HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Captain Coffee)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: My ACW ancestors
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Keywords: 

Here are my known Civil War connections......

James Thomas Jefferson Sparks {my 2nd Great Granduncle}
Born - 17 Dec 1843 
Died - 27 Jun 1864 Marietta, (or Kennesaw), GA
Served - 2nd Indiana Cav. and 78th Regiment, Illinois Vol.
Note - Killed as JAMES THOMAS. He originally enlisted in the 2nd Regt.
Indiana Cavalry, (41st Inf.) but had gotten into an altercation with
his superior, gone AWOL to enlist in the IL. Volunteers.  Killed in action 
and buried in Georgia. 
     

Joseph B. Blunk {my 3rd Great Grandfather}
Born - Abt 1812 Indiana
Died - Aft 12 Apr 1887 Franklin Township, Floyd Co., Indiana
Served - Teamster in Memphis and Nashville, Tn.  from 1862 to 1865.

           
Caleb Anderson Jones {my 2nd Great Grandfather}
Born - 1844 Butler Co., Pa, USA
Died - 1930 
Served - 103rd Indiana Vol. regiment
Note - Mustered out in North Carolina and moved to Indianapolis.
  

John (Weyrick) Wirey {My 3rd Great Grandfather}
Born - 10 Jan 1827 Boos, Rhine Valley, Germany
Died - 20 Jan 1889 Brown City, Indiana
Served - Indiana Vol. Infantry CO. D 140th Reg.  
Note - Changed name to Wirey after coming to USA in 1848
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Paul Morphy and the Civil War
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:39:59 GMT

Does anyone know what Paul Morphy did during the civil war? Morphy was the first
American to lay claim to the title of World Chess Champion. He was a youngster
in his teens during the war, from what I remember.
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: gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie)
Subject: Re: Know any good books?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:27:50 GMT

In article <BuDEyF.D2w@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (
thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>   In the "juvenile" section, there is a book called "Across 5 Aprils"
>that is appearantly very good

The book *is* very good. The story is told from the viewpoint of a young boy in
Illinois who grows up during the five Aprils of the CW.  Tells the anguish of 
those left behind.

On the same theme, but with a Southern perspective, is "Children of
Bladensfield," a first-person account edited by Peter
Matthinson (gosh, I'm not sure of these spellings -- if wrong, I'll repost them
later).  Matthinson's g-g aunt was a small girl during the CW. As a very old
lady, she remembers her experiences -- two brothers who fought, owning slaves
(yet her father is a school teacher), Yankees breaking into the house, an
extended family, etc.  It's a most unusual book, and includes photos of the
family, the house in Va. where they lived (already 200 years old in the 1860s),
and some of the furnishings (kerosene lamps, for instance, were a new gadget).
It may be hard to find, but worth the effort.  At the end is a personal essay
by Mattinson (sp?) that is very moving.

Gemma McLuckie
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P. L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Original 13th Amendment
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:39:13 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab

In article <190ptpINNhp4@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>, jsanders@phys.ksu.edu 
(Justin M. Sanders) writes:

[JMS] While doing some research on the secession crisis (prompted by another
[JMS] thread in this newsgroup), I came across an interesting fact which was
[JMS] new to me (or I had thoroughly forgotten it).
[JMS] 
[JMS] On March 2, 1861, Congress passed a constitutional amendment (said to be
[JMS] supported by Lincoln) which provided that no amendment to the Constitution
[JMS] could be made which would give Congress the power to interfere with
[JMS] domestic institutions of the states including slavery.
[JMS] 
[JMS] The amendment was, of course, never ratified, but it would have been the
[JMS] 13th instead of the REAL 13th which abolished slavery.
[JMS] 
[JMS] --
[JMS] Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
[JMS] Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
[JMS] Kansas State Univ.

It seems a bit of an exaggeration to call this amendment (the so
called "Crittenden Amendment") the "Original 13th Amendment" as you
did in your subject line. It was not the only amendment which was
passed by Congress but remaines unratified by the states. The
Amendment that is currently in the news about limiting Congressional
pay raises to take affect only after an election has intervened was
passed by congress shortly after the 10th Amendment. It is now being
ratified by various states (Congress stated no time limit for this
process as they did for the ERA Amendment) but when it passes (which
seems certain) it will *not* become the "11th Amendment" retroactively.

BTW Sen. John J. Crittenden from Ky. was generally considered to be the
successor to Henry Clay (from the same state) in the role of leading
compromiser. He was also the father of one Maj. Gen. in the Union Army
(Thomas L.) and another Maj. Gen in the CSA (George B.).

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P. L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: One man, one vote (was Re: Splitting this news group)
Date: 5 Sep 92 04:30:06 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab

In article <1992Sep3.165042.13945@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV 
(P.L. Cowan) writes:
> I agree with Steve. There is no point in spliting the group. (BTW I uncovered
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------


Just in case it looks like I am stuffing the ballot box, let me assure you
it was a mistake. I am trying to shift my posts to an account in my own name
but when I attempted to post the above message (more or less) I thought it 
failed, so I went back to my friend's account and re-posted it (thinking it
would result in one successful post.)

BTW, using two accounts on opposite coasts (Long Island and Stanford) has 
been interesting because it takes days for posts from one machine to 
make it to the other. (So much for communication at the speed of light.)

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:11:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.151849.20159@tss.com> burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.203559.1454@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie) writes:
>
>|> I really don't know why he joined the Confederacy -- I hope it wasn't because

In the Ken Burns Documentary on the ACW (shown on PBS a couple years
back), Shelby Foote relates this anecdote:

"A union officer had just captured a confederate soldier, someplace in
the deep south. The man he had captured was ragged, skinny and
impoverished looking, and was obviously too poor to have ever owned a
slave in his life, so the officer asked. "I don't believe that you've
ever owned slaves, so why are you fighting us?" To this the prisoner
replied, "I'm fighting because y'all are down here fighting us."

This doesn't do justice to the actual interview, but it does describe
the essence of what Foote went on to say. Specifically, that, most of
the CS army didn't care so much about slavery, they were fighting to
protect family, property and country/state/region from being invaded and
despoiled.

Have fun,

  Tom

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Maps & Regimental Histories (was Re: Aiming at flagbearers.)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 92 05:00:43 GMT

A map which gives regiment-by-regiment positions for much of the battle
of Chancellorsville is _The_Campaign_of_Chancellorsville_, by John Bigelow.
Published in 1910 and to my knowledge never reprinted, it is a little
difficult to find, although the Stanford library has a copy if your SLAC
ID will get you into Green library. (It should). Other good college
libraries should have it. It's probably long overdue for a reprint if
there are any book publishers out there...
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: srivasta@physics.ucla.edu (Srivastava)
Subject: Need US constitution formatted for TeX.
Organization: UCLA Department of Physics
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 92 18:49:29 GMT

Hi, subject says it all. I will appreciate it if someone please send me
or direct me to a Tex formatted copy of US constitution. Thanks

-- 
=======================================================================
Sanjay Srivastava		email:  srivasta@physics.ucla.edu
Dept. of Physics, UCLA.			ibc6sxs@uclamvs.bitnet
=======================================================================
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Original 13th Amendment
Date: 14 Sep 1992 21:12:32 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

In article <1992Sep14.033720.18037@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <190ptpINNhp4@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@phys.ksu.edu 
(Justin M. Sanders) writes:

>>On March 2, 1861, Congress passed a constitutional amendment (said to be
>>supported by Lincoln) which provided that no amendment to the Constitution
>>could be made which would give Congress the power to interfere with
>>domestic institutions of the states including slavery.

>This seems like a silly amendment because any proposed amendment to alter
>the Constitution could equally well throw in a clause repealing this
>amendment...

Well, there is some precedent for such an amendment.  In Article V of the
U.S. Const., there are two clauses which restrict the amendment power,
viz. the 1st and 4th clauses of Art. I, Sec 9 cannot be amended before
1808 (1st allows African slave trade until 1808, 4th denies the power
to pass direct taxes except in proportion to population), and no State
can be denied equal suffrage in the Senate without its approval.

Now, if someone wanted to deny, say, Oregon its equal suffrage in the
Senate, the proposed amendment "could equally well throw in a clause
repealing this" section of Article V.  So the same paradox exists in the
current Constitution. 

The resolution of the paradox is probably that the provisions restricting
the amending power restrict Congress' ability to propose amendments 
which would violate the restrictions.  In the example above, Oregon could
presumably go to the Supreme Court and have the resolution proposing the
amendment declared unconstitutional.

