HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pfleury@ddsw1.mcs.com (Patrick J. Fleury)
Subject: Re: Catton
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 02:42:57 GMT
Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Chicago, IL

In article <1jpf26INNila@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> rjs@citi.umich.edu (Robert J. Skrobola) writes:
>
>Like a billion others, I've had my interest in the ACW sparked by
>the (not so now) recent PBS series. Since, I've read some of
>Foote's stuff, and liked it. Recently I've started on Bruce Catton.
>Read _Terrible Swift Sword_ and _Glory Road_. I think Catton writes 
>wonderfully, and his perspective is radically (IMO) different from
>Footes, I guess since he wrote 60-75 years earlier...
>
>So I was wondering: What do people think of Catton? Who is more
>historically accurate, Catton or Foote? Sometimes being too close
>(temporally) to an event can distort things... I'd welcome any comments,
>posted or email.
>			Rob
Catton and Foote should really be considered contemporaries.  My copy of 
Foote's volume 1 is copyrighted 1958 while Catton's _Glory Road_ came out
in 1952.  I can't lay my paws on _Mr. Lincoln's Army_ at the moment, but I
can't believe it came out much earlier than 1950.  

I've always considered them pretty much on a par.  Catton wrote history
from a Northern point of view and Foote writes from a southern point of 
view.  On the other hand, when it comes to writing, IMHO Catton was far
better.  I just can't get past some of the incredibly long and con-
voluted sentences which Foote comes up with.
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Johnsons Island letter
Date: 24 Jan 1993 00:05:00 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

The following is an article printed in the newspaper in Kaufman, Texas
in 1885.  It gives a letter written by Henry P. Teague a southern POW
to Dr. E.M. Pyle of Richmond OH,  E.M. Pyle was the father of Dr. W.H.
Pyle, who moved to Texas in the mid-1850's and was a friend of H.P.
Teague.  Among the interesting points in the letter is that the POW's
at Johnson's Island had to buy their vegetables.  Note also
that the prisoner in March 1865 seems to acknowledge the
immanent demise of the CSA in his closing paragraph.

-----Begin Article-----
[From the Kaufman, Texas, Sun, 8 Jan 1885]

     Dr. Pyle forwarded to Judge Teague a letter written by the
latter to the doctor's father, from prison, which we are also
permitted to publish as a matter of interest to ex-confederates
generally, and especially to those who may have been prisoners
of war:

                           Military Prison, Johnson's Isle, O.,
                                     March 5th, A.D. 1865

Dr. E.M. Pyle, Richmond, O.

    Dear Sir:-- I embrace the earliest opportunity to reply to
your letter of the 25th ult., containing a remittance of $5 to
me, for which you will please accept my hearty thanks.  The fact
that we are now allowed to buy vegetables makes a small amount
of money very desirable.  I trust the amount you have kindly 
furnished me will answer my purpose while I stay here.  If the 
exchange of prisoners goes on as begun, I expect to get away in
April.

    I shall preserve your letter, and if I am fortunate enough to
get home when exchanged, will be pleased to show it to Dr. Pyle.
In the mean time I will write to him by the first prisoner going
to Texas, and give him the substance of your letter, as it
relates to his family and friends, which will certainly be quite
interesting to him.

    I have no late news of import from Texas, but presume matters
are going on quietly over there.  You may be apprised that a very
abundant crop was raised there last year, so that the people are
perhaps faring better than some of their neighboring states.

    Expressing a cherished hope that peace may soon visit our
now distracted, but once happy country, and after my kindest
regards to yourself and family, I remain, very respectfully,

                                     Henry P. Teague,
                                        Prisoner of war. 
------End Article-----

--
Justin M. Sanders    "the great tragedy of Science-- the slaying
Dept. of Physics        of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Kansas State Univ.                         -- T.H. Huxley
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: AotP Division insignia.
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:01:22 GMT

whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
[stuff deleted]

>I Corps: Circle
>II Corps: Club  (like the deck of cards)

"Clubs are Trump!" :) 

>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.)

'Tis a "Maltese Cross" as per Hooker`s order

>VI Corps: X  (like the cross on the Swiss flag, rotated 45 degrees)

-traditionally called a "Greek Cross" 

>XI Corps: Crescent moon
>XII Corps: Five-pointed star

-and thus they were called "brigadier generals" when they went out west

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

-dont forget about the rope shaped in the form of "9" and the cannon.  The
anchor was meant to symbolize the corps` Carolina (ocean) campaign.
nicknamed "Burnside`s Geography Class," having served in the Carolinas,
A.ofthePot., Mississippi theatre, Eastern Tenn., then back to AofP.

[more stuff deleted]


your servant,

dom 
 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Re: Slavery in the Old Northwest
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 04:04:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.161050.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stan
ford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>I remember something about the distribution of slaves in Missouri. There were
>supposedly more slaves (and pro-slavery sentiment) in the northern part of the
>state than in the south. This factoid seems to be in contratiction to the
>way the fighting developed in that state. Does anyone have confirmation?
>
>--
>Paul Cowan

Hmmm--interesting coincidence: East Tennessee, West(ern) Virginia, Western 
North Carolina were all mountainous regions where the population was more or 
less rabidly anti-Confederate/pro-Union.  In regard to your question, aren't 
the Ozarks in southern Missouri?  If so, this would seem to have something 
interesting in common with the other big "anti-Secesh" sections of the CSA.

later--
PDunn
Xref: sparky alt.war.civil.usa:1919 rec.music.folk:9433 alt.war:2419
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,rec.music.folk,alt.war
Subject: Re: Union Army recruitment song (correction)
Date: 23 Jan 93 08:57:31 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <C1A4DM.DIK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
> In article <1993Jan22.102949.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>>
>>                     The Question Song
>>
> This in included on a compact disc "Tennessee Ernie Ford Sings Songs
> of the Civil War". It's entitled "The Why and the Wherefore"
> 
>  | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |

I managed to find the box my tape came in and the title should have 
been _The_Why_and_the_Wherefore_. I also made a subtle, but significant
omission in the last line. The last three lines (as sung by Morgon) should read:

     I'll have gained quite enough, whatever the cost,
     If Freedom, the hope of the world, isn't lost.
     I'll speak my mind quite freely. Now really.
      ^^^
-- 
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: afallen@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (E. Allen Arrington)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Civil War Calendar
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:24:00 GMT
Organization: 1st Kentucky Cavalry Co. C
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

January 25, 1825, is the birthdate of Confederate General George Pickett.

E. Allen Arrington  
        Trooper, 1st Kentucky Cavalry, Co. C 
        Mounted Memorial Unit                 
Xref: sparky alt.war.civil.usa:1922 rec.music.folk:9446 alt.war:2423
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: How were cannon balls constructed?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 22:23:41 GMT

In article <C1HD9I.Ero@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>Agreed - The standard Civil War assault formation was the two-rank line
>(with skirmishers out front, of course), whereas the standard Napoleonic
>assault formation was a column -- at least six ranks deep, maybe more.

In addition, in Napoleonic days a corps might line up in column of divisions,
so that you could hit one battlion column, ricochet through and hit another,
ricochet through and hit yet another, etc. For the heavier artillery used in
the Napoleonic wars, you could go through an awful lot of formations before
the ball was spent.

Whereas in the Civil War, not only were the regiments in line, but rarely
were the division/corps formations more than two lines deep. So using
ricochet you would hit two lines two ranks deep for a total of four ranks
instead of four or five columns 15-20 ranks deep each.
-- 
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: dmoyer@ccscola.Columbia.NCR.COM (Dan Moyer)
Subject: Re: How were cannon balls constructed?
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, Columbia, SC
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 17:20:09 GMT

In article <51430006@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com> tonyz@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Tony Zugates) writes:
>I'm not much into ordinance, and thought I might get a quick 
>answer here and save a trip to the library...
>
>How were the civil war cannon balls constructed?  Were they just
>solid iron balls?  Were they filled with explosives and if they 
>were, how were they fused etc?  
>
>I have seen lots of civil war movies showing cannon ball explosions
>but always wondered if they were just the result of impacting, or acutally
>contained explosives... 
>

I too would like to know this from any of the net experts out there.  I always
thought cannon balls were solid until I noticed some in Charleston (At Magnolia
Plantation) that had a hole drilled into them and were hollow inside.

Dan Moyer
dmoyer@columbiasc.ncr.com


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,rec.music.folk,alt.war
From: martin@lyra.cis.umassd.edu (Gary Martin)
Subject: Re: Union Army recruitment song (lyrics)
Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:19:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.102949.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:


			The Question Song

   But, which, which, which and which? Which is the Flag of the Free?
   Which, which, which and which? Which is the Flag of the Free?
	Washington's Flag with the stripes and the stars!
	Would you give such a name to that thing with the bars?
	I speak my mind quite freely. Now really.

   But, who, who, who and who? Who goes with you to the War?
   Who, who, who and who? Who goes with you to the War?
	Ten-thousand brave lads, and if they should stay here,
	The girls would cry, "Shame!" and THEY'D volunteer.
	I speak my mind quite freely. Now really.

   I have a few questions about this song. I assume "Washington's Flag" 
   means Geo. Washington's flag rather than the flag of the administration
   in Washington. 

Why?  The Washington DC interpretation seems much more natural, as
one of the primary goals of the war from the Union perspective was
to preserve the Union as it stood at the time, not as it was in
George's day.  Still, the association with George that "Washington"
evokes adds a hint of uncertainty that makes the song more interesting.

   The reference to "ten-thousand" when hundreds of thousands were called
   puzzles me. This song might have originated during the recruitment in
   a particular state, but it also may just be poetic licence. 

I'd guess poetic licence, but your other interpretation seems reasonable
as well.

   The emphasis on "THEY'D" is mine. As Jim Morgan sings the song, it
   seems "they" refers to the "lads" who would relent and enlist, but
   after listening to the words many times, I think "THEY" are the girls
   themselves.

I can't see any basis for your conclusion here.  Obviously the syntax
is ambiguous, but "they" = "lads" is the natural interpretation and
"they" = "girls" is quite twisted (in the historical context; I'm
not talking about current issues concerning women's roles in the
military).  I know there are lots of songs about women enlisting
(Jack Monroe, Female Rambling Sailor, Lisbon, Handsome Cabin Boy,
etc. etc.), but I see not even the vaguest hint in this song
(other than the ambiguous syntax) that this might be the case here.



--
Gary A. Martin, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, UMass Dartmouth
Martin@cis.umassd.edu
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Back to Gibbon
Date: 21 Jan 93 09:27:46 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan20.195933.18235@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1993Jan20.115404.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>>Wasn't Gibbon chief of McDowell's artillery at 1st Manassas/Bull Run?
>>Maybe I am confusing him with another Gibbon, or maybe Gibson (Confederate?) 
>>Whoever was only a Major at the time.
> 
> My Bull Run OOB doesn't say. It would have been a staff job. I have a dim
> memory that Gibbon went right from command of Battery B, 4th US to command
> of the Iron Brigade. I could probably be wrong too.
>>
>>It also occurs to me that Gibbon found himself in the corps (2nd) which was 
>>perhaps richest in good generals.  Even if you don't accept my evaluation 
>>of Sumner, I think you'll agree that Couch and Hancock were among the best 
>>corps commanders. In addition to Gibbon, Newton was a first-rate division 
>>commander, and there were some outstanding Brigadiers, Hayes for example.
> 
> Gibbon was a brigadier in 1st Corps, actually. He was transferred to another
> corps for division command. I think it wasn't that rare for division commanders
> to be promoted to command other corps. Hancock, Sedgewick, Newton in I Corps, 
> I could probably list more if I thought about it.
> Also, when Gibbon was promoted to corps command, it was of XXIV Corps,
> wasn't it, rather than II?
> 
>>Since division commanders within a given corps seemed to have the inside 
>>track for the corps-commander positions, this quality competition must 
>>have also slowed his accent.
> 
> Surely we mean ascent... ;)
> -- 
> 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!
-- 
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: How were cannon balls constructed?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 20:47:09 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.201247.8626@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne) writes:
>I don't know about the ACW, but certainly in European battles in the days
>of solid shot, solid shot was often used as an anti-personnel weapon.
>When faced with a large army neatly laid out in ranks, the artillerists 
>would fire the solid shot at a very low angle.  This low trajectory would
>allow the cannon ball to skip across the ground 3-5 times before coming to
>a rest, and the multiple skips could cause a great deal of carnage in the
>enemy's ranks. 

In the Civil War formations usually had much less depth to them. Since the
rifle was so much better, heavy formations could be broken up before they
could reach enemy lines, so the heavy formations didn't get used for shock
tactics like they did in Napoleon's days. (Spotsylvania Court House being
the main exception.)
Therefore, the value of skipping was reduced greatly, enough so that solid
shot was generally not used for this purpose, unless shell was not available.

>I wonder if the CSA gunners, faced with unreliable fused shells, "aimed low"
>to use the skip technique?  

They did. Both sides' artillerists recognized fairly quickly that the shell
wasn't very reliable. When it was working well they went with it, and they 
could manage to explode shells over the opponents' heads with some reliability
on occasion. At other times they just gave up and used the shells as if they
were solid shot.

-- 
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: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Slavery in the Old Northwest
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 05:56:13 GMT

In article <1jvqkrINNht7@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>Illinois especially had a large slave population that was grandfathered
>by the Congress and the Territory and the state's first constitution.
>An attempt was made in 1823 to call a constitutional convention to
>amend the Illinois constitution to make it a slave state, but it got
>only 43% of the vote.

It's worth noting that the line between Illinois and Wisconsin was
originally meant to be drawn at the southern tip of Lake Michigan. Had
this been done, Chicago would not have been in Illinois and the vote to
make Illinois a slave state would almost certainly have succeeded. The
line was moved about 100 miles north so that Illinois would not enter
the Union as a pro-slavery state. (I don't know the exact details of how
it was done. I was taught this in history class in college.)
-- 
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: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Spotsylvania (was Re: How were cannon balls constructed?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:32:46 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1993Jan27.093205.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>I have wondered why Upton's use of massed formation was so
>effective at Spotsylvania. Were the Conferderate so unaccustomed to
>seening it that they failed to use the techniques described above
>which had previously discouraged its use?

No, it was a tactical innovation on Upton's part. Ordinarily, troops made
such movements with their guns loaded. That being the case, they inevitable
stopped in mid-charge to shoot back (an understandable reaction) and this
broke the momentum of the charge. Upton's men were ordered to charge with
their muskets unloaded. This made stopping in mid-charge an unattractive
alternative as it takes 30 seconds or so to load a Civil War rifle.

One other factor made Upton's attack, and also the Mule Shoe attack, more
successful than might have been expected. Both attacks were, at least
initially, unusually well coordinated, in the sense that all of the units
were charging more or less the same place at more or less the same time,
and the units assigned to distract the enemy had done so in a timely manner.
Both of these conditions were pretty rare in the Civil War. It's worth
noting that both attacks failed when less-well-organized support troops
failed to do their duty with the same alacrity as the chargers had done.

It's also worth remembering that Upton's attack took place at twilight,
which made it harder for the Confederates to see his troops, and that
the Mule Shoe attack benefitted from Lee's order to remove all the
artillery from the point the Union army was attacking. So there was
some element of timing/luck to these attacks as well.
-- 
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: wvhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William VanHorne)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: How were cannon balls constructed?
Date: 26 Jan 93 20:12:47 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <1993Jan26.075217.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>The CW-era artillery used a wide variety of projectiles. Perhaps the most 
>familliar were the solid ball, which for obvious reasons are the most likely to
>have survived the war to become displayed in piles in front city halls and
>courthouses. As I understand it, solid shot was used primarily for
>counter-battery fire. 

I don't know about the ACW, but certainly in European battles in the days
of solid shot, solid shot was often used as an anti-personnel weapon.
When faced with a large army neatly laid out in ranks, the artillerists 
would fire the solid shot at a very low angle.  This low trajectory would
allow the cannon ball to skip across the ground 3-5 times before coming to
a rest, and the multiple skips could cause a great deal of carnage in the
enemy's ranks.  The French army under that old artillery man Napoleon, used
this gunnery tactic a lot, although Wellington concisely demonstrated its
limitations by drawing up his formations on reverse slopes. 

>There also were "shells" which litterally were shells of iron filled with
>explosive. The explosion was detonated by a lighted fuse. Shells were also 
>used for long-range combat against either artillery (men and horses) or
>infantry. I deduce that shells were most effective when detonated in the air
>over their target, but to my mind this would require incredible precission in 
>"cutting the fuse".One certainly reads accounts of shells bouncing and rolling 
>accross the ground before exploding. This is probably why artillerist were
>taught to "aim low". CSA shells were notoriously unreliable, with an effective
>rate of about 30%. There has been some speculation as to wheather more Union
>soldiers or more Confederates were killed with CSA shells. For this reason, it
>was rare for the CSA to station batteries above and behind infantry, as did 
>the Union (on LRT and Cemetery Ridge for example).

I wonder if the CSA gunners, faced with unreliable fused shells, "aimed low"
to use the skip technique?  

---Bill VanHorne
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa