HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: M18709@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Aiming at flagbearers.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 11:41:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.170223.28740@bnlux1.bnl.gov>
KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
 
>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 is my understanding that the flag was an important component of military C3
during the ACW.  During the confusion of battle, it was often the only way
individual soliders know if there unit was advancing or retreating.  Drums and
bugles served similar purposes, but these could be confused with signals
being sent to other units or not heard over the "roar of battle".  I do beleive
that flags also served an important morale component as well.  It was not just
the nation's flag, but the regimental colours which were important.  Sometimes
the worst fighting ocurred around the flag.  I beleive the call "Ralley round
the flag, boys!" was as much a partical military move, as a moral boost.
 
What do others think?
=====================================================================
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out, and
remove all doubt" --Abraham Lincoln (1862)
=======================================================================
Andrew R. Lacher      | Center for Advanced Aviation System Development
m18709@mwvm.mitre.org | The MITRE Corporation
(703) 883-7182        | McLean Virginia 22102
From: gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie)
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Organization: The Ohio State University
 writes:
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:07:58 GMT

>Her name deserves to be remembered:  Mary Walker, M.D., a graduate of
>Syracuse Medical School.

Do you know where she went after the war?  I have a vague notion she has 
something to do with Cincinnati.  Am I right?

Gemma
From: v064lnev@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Avatar)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: NEW READER (Question)
Date: 2 Sep 92 05:21:00 GMT
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41


	I am currently reading this newsgroup through VNEWS.  My friend at a
different university, however, cannot read this newsgroup through VNEWS.  Is
there an equivalent MAILING LIST(s) of this newsgroup to which my friend can
subscribe?  If so, what is(are) the electronic mailing address(es) to subscribe 
to such a list, and what information should be sent?
	Thank you very much.

                                       .
                                     .'|`.                                      
___________________________________.'-{*}-`.____________________________________
Zerxes M. Bhagalia                '----|----` INT: v064lnev@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
State University of New York   .---------------.    bhaga-z@acsu.buffalo.edu
  at Buffalo                 .'                 `.  News Director, WFFT 104.9 FM
Political Science          .'                     `. Justice, SA Judiciary (SWJ)
Computer Science         .'________MDCCLXXVI________`. Computer Consultant (UCS)
---------------------N O V U S   O R D O   S E C L O R U M----------------------
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: Sun, 23 Aug 92 17:45:43 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.155932.28514@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> hall@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031) writes:
>
>What I am trying to point out is that the evolution of the institution of slavery
>in the Southern states was assisted by "merchants" from other areas of the
>country. Many of these were from the North.

I agree completely.

>Suggesting that the morals of the
>Northern merchant class changed in the 52 years after slavery was abolished does
>not seem credible to me. I would guess that if slavery was still legal and
>profitable in 1860, people from Boston, New York and other Northern shipping
>centers would still have been involved in it.

I think the rise of abolition suggests that those morals did change. I also
think the outlawing of slavery was connected with those changes in morals.
I'll agree that IF slavery had been legal in 1860 the North would have
been participating, but that would only have been possible if the changes
in the morality of Northern society hadn't taken place.

Which is not to say that there weren't some people in the North who would
have been happy to participate in slave-trading even in 1860. However, I don't
think they reflected the feelings of the population generally, which at least
in New England was fairly strongly abolitionist. (And only in New England,
as far as I know.)

[lots of other stuff, which I agree with, deleted]

-- 
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: Mac
Date: 31 Aug 92 11:43:08 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann) writes:

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

>Call it dumb if you like.  Violence followed King wherever he went...

Wait. Are you saying that King was violent? This is interesting indeed. No
doubt the Bull Connors of the South were simply trying to maintain law and
order.

>>Your reading comprehension did not allow to to get as far as grasping:

>?????

See what I mean?

>>Yeah, I don't doubt you'd fight for the right to put the niggers back in their
>>place for one second. Well dream on, fool.

>Well, "fool," I don't exactly know what "place" you want the black..er excuse
>me "niggers," by your words.  They've acheived much, but still have a long
>way to go.  That has nothing to do with the reason I'd fight (or my ancestors
>fought).  I feel (wrong though you may think I am) that too many decisions are
>made about *MY* life in Washington, by people with big houses, fancy cars,
>views of fancy bridges, etc., etc.  They know nothing (or seem to not understand anyway) about the way I, and most of the people around me live.
>If YOU want to fight over someone's skin color, go right ahead...

Not interested. I'll fight in my own way for unity. But unity cannot be built on
de facto apartheid.

>>It's pathetic how you keep spouting all this stuff about "right to make his
>>own decisions"! That collective "right" mean the suppression of the rights of
>>millions of people in a complete and dehumanizing way. What about the rights of
>>Africans in the South to make their own decisions?? That was in far greater
>>jeopardy.

I notice you didn't have anything to say in response.
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,alt.appalachian
From: gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie)
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:16:02 GMT

In article <Bu293K.B3x@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (
thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>I only know of two in my family
>
>    Pvt. Gilbert Barnes Co. I 100th Ohio USVI (wounded)
>    +Pvt. John Barnes Co. I 100th Ohio USVI (died of disease)
>
>I have heard of others, most of whom died, but I haven't done any
>research on them.

Tom, does your family tell stories about these people?

For instance, in addition to the Peyton Burns/woodpile story, my family tells
of Peyton's wife (her name is never mentioned -- isn't that odd?).  Supposedly,
she kept hearth and home together when her husband did his disappearing act for
three or four years.  At least once, Union soldiers came to the farm in search
of Rebels because they had heard that the Burns were Confederate sympathizers.
The soldiers' orders were to destroy the farm, but when they saw how hard
gggsomething grandma had to work to keep her family fed, they changed their
minds.

Is this a sort of urban legend, do you think? Or did this kind of incident
actually occur in Kentucky? I mean, U.S. soldiers coming in search of CSA
sympathizers.

You know that storytelling is an Appalachian trait, and embellishment is an
honored characteristic! However, the stories feel like they are based in fact,
even if they didn't actually happen to my family.  And the stories make the
Civil War era much more vivid to me.  When I read a Catton or Foote, I can just
imagine Peyton Burns fighting or marching or being sick.

Gemma McLuckie
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: "Coloured" troops in the Union Army
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:51:11 GMT

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

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

>Ah, better to get your facts from "light reading" than from serious historical
>documents. I understand now.

My comment was in the way of a recommendation for other people like myself
who work for a living to introduce themselves to a badly neglected aspect of
American history without having to wade through turgid tomes. Sneer if you will.

>You've completely missed the point of my post. My point is that the
>Emancipation Proclamation had little to no effect on the miltary conduct
>of the war, especially with regard to colored troops. The fact that colored
>troops were already serving in combat, as you point out, before the
>Proclamation only serves to highlight that point, not to refute it.

How could that be? These men were in legal limbo, and that was removed by the 
EP! Furthermore the Union commmanders could no longer send them South! Is that
little or no effect to you??

>I agree that the distinction between state-recruited and Federally
>recruited troops is fairly academic. I only brought it up because I was
>making the point that the Emancipation Proclamation did not authorize
>the Federal government to recruit colored regiments and to avoid confusion
>I wanted to point out that the colored regiments in service were not USCT
>regiments.

I never said that the EP authorized the recruitment of "colored" regiments. 
Debate yourself on that one. And the rest of your position, is, as you point
out, academic.
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: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:10:32 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>>>whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
 
>>>> I think some people are confusing the beginnings of industrialization with
>>>>the development of large factories, which occured starting around 1750. The
>>>>development of factories occurred considerably after the development of an
>>>>industrial structure.

>>>But that is what is referred to as the Industrial Revolution, I'm afraid. Your
>>>definition is reasonable but unconventional.

>>The original poster mentioned industrialization, not the Industrial Revolution.
>>The idea of an Industrial Revolution has been significantly downplayed in
>>the last ten years. The stylized facts used to be that England underwent a
>>major change in the mid 1700's, but on close examination that turned out
>>not to be true; the changes leading to industrialization were not
>>"revolutionary" but were introduced over a period of 150 years or so, between
>>about 1625 and about 1775.

>  Well, I make no claims to being an academic historian, but it seems
>to me that industrialization revolves around the steam engine, which
>was "perfected" around <surprise!> 1750.

Water power was used to power mill complexes as early as the 12th
century. England had extensive factory systems well before the steam
engine was invented. And steam power was puny by comparison to the
power of falling water until development of modern steelmaking in the
late 19th century.

Steam _was_ important where water power was impractical -- such as
pumping at mines and on railroads. But falling water was the dominant
source of power for factories, until modern steelmaking made
large-scale steam power practical.

Lowell, Mass. has a well-preserved set of locks and canals that
powered what was one of the largest factory complexes in the world
during the 18th and 19th century. Nearly all the industrial centers of
New England (Danbury, Worcester, Fall River are good examples) and the
Middle Atlantic were built around extensive water-powered mills.
Minneapolis, Minn. became an important flour milling town because of
the ready availability of water power at St Anthony Falls.

The Lowell locks and canals were converted to hydroelectric generation
at the turn of the century; the power stations were rebuilt in the
mid-80's and are an important source of power for the Lowell-Boston
area.

It's pretty far off the topic for this group, but the notion of an
earlier Industrial Revolution has been generally accepted among
economic historians since at least the early 70's.

dhs   spencer@panix.com
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:58:07 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Another vote for preservation of the status quo.
--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: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Aiming.
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:00:02 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

"you call That aiming?" No, but then, many units were not taught to aim their 
rifles at specific targets, but to point them at the enemy, and yank (no 
pun intended) the trigger. Remember also that the longarms of the period have  
a highly arced trajectory and a substantial 'safety zone' within their range of fire (not that I would feel all that safe standing in one of those area). The 
estimate of the day was that you had to fire the equivalent of a man's 
weight in lead before you hit him with a fatal result.
JTHoppers
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie)
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:10:57 GMT

I echo the vote: no split.

Gemma McLuckie
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 22:34:57 GMT

In article <Bu0vzI.4Gy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>    Also, I have to wonder about my gg grandfather getting shot in the
>"thigh", he appearantly walked with a limp for the rest of his life, but
>he managed to keep the leg. From pictures I have seen of him, he is
>thin, and there wouldn't be a whole lot to hit in the thigh but bone. I
>am amazed that a minie ball, which was notorious for causing huge, bone
>shattering wounds, didn't hit something vital, which would have led to
>a) death by bleeding, or b) amputation of an open fracture (with
>attendant risks). I speculate that either my gg grandfather was hit by a
>spent ball or piece of shrapnel, or he was grazed ("its only a flesh
>wound...;) ), or he got shot in the butt and was too proud to admit it.
>Any forensic pathologists out there who care to enlighten me?

I don't qualify as a pathlogist :( but it's my understanding that the
minie ball didn't mushroom unless it actually hit bone. A deep flesh wound
that partially severed a muscle might cause something like what you
describe without destroying the limb.
Minie balls are made of a soft lead which acts not unlike a hollow-tipped
modern bullet today does: when it hits something solid it smears out into a 
round disk, which rips through a lot more tissue/bone than a more solid
bullet would do. Even today, the kinds of wounds that minie balls inflicted
can't usually be treated other than by amputation.
>
>   I would also be interested in specific info about where the 100th Oh.
>was during the battles around Atlanta. The Atlas to Accompany the
>Official Records only has listings by Divisions in its map for the
>Peachtree Creek battlefield. Can anybody help?
>
Well, I thought I could, but I all I can find is that the 100th Ohio was
not engaged as Chickamauga. Guess you don't need to visit there :)
The book Regimental Losses in the American Civil War by William Fox, reprinted
1985, (yes 1985 not 1895!) will tell you at least what brigade/division/corps
the 100th belonged to, and if it made the "Top 300 Regiments" it'll have a
fairly detailed history of the regiment.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: ddavidso@nyx.cs.du.edu (Durwood Davidson)
Subject: What to see around Atlanta?
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix @ U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:04:39 GMT

   I will be in Atlanta for 10 days soon and would like suggestions
   on what to see while there.  I plan to drive up to Chattanooga and
   Chickamauga - I assume this should be very interesting?  Any suggestions
   or hints as for what to see/avoid would be greatly appreciated.
   Thanks.
 
