HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Social perquisites of non-slaveholding whites
Date: 28 Aug 92 05:42:36 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

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

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

>>My question would be why do you continue to say "Africans" rather than black
>>Americans.  Are blacks no longer considered American?

>My question would be why do you continue to say "Irish" rather than white
>Americans. Are whites no longer considered American?
>Jones

Uh...Gee, Jones...I've never said Irish...or English, or whatever...unless I'm
referring to someone that is a citizen of that country (or was born in that
country and still has that country's mannerisms--such as speech being the most
obvious)
Are you African or American?

Roland
>-- 
>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: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: the late unpleasantness subsides (?)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:34:28 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Sep1.225740.13333@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu writes:

> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
> 
jones... 
> >>The most seminal university in Western Civ was in Africa! It was in the city
> >>later renamed Alexandria, and that was where the early Greek philosophers and
> >>mathematicians studied.
> 
> >No argument here.  But they weren't really doing a lot of modern medicine and
> >agriculture in Plato's day.
> 
> I didn't say they were. But doctors still take the Hippocratic oath, I notice.

  Was this university founded before or after Alexander conquered the area?
And if before, what effect (if any) did his conquest have on the university 
besides changing the name of the city?

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: what to see in Chatanooga
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:23:45 GMT

My family vacationed to Chatanooga when I was a kid and I remember being
really impressed by the Lookout mountain battlefield. I believe that it
is a state or national park and it was very close (some 15 years ago) to
the way that it looked in after-battle pictures. The trees are about the
same size as they were then and the hanging rock is still there.
   When I was there it was rainy and misty, just the way that it was
when the US forces stormed it.
  
   I have heard that the ridge to the south of Chatanooga, where
Sherman/Thomas made their successful assult is now a subdivision ;-(,
but that the lay of the land is such that you can still get a sense of
what it must have looked like.
   I have heard from a friend that it had the effect of allowing you to
see everything below you, but nothing to the side of you. So in 1864 a
CS infantryman standing on the ridge could have seen the entire US army
but very few of his compatriots in line formation. My friend contended
that this might have accounted for the CS collapse during the battle
since the CS troops couldn't see their flank supporters.
    The exhibit that shows you the battle in miniature (I forget the
name, and I do not know if it is still there) is neat if you like
miniatures and good "model RR" layouts, but probably missable if you
know the course of the battles and don't care about little lead men.

    The Chickamaugua Nat'l Battlefield is just south of Chatanooga and
might be worth investigating. I've never been there myself.

    I know of at least 2 books which have pictures and maps of civil war
battlefields that have been designated "National Historic Sites" or
State Parks. 
 
    Other things to look for are Big Shanty (which has changed its name
to ????) where the railroad chase took place, Kennesaw mountain and the
other gaps in the area. 

    The whole area that Sherman and Johnson fought and maneuvered over
is only about 100 miles long and do-able by car since it roughly
paralells the roads from Chatanooga to Atlanta (suprise!). I'll bet that
if you got some good maps, a few good books and wrote to the Tennessee
and Georgia state tourist commissions you'd get a lot of info. If you
don't know where to start ask your local librarian for help.

Finally, I think that a lot of the sites of Hood's attacks around
Atlanta have been built over. (In fact I know that Peach Tree Creek is
now a subdivision :-( or very close to it.)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
From: gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie)
Subject: civil war connections
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:35:59 GMT


One of my family's legends involves Peyton Burns, who during the Civil War (it 
is said) went out one morning after breakfast to chop wood on his Eastern 
Kentucky farm and didn't walk back in the kitchen again until after Lee 
surrendered.  When he showed up, he was carrying an armful of firewood.

Actually, he joined the Confederates, ended up in a hospital in Georgia, lost
an eye (I don't know if wounded or from disease), and after the war was
inspired to write poetry about the Lost Cause.  He was an old man when civil
war broke out, and the family has a photo of him as a very old, half-blind
geezer with a long white beard (rather like Moses).  We also have a copy of one
of his poems -- a *very* long one.

I really don't know why he joined the Confederacy -- I hope it wasn't because
he owned a slave or believed in slavery. (If he did, it would be ironic because
when local schools were integrated in the late 1950s, one of his
great-great-something granddaughters -- my first cousin -- helped ease tension
by walking up to a Black child and talking to her about how their daddies
worked together on the railroad.)

How many of you have direct connections to the Civil War through relatives?

Gemma McLuckie
Born in Ashland; mother from Greenup; father from White Oak
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:47:08 GMT

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


>  Someone give Mr. Murphy an injection, he seems to be foaming at the mouth.

No, thanks.

>  just kidding :)

Sure you are.

>"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly

Speak for yourselves.
Jones

"Peace? Ha-ha-ha, don't make me laugh!"--Ice Cube, "The Nigga U Love to Hate"
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie)
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 15:21:51 GMT

In article <BtxHDu.E1H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (
thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>
>Women - There was a woman (whose name I can't remember, of course) who
>served as a surgeon with the AotP. 

Could that have been Elizabeth Blackwell?  I believe she was the first woman to 
earn a formal medical degree, although of course millions of other women had 
served as physicians to family and friends throughout history.

>   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.

Gemma McLuckie
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Social perquisites of non-slaveholding whites
Date: 28 Aug 92 14:27:36 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

Gentlemen,
I do not doubt that all of us possess ample gifts of intellect and 
expression. Is there any chance that we might call a truce in honor 
of those gifts and our interest in a common period of human history?
JTHoppers
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: what to see in Chatanooga
Date: 4 Sep 1992 15:35:12 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

For any Civil War trip to anywhere, I highly recommend getting Alice Cromie's
A Tour Guide to the Civil War.  E.g., for Chattanooga, it has 30 or 40
distinct locations mentioned.  (Many are just buildings of historical
significance, e.g., "College Hospital, northeast corner W. 11th and Cedar
St.  A college building here was used to care for 100 wounded soldiers."
But you never know what obscure site might be of interest to you!)

Anyway, for Chattanooga in particular, I just remembered the "Confederama",
a delightfully tacky miniature recreation of the battles with 6000
miniature soldiers and 650 flashing lights illustrating the battle
movements... It's somewhat interesting, and if you like taking time out
for surreally kitschy stuff, worth stopping by.  Kitschy postcards to
mail to friends are available...

R
From: mancus@zaphod.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Aiming
Date: 31 Aug 1992 19:15:02 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <1992Aug27.235139.2348@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
 
>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.

  Actually, I think 1 hit per 240 shots is, if anything, high.  I saw
some figures on this once, which I unfortunately don't have access to
right now.  Most troops were lousy shots, and few people wanted to stick
their heads up where they could be seen in order to aim.  In a charge,
they're even less likely to be aiming.  So there isn't any paradox.
I think these low figures are typical of other wars, too.  Anyone have
actual data?

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         |
                 N5WVR                                                  |
  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Some Civil War era economic statistics
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 02:44:49 GMT

Someone requested these in relation to the war debt. Here goes...

The wholesale price index series I found gives 1967 as the base year.
In those units:

  1967=100
  1865=65.2
  1861=31.36

On that scale, current dollars are somewhere around 350 or 400, making
$20 billion in 1861 dollars worth about $250 or $300 billion today. There
was a lot of inflation during the war (nothing like the CSA inflation, of
course).

CPI tells a similar story:

   1967=100
   1865=46
   1861=27

GNP statistics are not available before 1869, and are pretty uncertain for
years before 1909. Best figures I could get were:

Average GNP for 1869-1878:  7.4 billion dollars nominal
			    23.1 billion in 1958 dollars

	GNP for 1970:	  977.1 billion dollars nominal
			  722.5 billion in 1958 dollars

Current GNP is about 4.5 trillion, probably about 1.5 trillion in 1958
dollars.

If you can find an Econ 1 text you can easily convert 1967 prices or 1958
dollars to current without any difficulty.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Re: Volunteers v. Regulars
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:13:53 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.133115.319@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
writes:

>The volunteers, on their part, thought themselves superior because they
>were fighting for "something. . .higher."
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

               Gee.  Where have I heard that expression before?;-)

>--Chuck

PDunn
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 18:34:00 GMT

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

>I'm not clear on why we should compensate Mr. Murphy for the sufferings of his
>ancestors. His own sufferings would be different, of course. When the
>reperations were paid to Japanese survivors of the WWII concentration camps
>you had to be a survivor to claim compensation (as I recall it, anyway).

Well, I'm pretty old. Old enough to be the uncle of most people reading
this group.:)

>Further, from Mr. Murphy's signature, I would venture to guess that cash
>is _not_ one of his major problems. :)

You're too sharp for me, kid.
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: smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith)
Subject: Woman Doctors (was: smoothbores, ...)
Organization: SCTC
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:14:44 GMT

tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:

>Women - There was a woman (whose name I can't remember, of course) who
>served as a surgeon with the AotP. She was one of the few women doctors
>around at the time, and I guess that doctors were scarce enough that the
>powers that be didn't turn her away because she was a woman. 

From what I've heard, there were not "few women doctors around at the
time," there were in fact numerous woman doctors. It's possible that
the Army had medical training requirements that disqualified many of
the practicing woman physicians. This may have been similar to Dorthea
Dix' oft cited requirement that all Army nurses be plain women
uninterested in romance. The criteria eliminated many willing workers
at a time when the criteria weren't actually important to the job.
(How much did people know about medicine back then? Not much.)

The subject of woman doctors is of great interest in my family.  My
wife is one, and her great grandmother finished medical school in the
late 19th century, practicing medicine until her death in the 1930s.
I don't remember the source, but I had read that woman doctors were
not especially rare in the 19th century. Woman doctors allegedly
became rare century when licensure criteria were changed around the
turn of the century. State boards of medical examiners took over
licensure of physicians and wouldn't recognize diplomas from medical
schools not meeting newly established standards. There is a beilef
that medical schools catering to woman students were particular
targets of such blacklisting.

Rick.
smith@sctc.com         arden hills, minnesota
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Aiming at flagbearers.
Keywords: Flags, flagbearers
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 17:44:26 GMT

>

Lots of stuff deleted about officers.

>Or it could be that they just did something unwise and/or brave like stand up
>or rush out into a hail of rifle fire.  Just being hit multiple times doesn't
>mean anyone was aiming at you.  I probably just means you exposed yourself to
>a large volume of unaimed fire.
>

Some particularly brave or foolish officers deliberately did things that
made them conspicuous in battle. Riding a white horse, having a lot of
braid, wearing a lot of feathers in your cap or wearing a lot of red
were good ways to get shot at more than the average number of times.
Of course being conspicious to the enemy also means that you are
conspicious to your troops. In battle, the troops might be rallied by
the sight of their commander "fearlessly" exposing himself to enemy
fire. Many famous generals did wear conspicious clothing (A.P.Hill's red
"battle shirt", Custer's & J.E.B. Stuart's fanciful costumes, Smith's
fancy pre-war officer's hat and epulettes) and many generals did
deliberately expose themselves to fire, while the infantry cowered on
the ground. (Sheridan and his staff once rode up and down the line as if
they were inspecting the troops at a parade, to rally them. I believe
the battle was 3rd Winchester, but I'm probably mistaken on this.)

There is a really great Ambrose Bierce short story (Beirce was a US CW
vet) about just a dashing young officer in the whole 9 yards of dashing
young officer regalia, who reveals a hidden CS position by suicidally
riding between the lines and drawing fire.

The opening scenes of Dances with Wolves are almost a direct rip-off of
this short story.

I won't reveal the end of the story because the story is well worth
reading, as are all of Beirces  ACW short stories.

Have fun,

Tom
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Confederate flag, Swastika, etc....and an apology (!)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:03:05 GMT

trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight) writes:

>They were related to my assertion that there were other motivations among
>white, non-slave-owning Southerners.

Yeah, like keeping blacks out of school, a motivation which survived well into
the 20th century.

>>misery and degradation of AFricans in the South would make it quite difficult
>>to hold the sentiments you are expressing. I will make sure you acquire this
>>appreciation.:)

>No doubt you can *try* to make me hate the South because of aspects of its
>history, but you can't do it.  There is, at least in my experience, far more
>to the South than the oppression of blacks.  I don't expect anyone with "a
>nice view of Manhattan AND Brooklyn" to know this first hand...

Chill, homie. I don't hate the south, and can't see why you should. You simply
must acknowledge the real basis for the fighting in the Civil War:a bunch of
people clinging to a social order that made them all aristocrats.

>I knew you wouldn't see past the paradox, but the fact remains that not all
>whites were cruel and harsh toward blacks, whatever they may have believed
>about them.

I agree that "not all" whites were cruel and harsh to blacks, but then not all
blacks voted against David Duke last fall, either! It is absurd to pick out a
tiny fraction of a percent of a population and cite them as typical. In fact,
the overwhelming majority of whites exercised their power over Africans with 
great relish. The fact that they died in such great numbers defending it is 
telling.

>That's why I wrote:

>Justified?  How were they to learn any differently when even their religion
>sanctions the institution?  On Sesame Street?

Well, that religion also has all sorts of nice principles about being nice to
people, not killing them, not coveting their goods, etc. The Southern whites
were being selective Christians, picking out the parts with let them slake their
lust for economic exploitation of Africans.

>You agree entirely with that, yet you fail to see that other motivations
>existed among some Southerners.  There's a paradox.  Do you not consider
>religion a motivation?

Yes, especially reinforced with greed and racism. Religion was not a motivation
as much as it was a rationalization.
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
From: g91h7029@alpha.ru.ac.za (Wayne Humphries)
Subject: Re: The most decisive battle in history ?
Keywords: decisive battles
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 18:53:31 GMT

In <1992Aug30.143354.23889@nntp.hut.fi> c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen) writes:

>25. The Yom Kippur war, 1973

>Israeli forces showed the world their skill and lethality, beating again
>the united Arab forces that invaded its territories. Israel even conquered
>the strategically important Golan heights from Syria, which it has ever
>since occupied. Israel finally showed the world what the only democracy in
>the Middle East is for its military power.

>  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
>  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
>  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
>  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  +

0. The first Sumerian War, 3400 BC.
 
  King Dur or Her-Thor defeats the Queen Wodan and rescues his queen
  Eve. His son Ka-in in attendance. 
       Makers of Civilisation in race and history, 1930, Waddell
       Cylinder seals in British Museum and British Manuscripts Library.
  Dur also known as Adammu. Egyptian and Indo-Aryan records also.
  See Sir Petrie and Sir Budge.
  Also the holy cup recaptured as a war trophy.
From: vvirrank@cc.Helsinki.FI (Ville Virrankoski)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: The most decisive battles in history ?
Date: 28 Aug 92 09:12:03 GMT
Organization: University of Helsinki, Finland
X-Reader: GNUS 3.13

In article <1992Aug27.144627.26705@nntp.hut.fi> c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen) writes:
>Not a long time ago there was a thread about the greatest general for ever
>(and the worst ever). Since time has passed, it is now the time to ask
>which have been the most decisive battle/s in the history ?

Salamis - Decided outcome of Persian wars and dictated Aegean politics 
          next century.
Arbela  - The fate of Persia is doomed.
Teutoburg Wald - Limits of Roman advance was reached
Hastings - Resulted birth of France-England-conflict dictating politics of
          Western Europe next 800 years
Tannenberg - Halted German advance to the Eastern Europe
Defeat of Spanish Armada - Spanish star starts to fade, British brighten.
          Open colonial effort to other countries than Spain and Portugal.
Yorktown(???) - British forces failed to bring end to the revolution of
          American colonies. (I may be wrong with name. Correct me.)
Trafalgar - British dominance over the seas was certified over the next
          century.
Port Arthur - Rising of Non-European major power.
Tannenberg(WWI) - Defeat of Russia -> Revolution.


Not so decisive battles of WWII, but they influenced much to the outcome:
Battle of Britain - German advance halted in the west
Midway - Turn of tide. 
Stalingrad - German advance halted in the east.
El Alamein - Rommel's will to fight was broken. Affected speed of outcome
          in Africa, surrender of Italy, Coastal defence of Continental
          Europe and Assasination attempt of Hitler. (There were times
          when R. resumed his original brightness as military tactics,
          like Kasserine pass, occupation of Italy and Atlantic wall,
          but he lacked courage and power to use them. And he has lost
          many officers from his staff in and after Alamein.)