                  |  - Albert "The Iceman" Collins    |