HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Alt.war charter (a non-starter)
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:16:27 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Aug13.231440.4812@news.columbia.edu> dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis) writes:
>   I'm willing to try again. If you think 'no crossposts' would be a
>good addition to the charter, drop me a line. Or post here. If you object,
>post as well. Let's talk it over.
>    If there was a concesus to avoid crossposting, then we could bitch and
>complain to the groups that are included. It won't stop anything, but it
>will deter the more rational folks.
>
>DanZ

Putting a "no cross-posts" in the charter will be good moral ammunition, but
it's not going to be very effective against the people who indulge in "holy
wars" where God has given them the mandate to take the word to the people.
The "accidental" cross-poster, one who is uninformed about the purpose of this
group, will take a polite request in the spirit it is given.  

If you like a good fight, you can take on the "holy warriors", as long as you
abandon all logic before you start (wouldn't want a handicap, would you?)
but it's a slow process to run them out of a group, and the traffic will
increase for a time when you meant to decrease it.

There's another group which tend to increase the noise level in a newsgroup,
which found in only two places, a litter box and talk.bizarre.  The T.B'ers
(appropriate name for the disease :-) will post something extravangantly 
stupid to a group, cross-post to talk.bizarre and misc.test and then complain
about the noise in THEIR group!

Every group I read has a killfile, and the minimum entries are talk.bizarre
and misc.test.  Other entries come and go as needed.

When I lived in Japan I found that they could be alone in a crowd (and there
are a LOT of crowds in Japan, hai?) by simply concentrating on a thought
and ignoring everything else.  This is how a kill file works.

Larry J



-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu                         # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Subject: Intervention in Somalia
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:25:49 GMT


There has been considerable attention given in the news to the posssibility
and difficulty of armed intervention in the former Yugoslavia. The concensus
is that it would be quite difficult. On the other hand, there is a similar
situation in Somalia, where many people are starving. For some reason one
doesn't hear the same cries for intervention and one doesn't see interview
with military experts on the difficulties of intervention.

So I would be interested in hearing people's views on this matter, both in
its own right and in contrast with the situation in Yugoslavia.

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Value of U.S. Greenbacks 1862-1866
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 17:38:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.162045.6735@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Keith Mancus) writes:
>That means that $3E9 x $350 (approx current price) / $20 ~= $50 billion.
>Still small by 1980-1992 standards, though...
>
This may not be quite the right thing to do since the currency was based on
a gold standard which means the price of gold wasn't free-floating. I'll
try to find a CPI figure for 1865 when I get into the office (I'm a grad
student in economics). If I can dig one up I'll post the result.
I doubt it will be all that different though, probably within one order
of magnitude. Even $500 billion still wouldn't be all that much.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Warning: Flames ahead...
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:58:59 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <1992Aug19.033357.13295@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:
>
>[interesting details about Lee and Grant's attire.]
>
>Hmmm, one cannot help but be amused at the determination of some people posting
>in this group to avoid coming to grips with the distressing details of slavery
>itself. This is in striking contrast to their willingness to describe the 
>gentlemanly niceties of Lee's dress. A grim commentary indeed.
>Jones

No Mr. Murphy,
We are trying to ignore YOU. This newsgroup is for discussions of the US
Civil War 1861-1865, NOT a racist anonymous forum for you to hear people
go "GOD, forgive me, I'm white and oppressive, but I've been PC for 3
days now...". Your attempts at starting a flame war have so far been 
unsucessful. May they remain so. This will be the last time I will reply
publicly to you. 

>-- 
>Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
>NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
>100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113

Ah, a banker on Wall Street. A notably enlightened bunch to be sure.
Can you say "Money changes everything" ? I new you could.

P.S. Aren't you the same guy that spent 3 months flaming everybody on 
rec.music.misc a couple of years ago?
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal Bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Black resistance
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:20:40 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara

morphy@cco.caltech.edu writes:

	"...the long and bloody history of slave revolts in the US."

