HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Social perquisites of non-slaveholding whites
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:09:13 GMT

robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay) writes:

>>People didn't just fight and die to call AFricans niggers. They fought and died
>>to remain aristocrats in a social order that afforded them total racial 
>>superiority.

>Come on now, Mr. Murphy, you must know the phrase "Rich man's war
>/ Poor man's fight". By far the large part of the troops in the confederate
>army were made up of people who had no slaves. You have not given me any reason
>that THESE people had a vested intrest in slavery, except that they were all
>racists. But then most racist are fairly cowardly people.

Hey! Stop stereotyping racists. Some racists are quite brave. Look at the ultra-
Nazi Charles Lindbergh....:)

Anyway, I gave you more than enough vested interest in slavery for non-
slaveholders. They had a variety of economic and legal privileges denied to
blacks. They could, with impunity, abuse and ill-treat blacks, and they did.
They were protected from economic competition.
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: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Smoking the peace pipe
Reply-To: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 01:04:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.201156.7582@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.194003.14064@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>>jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:
>>
>>>Gentlemen,
>>>I do not doubt that all of us possess ample gifts of intellect and 
>>>expression. Is there any chance that we might call a truce in honor 
>>>of those gifts and our interest in a common period of human history?
>>
>>By all means. I'd be happy to stop insulting my hapless opponents if they stop
>>insulting me.
>
>What can you do when the person insists on making smart-ass comments in his
>alleged peace messages?

Set an example.

Rich Rath


>
>
>-- 
>Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
>
>"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Pride goeth before the fall (and hopefully Jones Murphy will too)
Reply-To: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:22:25 GMT

In article <30AUG199214122370@vxcrna.cern.ch>, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.231813.20024@cco.caltech.edu>, morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes...
>>casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>> 
;
:
:
>
>>>...couldn't have anything to do
>>>with adopting cockamamie Marxist ideology and economic policy, tinpot despots
>>>living in palaces with fleets of Rolls Royces parked outside, endless tribal
>>>warfare and ethnic animosity, and massive military spending.  No, it was 
>>>all the....
:
:
Now why do we have to talk about Eastern Europe this way, and what does 
it have to do with the Civil War...Oh, I'm sorry...just realized you 
were referring to reports *in newspapers* about Africa  !->
--Rich
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: What the FAQ?
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:36:24 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight) writes:

>morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

>>I did *not*. The ideals of the USA were not nearly as explicitly racist as 

>Actually, I asked you if you would not question the legitimacy of the USA
>with the same ease as you dismissed the legitimacy of the CSA, since the
>USA is, even today, filled with extreme hatred and oppression of blacks,
>and the first think Jones ever wrote in response to me was something like
>"Agreed...point well taken."

Yes, but on paper the USA is, and always has been, far less racist than the
CSA. You're right about the de facto situation.

>>somewhat under the table. The CSA had no such reservations.

>Frankly, I'm surprised that you would rather racism be "under the table"
>rather than out in the open where you would at least know who your enemies
>were...

I have no preference, I'm simply stating that there is a difference between
the claim that a particular behavior is right, versus acknowledging that it's 
wrong, but doing it anyway.
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: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Re: Aiming.
Keywords: Aimed shots casualties
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 06:40:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug30.202147.6676@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jone
s Maxime Murphy) writes:
>pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>
>>Soldiers in the war used to guess that it too a man's weight in lead to kill
>>him.  An "expert" estimated that it took 240 lbs. of powder and 900 lbs. of
>>lead for a Confederate to be hit in a battle.
>
>This is pretty poor. What was the percentage of professional soldiers, draftee
s
>and volunteers in the armies?

Good question.  I don't know the answer.  I am sure there is someone on this
board who could supply that information.

Another question along these lines: were Union draftees placed in regular army
units or, like volunteers, into state units?

Also, what percentage of Union troops were foreign born?

>Jones

PDunn
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: What the FAQ?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:05:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.122257.1791@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>I did *not*. The ideals of the USA were not nearly as explicitly racist as 
>those of the CSA. The US at least was ashamed enough of it's racism to keep it
>somewhat under the table. The CSA had no such reservations.

This isn't really true. First, because there were some Confederates who
opposed slavery. More importantly, because the Northerners were just as
vocal about their racism as the Southerners. Go back and read some of the
things written by McClellan or some of the prominent Democrats (and even
some of the Republicans) and you'll find they were completely unabashed
about being racists.
>
>And, once again, I say "FAQ that shit, but near the end". There's a lot more
>core information about the white Civil War than flag colours. Or else we could
>start the FAQ out with R.E. Lee's favourite underwear brands, or something as 
>important as that.

The definition of a FAQ is "Frequently Asked Question." It doesn't make any
moral judgements as to what should or should not be asked. Mr. Murphy is
free to make any moral judgements he wants (and he should) but the standard
for including something on a FAQ is the number of people that ask it.
<shrug>.
>
>in check. Union generals had to be directly ordered to stop returning AFricans
>to their "owners".There were murderous riots in many northern cities as whites
>attacked blacks, angry at being forced to fight against slavery.

There is some truth to this but it does disservice to the historical record.
Only two Union generals had to be explicitly ordered to return captured
slaves, apparently the rest had no particular qualms about it.
There were many riots in Northern cities, but race was not the only factor
that motivated them. An important one, but not the only one.

>KILL away, white man. The truth lives on.

And so it does, Mr. Murphy's attempts against it notwithstanding :)
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: daggs@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Sickles (Was: Re: Lee-Longstreet)
Date: 1 Sep 1992 13:05:02 GMT
Organization: Houston Civil War Roundtable

In article <Uebfsdu00WBNM76lIg@andrew.cmu.edu> tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas J.
Joyce) writes:
>
>As much flak that Sickles takes, I'd like to invite those who condemn
>him to actually go to Gettysburg and survey the area [specifically
>where his troops were engaged]. Look at the lay of the land. He
>really had no choice.
>
>Tom Joyce
>Carnegie-Mellon University Administrative Systems
>(usual disclaimer et al)
>

	I have been to Gettysburg in the last year and from what I have 
seen, Sickles deserves the flak he gets. I am interested in what you 
mean when you say he had "no choice". Please elaborate.


Clark J. Daggs
1864 El Mar Ln.
Seabrook, Texas 77586
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Just do what I say and no one gets hurt
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 23:24:07 GMT

HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:

>I suspect that the real instigator of any new race war will be greedheads like
>Mr. Murphy, seizing power by exploiting the (IMO) just complaints of a people.
>Not that this is anything new--history is replete with examples (including
>US history).

That's pronounced "gredheads", since it combines my lust for money and power
with my musical preferences for the grATEFUL DeAd.

>  These statements point out Mr. Murphy has little care for "justice", but
>power, for himself and those he likes.  Not via good old-fashioned hard work,
>but through threats of violence.

Yeah, punk. So give it up. Now.

>  There are those who ask only for a fair opportunity.  Then there are those
>who ask for tribute.  I believe Mr. Murphy has placed himself in the latter
>group, freely and in his own words.  A pity he will do more harm to the cause
>of equality than good.

Hey, a little tribute never hurt any wealthy white American.

>Jammer Jim Miller 
>Texas A&M University '89 and '91

Yo, MC Jammer. Were you sober when you wrote that?
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
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Aiming at flagbearers.
Keywords: Flags, flagbearers
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:24:24 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep1.170223.28740@bnlux1.bnl.gov> COWAN@ANL.GOV writes:

>This brings me to another military-related question. Often it was the
>flagbearer that drew a disproportionate share of the enemy fire. Also, I have
>often read references to the number of flags a given unit captured, or that a
>given unit had never lost "a gun or a flag". It almost sounds like a game 
>was being played. Was there really enough military significace to a regimental
>flags (i.e. "Ralley 'round the flag, boys!") to warrant all the attention they
>were apparently given? Or was it simply a "morale thing"?

It has been my understanding that flagbearers were usually unarmed, since
their hands were otherwise occupied, so that makes the "game" especially
brutal for them.  I can't help thinking of Chamberlain's description of
Andrew Tozier, the color sergeant for the 20th Maine, balancing the 
colors in the crook of his arm while firing away on Little Round Top.  
Quite a feat even planted in one place, and certainly not possible when
on the attack.
--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: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 04:36:25 GMT

In article <NLHDqB13w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> djredick@bluemoon.rn.com (Darrin J. Redick) writes:
>
>Here, here!  I second that notion!  I don't enjoy seeing the current 
>'battle' on here between Jones and everyone else.  I enjoy seeing stuff
>on what really counts (for me, anyway): the actual CW battles.  Perhaps
>a CFV, or RFD is in order here.
>
I'm opposed to the division: I think the majority of traffic would simply
be crossposted or would be missed by a large interested readership.
I think the appropriate response to Mr. Murphy (or Mr. Casper, depending
on which side you take) is to create a kill file, not to divide the
newsgroup.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Date: 29 Aug 92 05:53:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas J. Joyce) writes:


>I'm glad I found this newsgroup. However, I wouldn't mind seeing it
>split into two groups:

>    alt.war.civil.usa.mil   (purely military & battle topics)
>    alt.war.civil.usa.soc   (social, political and diplomatic topics)

>I like reading both groups, but wouldn't mind just reading about one and
>not the other. Safe to say that my main interest in the war is in the
>battles. This doesn't mean that I don't have any interest in the 
>non-military facets of the war.

>Opinions?


No to "separate but equal" subgroups.
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: Aiming at flagbearers.
Keywords: Flags, flagbearers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 18:26:52 GMT

In article <Bu0Jy2.EE2@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>
>Lots of stuff deleted about officers.
>
>Some particularly brave or foolish officers deliberately did things that
>made them conspicuous in battle. 

[lots of examples deleted]

There's a story in Catton's _Glory_Road_ about Capt. James Hall, 2nd.
Maine Artillery, Lt. Col. Charles Tilden, 16th Mass, and Col Adrian Root,
commanding brigade, sitting around on their horses under a Confederate
cannonade at Fredricksburg chatting about the weather or some such while
the infantry looked on in astonishment. Apparently none of the three was
hurt.
Catton makes the point in several places that if an officer didn't recklessly
expose himself to danger, he could never get his men to do so either. Witness
Ferraro at the Battle of the Crater.

ps. Keith Mancus, I got your mail but I couldn't mail back to that address.
I'm sorry but I don't know how to create a kill file...
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: dargan@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Who wrote Grant's memoirs?
Date: 24 Aug 92 01:12:42 GMT
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Aug23.122305.20189@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William E Van Horne) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.113516.10261@access.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>>I have heard rumors that Mark Twain ghost-wrote Grant's memoirs.
>>I know that he editted them, and Grant's memoirs are very much in Twain's
>>style.  But Twain denies that he did more than edit.
>>
>>Anyone out there have any light to shine on this subject?
>>
>>Joe Dzikiewicz
> 
> 
> There have been many stories, written by many people and including
> photographs, of Grant's labors in personally writing every word of
> his memoirs on his front porch while in great pain.
> 
> Remember he was dying of cancer, and knew it; also he was bankrupt.
> He was terribly worried about support of his wife, Julia, after he
> was dead.  He felt his only chance of leaving any substantial estate
> was to finish his memoirs before his death.  In fact, as I remember
> it, he finished it only a couple of days before his last breath.
> 
> Bill Van Horne, Sr.
> wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
> 
>While it is true that Grant worked on his memoirs until the very end, it
appears that someone needs to compare the actual handwritten manuscript with
the published text.  It might also be interesting to type samples of Grant's
and Twain's work into a style checker and see if they are similar.  Does anyone
know where the manuscripts ended up?

Mike Dargan
dargan@iscsuni.edu 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Sickles (Was: Re: Lee-Longstreet)
Keywords: Gettysburg, Sickles, Cemetery Ridge, Peach Orchard
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 16:57:03 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.203428.3274@bnlux1.bnl.gov> COWAN@ANL.GOV writes:
>In <Uebfsdu00WBNM76lIg@andrew.cmu.edu> "Thomas writes:
>
>

large amounts of stuff deleted.

>On July 3, the first two disadvantages were experienced (since Sickles had been
>unable to hold his preferred position despite massive support from the 5th and 
>2nd Corps). In fact, the nominal advantage that the Confederate artillery
>enjoyed at the Peach Orchard may have worked against them. In the artillery
>bombardment preceeding Pickett's Charge, the Confederate artillery consistently
>overshot their targets. Perhaps this can be attributed to their "advantage" in
>elevation.
>
As I understand it, this overshooting by CS artillery was not so much
due to elevation, as to the tendency of cannons which fire for prolonged
periods of time to dig their carriages, especially the rear, into the
ground due to repeated recoil. This gradually made the barrel of the gun
rise and caused overshooting.  Presumably a good gunner could adjust for
this, if he knew where his shots were falling.
   I have also read (in Foote?) that the effect of the CS overshooting
of the US troops on Cem. Ridge was to isolate those units, by
concentrating fire on the US support units behind the ridge. This would
presumably include infantry and arty reserves, as well as ammo supply
and division and corps HQs.
The "box barrage" would also make it difficult to reinforce the front
line troops, since troops going through the barrage would arrive blooded
and possibly demoralized and disorganized. The CS "missed" their
intended target, but the effect was still pretty nasty.
 
>COWAN@ANL.GOV   (I'm posting this from a friend's account)
>

 Have fun,

Tom.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:40:52 GMT

djredick@bluemoon.rn.com (Darrin J. Redick) writes:

>"Thomas J. Joyce" <tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>> not the other. Safe to say that my main interest in the war is in the
>> battles. This doesn't mean that I don't have any interest in the 
>> non-military facets of the war.
>> 
>> Opinions?
>> 

>Here, here!  I second that notion!  I don't enjoy seeing the current 
>'battle' on here between Jones and everyone else.  I enjoy seeing stuff
>on what really counts (for me, anyway): the actual CW battles.  Perhaps
>a CFV, or RFD is in order here.

Yes, it is. Shall we have newsgroup apartheid or not?
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
Xref: sparky alt.war.civil.usa:1037 alt.appalachian:660
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Date: 3 Sep 1992 17:11:16 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <1992Sep3.203559.1454@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie) writes:
>
>One of my family's legends involves Peyton Burns, who during the Civil War (it 
>is said) went out one morning after breakfast to chop wood on his Eastern 
>Kentucky farm and didn't walk back in the kitchen again until after Lee 
>surrendered.  When he showed up, he was carrying an armful of firewood.

Cool story!  I don't know of any civil war connections in my family.
A friend says she's a descendant of Joseph Johnston...

So what was your ancestor's poetry like?  Got any of it online you
could post or email?  (Yeah, right...)  I really like hearing about
personal accounts from ordinary folks in the war.

Oh, and do you know more about the circumstances of why he didn't come
back with wood that morning and joined up instead?

R
From: hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor)
Subject: Re: Pride goeth before the fall (and hopefully Jones Murphy will too)
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 18:41:09 GMT



morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) said:
My SATs were perfect, kiddo.
My intelligence dwarfs yours, whitey.
(I) make so much more (money) than you.
(I am) smarter than you are and better educated,
Choke, spew, dribble, gack, cough, BARF!

Dude. You are clinical. You need some help. I bet you keep your
terminal screen really clean so you can see yourself in it. If you are
going to continue spewing your drivel in this group, do you think you 
could stick to the subject? You have actually made intelligent points
several times along the way (probably read them somewhere :-).

I can get alt.fan.murphy created for you if you'd like.

-Mike
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:52:33 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.201436.8170@odin.corp.sgi.com> root@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User) writes:
>
>They revoked CMHs After WWI?!?! 
>
>I can scarcely believe that people would do that. (only the fact that Congress
>did it renders it believable.) 

It is kind of staggering, isn't it?  Apparently it wasn't enough to make the
club more exclusive *prospectively*, so they decided to rewrite history as
well.

To paraphrase Twain, no one's life, property, or honor are safe when the
legislature is in session.
--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: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Women soldiers.
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 23:11:59 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23


The discussion of black soldiers in "white" regiments reminded me of several
antecdotal references to women who enlisted dressed as men. Does anyone know
if there is a book (either on the Civil War or wars in general) that attempts
to address this subject in some detail? It would seem to be an interesting
subject in connection with modern feminism.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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,alt.appalachian