This sentence is false.
--
Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
Kansas State Univ.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner)
Subject: Civil War Daily or Bi-Daily quizes!
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:01:08 GMT




	Here ya go pards!  I'm posting some Civil War questions
about every day or every other day.   With each post, I will
also post an answer to the prior question.
	The SOURCES for this quiz are as follows:

Malone, John.  The Civil War Quiz Book.  Quill/William Marrow.
	New York, NY.  1992

Centennial Edition of The Battle of Gettysburg.  The Stackpole Company.
	Harrisburg, PA.  1960

The Civil War Battlefield Guide.  Edited by Frances H. Kennedy.  Hougton
	and Mifflin.  Boston, MA.  1990.

Mitchell, Lt. Col. Joeseph B.  Decisive Battles of the Civil War.  Fawcett
	Premier.  New York, NY.  1955.  (20th printing, 1989).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
	First Question:

	This is an easy one folks.  I am starting a little easy
and building up to the good and hard ones.  I had to give hard 
questions and no one gets them right.  Most of the first ones
you will get....then again, who knows.  Anyway, I don't believe
in giving obscure questions and defeating the purpose of a fun quiz
any way....fun and educational that is.

  

	QUESTION:

	When did the issues concerning states' rights and the issue
of slavery *FIRST* cause constitutional concerns and questions?




Good Luck!

Ted
-- 
         Swallowing your pride rarely leads to indigestion.
         A hard thing about business is minding your own!
-trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu   &    trwagner@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: p00098@mail.psi.net (Jones M Murphy Jr)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: peculiar institutions
Date: 13 Sep 92 17:35:33 GMT
Organization: NatWest Investment Bancorp,National Westminster Bank PLC
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.11)

>DATE:   Fri, 11 Sep 92 03:18:05 GMT
>FROM:   Stephen Schmidt <whale@leland.Stanford.EDU>
   I don't have any numbers on the wage rate of free blacks in the 
>Reconstruction South, if anyone does they could probably redo these
>calculations more accurately. I do think the problems of Jim Crow and
>converting the South to an industrial society would have been less
>difficult if the war hadn't taken place.

This is bizarre. So a few million niggers would have have been held at 
gunpoint for a few more decades, but the "problems" would have been less??

Who gives a fuck about converting to an industrial society when you 
haven't even gotten to a *human* society yet?
Jones
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: REFRESHRe: Question concerning the secession of Virginia. '8p!lj
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:05:35 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

Aside from objections to secession in principle, Unionists believed 
that the firing upon fort Sumter (Federal property) represented an 
illegal action which could not be supressed by federal authorities 
in South Carolina (the judges and marshalls). This is directly 
stated in the executive call for troops.
JTHoppers
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:27:08 GMT

In article <goose.716147986@camelot> goose@camelot.bradley.edu (Bradley Riley) writes:
>Mines not very direct at all.  However, my mom's mom was a Lee.  Progressing
>back to Robert E Lee's grandfather.  I suppose that makes General Lee my
>g-g-g-uncle or something like that.  Like I said, not very direct.

That would make you a first cousin, x times removed (where x is the number of
generations back to your ancestor who was R.E. Lee's first cousin.)  
Lighthorse Harry Lee would be your (x+1)great-uncle.
--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: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Reenactment
Date: 14 Sep 92 20:19:26 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Sep14.132622.1@cc.uvcc.edu>, jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu writes:
>I would be interested in which units, and what types of activities are
>available for the less able-bodied reenactors who wear the sky-blue
>shell jacket.

My guess would be that such a person should simply join a regular fighting 
unit, or perhaps the hospital corps. (if they wish to portray a recuperating 
soldier). It depends what they want to do. A person without one or more limbs
or with other disabilities would certainly not have been an unusual thing to see 
in a field army. I would also imagine that such a person could do whatever they
saw fit to do as part of their impression.  I could easily work many fighting posts in my
artillery unit if I lost an arm, and someone could be, for example, an adjutant or
some other non-combat post if they felt they couldn't or didn't want to be in the
actual fighting. 

There are several examples of actual people who stayed in service after being "disabled"
in some way or another. You generally only hear about the officers, though. The
ones who were hoisted in the saddle and strapped in, etc etc etc.

I say, Go for it. 

JZ  
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Original 13th Amendment
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 03:37:20 GMT

In article <190ptpINNhp4@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>
>On March 2, 1861, Congress passed a constitutional amendment (said to be
>supported by Lincoln) which provided that no amendment to the Constitution
>could be made which would give Congress the power to interfere with
>domestic institutions of the states including slavery.

This seems like a silly amendment because any proposed amendment to alter
the Constitution could equally well throw in a clause repealing this
amendment...
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: massengale_m@cubldr.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: James Ormond & Andersonville
Date: 16 Sep 92 00:01:58 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder


Am wondering how to obtain factual information about Andersonville prison.

My ggggrandfather, Capt. James Ormond III, was quartermaster at Andersonville
under Col. Wertz (sp?).  Capt. Ormond moved the Federal prisoners to 
Jacksonville, FL, sometime after the capture of Atlanta.  His family fled
to Canada and he went to England for awhile.  Col. Wertz was taken by the
Federals and later hanged.  He was the only Confederate executed for war
crimes (other than spies, I believe).  Capt. Ormond later returned to the
US and ran a business in Atlanta.  He may be buried at Ormond Beach, FL.

Thanks for any help.

Melanie O. Massengale
From: jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua M. Sabloff)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Did Union forces always outnumber CSA forces?
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:14:57 GMT
Organization: Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 6-Sep-92 Did Union forces
always out.. by Durwood Davidson@nyx.cs. 
>    Is this the only time in the war CSA forces actually outnumbered Union
> forces?  I'm not trying to be flippant but after reading so many books
> (and being about to finish Foote's trilogy) I can't recall Union forces
> ever fighting (much less winning) a moderate or even major battle against 
> a superior force.  

Here are some quick figures to show that this was not trrue:

Pea Ridge:
USA: 10,500
CSA: 16,500

Chickamauga (The confederates had Longstreet's detatched I Corps from the east)
USA: 58,000
CSA: 66,000

Monocacy:
USA: 5,800
CSA: 17,000

Wilson's Creek:
USA: 5,400
CSA: 10,100

First Manassas:
USA: 28,500
CSA: 32,200

The Union lost all of these except Pea Ridge!


-Josh Sabloff (jsa5@andrew.cmu.edu)
"Now go away before I taunt you a second time-a!"
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 22:52:10 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.204921.23560@leland.Stanford.EDU>, Stephen Schmidt writes:
>That was one issue, but it was not the only issue. Another, equally important
>issue between the states was tariff policy....Obviously the fact that
>the South had slavery is related to this, but then again, the fact that the
>South had slavery is in part caused by the existence of European export
>markets. Don't put the cart before the horse here... Adding Northern states
>and Southern states in pairs also kept the tariff policy question in
>balance.

Regardless of which was the cause and which was the effect, though, slavery 
was a central part of the economic system.  As I've always maintained, you
can't point to any part of the old south and say "this part was free of slavery" - 
even though there was much more to it than that. Like water in your body,
you can't find any piece that's free of it, but you also aren't totally made of water - 
there is more to you than that. So my response is to say that the tariff question 
is still tied to the slavery issue, and that it's a vicious cycle. The European markets
drive the cotton which drives the slavery and the tariffs on the exports to the
European Markets.  If Tariff policy is a separate issue from slavery, why does it 
not affect the farmers in Ohio sending food to Europe? Why does it not affect the 
fish sent from New England, or the wood? 
 
>Today tariff policy seems like a silly thing to fight over...

Unlike, say, the oil supply or access to the Pacific Rim countries? ;^)  
I think people fight most wars over economics. Someone once said that 
politics was religion applied to economics. I tend to agree (on some level) 
with that assessment.

Cheers!

JZ
 


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Subject: Re: Reenactment
Organization: Utah Valley Community College
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:26:22 GMT

To change the subject...for a moment only perhaps.

Are any of the reenactors aware of, or part of, a unit portraying the Invalid
Corps (better known as the Veteran Reserve Corps)?

I would be interested in which units, and what types of activities are
available for the less able-bodied reenactors who wear the sky-blue
shell jacket.

Marc D. Jerome
(Currently neither fish nor fowl as regards the reenacting scene)
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Know any good books?
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:37:46 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs


I read Shelby Foote's novel "Shiloh" recently, and can recommend it very highly. 

JZ