Question:

	WHAT long and bloody history?  (outsite of Nat Turner, which was
	EASILY put down before it even got "going"

The US did not have a "long and bloody history of
 slave revolts." almost all were small and insignificant.   in
south/central america, yes, but that is because they were worked to
DEATH.  The slaves, generally, in the US, were not treated as bad  
(remember, not external slave trade).  Yet a slave by any other name
is still a slave.  

Slaves had no "voice" in our so-called democracy.  
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William E Van Horne)
Subject: GRANT AS COMMANDER
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:49:14 GMT


A lot of discussion has gone on recently about the leadership of Grant,
Lee, and many others.  Much of it has been well thought out and very
interesting.  But total emphasis has been put on tactical leadership
rather than strategy, and it is the latter that wins wars.

After Grant was appointed General in Chief, Lincoln, Stanton, and
Halleck all deferred to him.  From that point on Grant dictated the
grand strategy of the Union.

I am reasonably familiar with most of the more popular current civil
war writings including those by Foote, Catton, Freeman, Nevins, "Battles
and Leaders...", et al.  But the only book that I have found that
really covers the grand strategy; it is: Hattaway and Jones: HOW THE
NORTH WON, Univ. of Illinois Press, 1981.

I warn anyone who might read this book that he or she will most probably
finish it believing that Grant was one of the great strategic geniuses
of history.

(I posted a very similar message to this several months ago.  I am
repeating it now because it seems appropriate in connection with
current threads on this board.)

W. E. Van Horne
1576 Guilford Rd.
Columbus, OH 43221
wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Let's get a decent title for the slavery thread
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 18:50:50 GMT

jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua M. Sabloff) writes:

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

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

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

>Thar she blows.... :-)

How does that translate into "All whites are racists?". And Western European
wealth was in large measure built on colonial rampages and enslavement, as
was the wealth of the US. In any case, I was responding to someone who 
identified the *Confederate flag* as their "heritage & culture". Surely you
do not want to identify all "white" culture with the Confederate flag. Or
do you?
Jones

PS I'm looking down at the Brooklyn Bridge right now.:)
-- 
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: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Subject: Longstreet at Gettysburg (was Re: Confederate Unit Thanks Blacks)
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Distribution: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 15:22:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.150433.28540@athena.mit.edu> coronell@athena.mit.edu (Dan Coronell) writes:
> Concerning Longstreet's role in the defeat 
>at Gettysburg, I fail to see how he could have been blamed in the first 
>place for the Confederate defeat. My understanding has been that this 
>was due to Lee's miscalculations.

after the war, a considerable effort was put in by some of the lesser
lights of the CSA to put the blame for Gettysburg on Longstreet, an
effort which was remarkably successful, to the extent that even Freeman
repeats it in his works (_R.E.Lee_, _Lee's Lieutenants_.)  for more
information on this topic, there is an excellent book which i'll have
to fetch from home, so that i can provide a complete citation.  as i
recall, the title is _Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant_, but tomorrow i'll
post the author, publisher, and ISBN.

richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
From: chuckm@wam.umd.edu (Test)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: More News of the World
Summary: Texans
Keywords: Texas Texans Hood Lee Wilderness 1864 Quotes
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:55:44 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <5467@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal Bello) writes:
>
>Also, Lee was very popular with the Texas Brigade of the ANV.  Recall 
>sometime during the Wilderness campaign, the rebel lines were about to
>break when Longstreets troops came up the road - "My Texans" as Lee
>called them.  He was going to lead them forward himself, but the Texans
>cried "Lee to the rear.  Lee to the rear."  and a soldier took hold of
>his horse and led old marse robert away.

Lee is reported to have said "Texans always move 'em".

Chuck              chuckm@wam.umd.edu
"Cast a cold eye on life, on death.  Horsemen, pass by!" -- W.B. Yeats,
                                                      (also born in 1864)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 23:38:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.215529.3190@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>
>  It's fairly obvious, I think, that a big part of the art of war is
>exploiting your opponents mistakes.  If he makes less mistakes than
>you in a particular battle, he is likely to win.  If he makes no mistakes
>and has numerical superiority, what are you going to do?

True, but there's more to it than that. At Chancellorsville, Jackson
marched straight across Hooker's front, gambling that Hooker wouldn't
do anything about it. Jackson was committed to the march before Hooker made
the mistake of not attacking him en route (with more than a division anyway).
The moved was based on the gamble that Hooker would allow them to march
across his front without any real evidence that he would do so.
Ditto at Seven Days where they left Magruder's division alone in front of
Richmond assuming that McClellan wouldn't attack it. Same at the Antietam,
assuming McClellan somehow wouldn't be able to destroy them despite 2+ to 1
advantage in numbers.
These weren't moves based on mistakes the opponents had made, they were moves
made on the assumption that the opponent would continue to make mistakes.
That's not usually good generalship as I understand it, but it certainly
worked out well for the first two years of the war, at least.

> Also, wasn't Lee sick for part of this campaign?

Hill was, I don't recall Lee being sick enough to really make a difference.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:33:57 GMT

jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:

[interesting details about Lee and Grant's attire.]

Hmmm, one cannot help but be amused at the determination of some people posting
in this group to avoid coming to grips with the distressing details of slavery
itself. This is in striking contrast to their willingness to describe the 
gentlemanly niceties of Lee's dress. A grim commentary indeed.
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: wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: West Virginia (was Re: You started it, ...)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 05:05:00 GMT

In article <12AUG199222183096@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <36767@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, carraghe@cs.ucsd.edu (Robert Carragher) writes...
>>wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>
>>>The case of West Va., however, was clearly illegal.
>
>[...]
>
>>Well, that depends on your interpretation of the legality of the
>>Unionist Virginia legislature which voted to seceed from Virginia.
>>If we have that "original" Virginia senators gave up their voice
>>in Congress, and Virginia legislature the affairs of their own state
>>(a very shaky ground, I admit), then the Unionist legislature was
>>in their rights to create West Virginia.
>
>Yes! I love it! 
>
>I recall that after Richmond fell, Lincoln allowed the Va. Legislature to vote
>to withdraw from the CSA.  When it was suggested that allowing a Confederate
>body to act would lend legitimacy to secession, Lincoln remarked that he did not
>mind if the people who had _claimed_ to be the lawfully constituted
>representatives of Virginia decided amongst themselves to abandon their unlawful
>activity. They were not allowed to do anything else but withdraw from the CSA
>however.
>
>On a related note, I have never been clear how Lincoln managed to be re-elected
>President.  If the total number of senators+congressmen (for all of the United
>States) is E, you must have at least (E+1)/2 votes to be president.  But some
>fairly large fraction, say at least 0.25*E, of the eligible electoral votes were
>from states in rebellion which presumably did not send electors.
>
>So was the Constitution taken to mean you must only have a majority of the
>electoral votes _cast_ or was there some other dodge?  What if all the Southern
>states had sent people to 1864 Electoral College to vote for McClellan????
>
>I suppose that wouldn't be "honorable"...

Well, that's the nub of the issue. If the Union claimed that secession
was illegal and void then how can they claim that the secesh had no
rights after secession and had to be "readmitted" to the Union. If
they couldn't really leave, how could they come back?

-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 |"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Secession
Date: 14 Aug 92 17:44:49 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <jf.20@pacnet.wesleyan.edu> jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN) writes:
>In article <5470@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello) writes:
>

>You raise some interesting points, especially about "ratification" of the 
>reconstruction amendments. As I recall, some of the southern states tried 
>to rescind their "ratification" after they had been "readmitted." And 
>perhaps someone can help me here--didn't some of the northern states 
>also ratify and then try to undo it?
>
>By the way, I wonder if it might not be useful to 
>distinguish, as did Lincoln and later the Supreme Court, between the Union 
>and the Constitution. Lincoln's point, at least in the inaugural address, 
>was that the Union was perpetual and anterior to the Constitution. It was 
>the Union that states could not withdraw from. Were the "rebellious" states 
>still states during the war? The Supreme Court thought they were, as 
>indicated in the interesting case of Texas v. White. Nevertheless, the fact 
>that these states remained in the union was not equivalent to saying that 
>they retained the full measure of constitutional protection... or so some 
>argued. On the other hand, wouldn't article 4 apply as a source of federal 
>authority?

I'm not sure how you mean Article 4 to apply. In what way?

-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 |"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Date: 19 Aug 92 16:49:20 GMT
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <UeYYpRK00io=I3yFER@andrew.cmu.edu> "Joshua M. Sabloff" <jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 18-Aug-92 Re: Re:
>Lee-Longstreet P.L. Cowan@BNLCL6.BNL.GO (2430)
>
>> Unfortunately for Johnston, neither McClelland
>> nor Sherman made many tactical mistakes.
>
>One wonders what would have happened if Johnston had not been injured at
>the Seven Days and had retained control of the AoNV.  Then again,
>knowing Joe and Mac, they would still be fighting.

Johnston would probably have been replaced anyway, given the relationship
between he and Davis. In Johnston's defense, however, is that he did not
have Jackson or his troops with him when he attacked, as Lee did later.

>Seriously, Lee had some incredible luck with the way the Union chose his
>opponents.  Would Johnston be lionized if he had gone up against Hooker,
>Burnside et al.?  

There is a quote from Catton about Johnston's comments on Fredricksburg.
"What luck some people have, no one will ever attack me here in such a place."
All this aside, Lee was by far the best army commander the south had, but
Johnston was also definately the next best.

>
>-Josh Sabloff (jsa5@andrew.cmu.edu)
>"Now go away before I taunt you a second time-a!"
From: peter@mitre.org (Peter J. Spellman)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Mac
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:33:17 GMT
	<1992Aug19.033357.13295@cco.caltech.edu>
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA.

In article <1992Aug19.033357.13295@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

   Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Path: linus.mitre.org!linus!think.com!wupost!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.claremont.edu!nntp-server.caltech.edu!morphy
   From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
   Sender: news@cco.caltech.edu
   Nntp-Posting-Host: alumni
   Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
   References: <5496@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> <0095F4A2.16FF5800@OCTAVO>
   Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 03:33:57 GMT
   Lines: 13

   jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:

   [interesting details about Lee and Grant's attire.]

   Hmmm, one cannot help but be amused at the determination of some 
   people posting in this group to avoid coming to grips with the
   distressing details of slavery itself. 
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This particular thread of discussion has nothing to do with slavery
and therefore "their willingness to describe the gentlemanly niceties
of Lee's dress" is not such a "grim commentary".  Were they discussing
something along the lines of "reasons the civil war started" or the
such you might have a point.  IMHO, you shouldn't allow you strong feelings
on the subject of slavery compromise your position by interjecting
these feelings into irrelevant discussions.  The subject of slavery is
something that shouldn't be brushed under any rug, but in a forum that
welcomes and hopefully encourages diverse discussion, focus is important.

-Peter

   This is in striking contrast to their willingness to describe the 
   gentlemanly niceties of Lee's dress. A grim commentary indeed.
   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: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Black resistance
Date: 17 Aug 92 14:39:46 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal Bello) writes:

>The US did not have a "long and bloody history of
> slave revolts." almost all were small and insignificant.   in

This is a myth. In 1774, James Madison, that patriot and champion of democracy
promulgated a policy of suppressing news of slave revolts. In fact, there are
250 documented slave revolts that I know of. I'm sure the number and severity
must be much greater, because of the policy from the federal level down of 
heavy censorship in order to avoid encouraging even more rebellions.

>south/central america, yes, but that is because they were worked to
>DEATH.  The slaves, generally, in the US, were not treated as bad  
>(remember, not external slave trade).  Yet a slave by any other name
>is still a slave.  

This is simply bullshit. Slaves in the south of the US had life expectancies in
the 20s for virtually all of slavery. Life expectancies were slightly longer in
the North. This coupled with the brutal suppression of AFrican culture and the
commerce in human families and their disruption, was more than sufficient to
provoke innumberable explosions of black anger, despite the overwhelming 
armaments of the white Americans.

>Slaves had no "voice" in our so-called democracy.  

They did. Many whites simply covered their ears.
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