    Woody
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Damned Rebs...
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:08:36 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

John Thorpe <jt3p+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>Newsgroup apartheid? That may be the case. It could also be considered
>newsgroup secession. Let's get this on the floor of the Newsgroup
>congress immediately!

Yikes...I fear I'll be the Sumner of this congress. There's some guy putting
up gifs of Civil War figures in one of the *.pictures groups. Quite good,
actually. I have one of a line drawing of Sumner being beaten on the Congress
floor. I also have Lincoln and J.E.B Stuart(both black and white protraits, very
good).
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.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 18:47:49 GMT

Assuming a total enrollment of about 1.1 milion for the Union Army,
subtracting off J.T. Hopper's list of groups leaves about 500,000
left over, of whom I'd guess the majority are English descent.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Organization: Utah Valley Community College
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:48:28 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.143055.6993@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie) writes:
> Are these Boykins related to the family much-mentioned by Mary Chestnut in her 
> diaries?
> 
> Also, what do the asteriks in your post indicate?
> 
Yep, the Boykins of Co G are related to Mary Boykin Chesnut so I am told.  I could
workout the relationship for some of them if you are interested.

The asteriks mark the soldiers to whom my wife and I are directly related to.

Marc
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Aiming.
Summary: Why were so many shots fired per casualty.
Keywords: Aimed shots casualties
Reply-To: COWAN@ANL.GOV
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 23:51:39 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

I have not read much about the military detials of the Civil War. One thing has
struck me as strange however. Soldiers typically carried 30 cartriges. Prior
to an anticipated battle they were often issued and additional 30 for a total
of 60. I also know that the rifled muskest (Enfields, Springfields etc) were 
capable of being fired at a rate of "3 aimed shots per minute". The accounts of
battles often refer to regiments running out of amunition after 20 min. to and
hour of fighting. That much adds up fairly reasonably.

The arithmatic problem I have is this: In major battles the casualty rates were
typically 25% or less. If every man was firing 60 aimed shots at a roughly
equal number of opponants, why wasn't everybody killed? With an assumption of 
equal numbers on both sides, 25% casualties means only 1 of 4 soldiers (on
average) hit any thing with his 60 shots. That is 1 hit per 240 shots! You call
that aiming? And this totally ignores all the casualties due to artillery fire
and the fact that healthy prisoners were also included among the "casualties".
Even accounting for the fact that not all units saw heavy fighting even in the
biggest battles, and the fact that the armies stood far apart the accuracy rate
seems amazingly low. After all they were shooting at errect targets standing in
a (more or less) straight line. Do any re-enactors out there have a feel for
where all those other shots went?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:53:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.152151.25864@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie) writes:
>In article <BtxHDu.E1H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (
>thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>
>>   Then of course there is Florence Nightingale
>
>Nightingale was English. She cared for the British soldiers during the Crimean
>War, and her example and techniques were adopted by American women. However, 
>she did not serve in any way during the U.S. Civil War.
>
>Perhaps you are thinking of Clara Barton or Dorthea Dix.
>

Yeah, you're right. I spaced the correct names. I post from a public
site so I don't have my library handy. Florence Nightengale was
definately an inspiration for CB and DD to start nursing organizations
though . Before FN "respectable" women didn't serve as nurses in
hospitals and sanitation and food were even worse than they were in CW
hospitals.
   Did Florence Nightingale visit the U.S. before or during the ACW or
had she died by then? I can't remember.

Have fun,
 
 Tom



Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa