HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: OoB for 7 Days (was Re: hooker)
Date: 11 Jan 93 06:54:01 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan9.195808.16252@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.203126.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
> 
>>I don't have my references, but I'm pretty sure that the 105th PA (ggdad's
>>reg.) was in the 3rd Corps, 2nd Division (Kearney's), 1st Brigade (3,2,1)
> 
> Hmm. At what time was this organization?
> 
> The only OOB I have that contains III Corps is for Gettysburg. (Another
> irrelevant question: Why wasn't III Corps at Antietam?) It shows the 105th
> PA in III Corps, 1st Division (Birney's), 1st Brigade (Graham's). The AoTP
> was reorganized quite a few times between the Peninsula and Gettysburg so
> this isn't suprising that a regiment might have changed divisions...
> 
> Wishing I had an OOB for the Seven Days battles.
> 

Steven Spears's new book, (To?)_the_Gates_of_Richmond_ has OoB's for 
the 7 days, plus additional ones for Yorktown and 7 Pines. At the two 7's
Hooker commanded the 2nd Div, 3rd Corps and Kearny the 3rd Div. Curriously
there was no 1st Div. 3rd Corps. I suspect the 1st Division (which had been
commanded by Fitz-John Porter at Yorktown) had become part of Porter's new 
Corps.

Spear's book looks like the sort of detailed discussion of the Penninsula
campaign that I have been looking for for some time. However at $25 for
hardcover, I decided to wait until it comes out in paperback (or my library
gets a copy).

> -- 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: AotP Division insignia.
Date: 6 Jan 93 09:32:12 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

My ggfather (as I have indicated many times) served in Kearny's division
and I know well that the "Kearny Patch" division insignia was a red diamond.
Recently I have been reseaching a number of other gg..uncles who also served in
the AotP, but I don't have a good reference to the other Corps badges. Could 
some one please post a list for the AotP?

(Unfortunately many of these men did not survive until Hooker adopted the 
division insignia for the whole AotP) 8^(

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From:  ()
Subject: Re: hooker
Followup-To: alt.war.civil.usa
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:50:09 GMT

You guys are really reaching here. I really really doubt that the term is
derived from Fighting Joe's last name.

Just an opinion... I picked up a newly purchased copy of Return to Bull Run
at Trinity's library... kept it for one day. Sucks sucks sucks. Why do
pseudo-professional historians full of cheesey comments have to write these
books? I wanted to burn it, but would have been charged. So I promptly
returned it. Avoid this garbage.

Joe Kusmierczak
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: An answer, maybe (was: hooker)
Date: 11 Jan 93 07:02:34 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan9.072338.8842@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:

> A footnote (yes, a freaking footnote--no wonder I couldn't find it) on page 156
> of Gene Smith's excellent dual biography "Lee and Grant" states:
> 
> "Many people believe that the general lent his name to a term descriptive of a
> certain type of woman, but the usage predates Hooker's rise to eminence."
> 
> PDunn

Not that Foote is a better reference than Smith, but I believe Foote wrote
something like, "... it was at this time that the general's surname entered
the language as one of the many lower-case slang words for prostitute."

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: exit
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:42:14 GMT

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

[stuff deleted]
>Hm. I find it hard to believe that this hypocrisy would really deter Great
>Britain from pursuing its national interests....? Maybe I'm excessively
>cynical but I can't see Great Britain looking up in 1914 and deciding not
>to blockade Germany on the grounds that they'd broken the US blockade 50
>years earlier. I find that nations get real clever in rationalizing the
>actions they want to take, and I think that GB would have found _some_ trivial
>difference between the Civil War case and any prospective blockade they wanted
>to impost to use as an excuse to justify their actions.

perhaps what i am trying to say is that Britain would not break the blockade
unless it was willing to go to war with the United States.  Was there a sound
enough reason for the Britain to go to war vs. the US? 
I am not saying that blockading is illegal.  You do not go around breaking
other nations blockade`s unless you are willing to risk war, and this Britain
was not willing to do, even before the Emanc. Proc.   Now, in 1914 brit. 
blockaded Ger. OK.  GOOD.  But what if the US for some reason, decided to break
it.  War.  

gotta go

dom
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Lincoln's Generals: A Thought
Date: 7 Jan 93 08:27:04 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <16B4F4F04.M18709@mwvm.mitre.org>, M18709@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
> After watching ABC's special on Lincoln a thought occured to me regarding his
> relationships with his generals (e.g., the Army of the Potomac commanders).
> It seems as though Lincoln was trying to win the war, while his generals were
> trying to win battles (or in some cases trying not to lose battles).  Any
> thoughts?
> Andrew R. Lacher      | Center for Advanced Aviation System Development

Let me just address the case of McClellan. I have noticed that Mac always
refered to his mission as "saving the Nation" rather than "destroying the 
Rebel army" or even "taking Richmond". I believe he was trying to supress
the rebellion as bloodlessly as possible, with some hopes that things would
simply go back to the way they were. In retrospect, I believe his intentions
were impossible to realize, and this is why his record looks so poor.

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: More on G'burg (was Re: LINCOLN'S GENERALS)
Date: 10 Jan 93 00:56:32 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan9.202754.16714@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1993Jan9.083121.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>>Please pardon me if I am being a bore about this, but I believe Lincoln's
>>"held the enemy in the palm of his hand" remark refered to the fact that 
>>in addition to the AotP in Gettysburg, there were something like 20,000 
>>Pa Militia north of Chambersburg (appearently in position to attack Lee's 
>>rear or harrass his retreat) under Couch over whom Meade had authority.
> 
> Hm. How did he acquire this authority? I know that Couch was commander of
> the Department of Pennsylvania, which would not normally have been under
> Meade, and that Couch was senior to Meade. Was there a special order placing
> Pennsylvania militia under Meade during the invasion, or did Meade acquire
> the authority just by moving his army into Pennsylvania?

Lincoln and Halleck gave Meade exactly what they had refused Hooker (resulting
in the latter's resignation) namely authority over "independent" commands
such as French at Harper's Ferry and Couch in Pennsylvania, in so far as this
authority was needed to counter the AoNVa. While Couch was senior to Meade,
I am not aware that he resisted Meade's instructions (or requests). When
I have an opportunity to check my copy of Coddington's book, I could be more
precise on this point.

> -- 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Sherman and LSU
Date: 6 Jan 93 07:16:27 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

Things seem to be slowing down again.

In Sherman's Memoirs he claims that the Lousiana State University is 
a reincarnation of the military institute of which he was first president
(and I suppose one could say, one of the founders). My questions is whether
this is accepted generally, and more specifically whether this is 
acknowledged at LSU?

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: AotP Division insignia.
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 18:05:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.093212.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>Recently I have been reseaching a number of other gg.uncles who also served in
>the AotP, but I don't have a good reference to the other Corps badges. Could 
>some one please post a list for the AotP?

Hmm. I'm not sure what you want posted: I'll give you a list of the
insignia...?

I Corps: Circle
II Corps: Club  (like the deck of cards)
III Corps: Diamond  (Kearny's division was in this corps, as was Hooker's)
V Corps: Iron Cross (I'm sure that's not what they called it, but that's the
		     best description I can give: it looks exactly like one.)
VI Corps: X  (like the cross on the Swiss flag, rotated 45 degrees)
XI Corps: Crescent moon
XII Corps: Five-pointed star

IX Corps was not attached to Hooker's army: its corps badge was a shield with
an anchor on it.

The other armies later followed Hooker's lead and adopted their own corps
symbols. Plate CLXXV of the Official Atlas of the Civil War has the corps
and division flags for all 25 of the infantry corps and several of the
cavalry corps (Potomac, Mil.Div. of Miss., AofCumberland,Sheridan's Corps,
Wilson's Corps) plus badges for Engineer and Signal Corps, and Hancock's
Veteran Volunteer Corps.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
From: agwing@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (Andrew Wing)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Grant's Memoirs
Date: 4 Jan 93 18:57:45 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]


	You also might want to read Horace Porters 'Campaigning With Grant',
it provides some insight from someone who served closely with him.

		Andy Wing

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

Any disclaimer issued by me is subject to change without notice
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Lincoln's Generals: A Thought
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 93 21:03:12 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.181902.7394@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.082704.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>>Let me just address the case of McClellan. I have noticed that Mac always
>>refered to his mission as "saving the Nation" rather than "destroying the 
>>Rebel army" or even "taking Richmond". I believe he was trying to supress
>>the rebellion as bloodlessly as possible, with some hopes that things would
>>simply go back to the way they were. In retrospect, I believe his intentions
>>were impossible to realize, and this is why his record looks so poor.
>>
>And I think his poor record is the reason that his successors were so intent
>on battlefield victories.  After seeing McClellan fail so consistently, and
>be so obviously out of favor with the administration, they probably saw their
>role as a more narrow, "soldierly" one than McC tried to assume.

Hm. Let's consider those successors one by one:

1) Burnside. Doesn't seem to have been able to be intent on anything for
very long. The opening of the Fredricksburg campaign suggests he was 
interested in taking Richmond, but the battle itself suggests little except
that Burnside was a horrible general.

2) Hooker. Hooker was so intent on taking Richmond that he overlooked the
need to win battles.  ;)

3) Meade. I think this statement is probably most accurate as a description
of Meade than the other two. The failure to pursue after Gettysburg is a
pretty clear case of an over-focus on winning battles. I think the Mine Run
campaign (about which I know little) also would support this notion of Meade.

4) Grant. I don't think this statement is really meant to apply to Grant as
he came from the Western theater.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Hooker revisionism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:56:19 GMT

It seems to me that Hooker gets something of a raw deal in history
books. His strategic plan and tactical positioning before
Chancellorsville was pretty good. He managed to get on Lee's flank with
the bulk of the AoP pretty much undetected and had Lee seriously worried
on the first day of Chancellorsville. He only lost on the second day due
to two factors:

	1) The incredible daring and skill of Lee and Jackson. A
"reasonable" commander doesn't split an outnumbered army into two pieces
and march it in march column paralell to an enemy line. A "reasonable"
commander would consider it idiocy to throw half of his force on a long
flanking maneuver through virtually impassable forest, then have it turn
so it catches the enemy on the flank and then commit that force to a
headlong attack through that same inpeneratable terrain. Yet, this is
exactly what Lee/Jackson did and managed to carry off with complete
tactical suprise! There are so many cases of similar attacks coming to
grief that it's a miracle that this one worked so well.

	2) Incredible bad luck. He never got or never acted on reports
that rebel troops were marching paralell to his lines and were flanking
him. He also was nearly killed by a cannonball that smashed into a
pillar that he was leaning against. I think that this last bit of info
was especially important. Hooker was shaky and indeciscive for the rest
of the battle. IMHO he might well have had a head injury that 19th c.
medicine wasn't advanced enough to detect, like a concussion. 

	I will make no defense of Hooker as a "great" commander, and he
might well have been promoted beyond his capacity, but I certainly don't
think that he is the idiot he is sometimes made out to be.

Tom
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: hooker
Date: 8 Jan 93 20:31:26 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan9.012255.28239@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> (Irrelevant question: I know that III Corps was composed of Hooker's division
> and Kearny's division. Anyone know if 1st Div = Hookers and 2nd = Kearny's
> or is it the other way around?)
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

I don't have my references, but I'm pretty sure that the 105th PA (ggdad's
reg.) was in the 3rd Corps, 2nd Division (Kearney's), 1st Brigade (3,2,1)

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: agwing@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (Andrew Wing)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Questions relating to ACW-era artillery.
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:56:01 GMT
Organization: Temple University
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]


	One thing that always irks me in war movies/reenactments/etc is that
none of the old style guns ever recoil like they did in real life.  Naval
guns were much more powerful than field pieces and needed extensive restraints
in order to keep them from bulldozing everything behind them and yet in the
Hornblower movies the long 24s recoil as smoothly as a French 75.  In other
movies the field pieces don't even recoil the slightest bit.  Oh well, even
Star Wars has lots of loud explosions in the soundless vacuum of space ;->

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

Any disclaimer issued by me is subject to change without notice
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: News of The World (more confederate flag flap)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:56:00 GMT


	MONTGOMERY, Ala. (UPI) -- Gov. Guy Hunt said Friday he will delay
deciding whether to appeal a circuit court ruling that says the
Confederate battle flag may not be flown from the Alabama Capitol.
	``My decision overnight has been to give the legislators an
opportunity to communicate with us to see what direction they want to
take, because if they want to introduce legislation to give the people a
vote on it, then that would prevent any further expenditures and it
would solve the problem without further appeal,'' Hunt said.
	Hunt has 45 days to decide on an appeal. He said his legislative
liaison is polling lawmakers to see if there are enough votes to put the
issue on the ballot.
	On Monday, Montgomery County Circuit Judge William Gordon ruled an
1895 law prohibits Hunt from ordering the Confederate battle flag flown
over the Capitol. The ruling was in response to a suit filed by four
black state legislators.
	The battle flag first went up over the Capitol in 1963, when Gov.
George Wallace raised it in defiance of U.S. Attorney General Robert
Kennedy's efforts to integrate the University of Alabama.
	The battle flag has not been flying recently because of renovation
work at the Capitol, which was rededicated in December. Hunt said at the
time the Confederate battle flag would not be flown until renovation of
the rotunda was completed.
	Gordon's ruling was based on a law discovered by the Alabama
Legislative Reference Service, said the Legislature authorized the
governor only to fly the state and U.S. flags on the Capitol.
	``The court concludes that the Legislature did not intend for any
flag other than the state and national flags to be flown over the
Capitol,'' Gordon said.
	Hunt has said the flag carries historical importance and that a
majority of Alabamans want the flag to fly above the capitol.
	Hunt has been lobbied by diverse groups not to fly the flag,
including a number of Chambers of Commerce and the Business Council of
Alabama. They argued the flag harms the state's image, hinders efforts
to lure industry and offends part of the state's citizenry.
	Many have said the battle flag should be replaced by the Confederate
national flag -- the ``Stars and Bars'' -- that flew above the Capitol
when the Confederacy was created in 1861.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: ACW etomology questions (was hooker)
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 14:30:56 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.174009.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>Prolong - was a rope used to pull a cannon. When an artillery piece was 
>being withdrawn (retreating) the prolong was sometimes tied to the 
>"limber" (or trailer hitch) so the cannon could contine to be fired as 
>it went. Is this the origin of the use of "prolong" to mean extending 
>something which is about to end? 

Prolonge (note the "e" on the end) was borrowed from the French in the
mid-19th century, like so many military terms.  Prolong, meaning to extend
something in time, was in use in the 15th century.

>Limber up - Normally a cannon was transported with the limber raised 
>above the ground and hooked onto a caisson (I hope this is right).
>In this position the cannon could not be fired but was situated for 
>the most rapid transportation. Is this where he get "to limber up"
>as preparation for running or exercise?

Curiously, the OED indicates that these terms are unrelated; the first use
of limber in the artillerist's sense is given as 1497.  Limber meaning 
pliant comes up about 100 years later, and seems to be derived from limb.
Since a limber with its cannon created a cart which flexes in the middle,
it would seem these "ought" to be related, so you may have stumbled onto
something.
--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. . ."