HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Organization: Utah Valley Community College
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 20:21:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.182106.10779@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie) writes:

My wife's 2gg father Amos Tatman was a private in Company A, 114th Ohio
Infantry at the time of the siege of Vicksburg, Miss. in May, 1863.
During the 2nd assault on May 22 he became a casualty.  The first minie
hit him in the left jaw, skidded along the bone and then slanted down
through his neck to lodge in the left chest cavity.  This must have
spun him around, because the second minie caught him in the nap of
the neck, and glancing off the spine penetrated the left chest cavity.
needless to say that invalided him for the rest of the war.  They never
did remove them, which caused paralysis of the left side.

His first cousin, Riley Tatman of Co F, 54th Illinois Infantry had the
misfortune of being captured twice.  I can't recall where or when as I
don't have his records here.  But, anyway, he was transported to a
prison in Texas, called, I believe Tyler.  During his period of confinement
he made about 5 escape attempts.  Once he buried himself alive at night,
and when the guards and other prisoners marched away next day, he got up
and ran the other way, but was tracked down by hounds.  Another time,
he over-powered a guard who was doozing and leaning on his musket.  Riley
discharged the weapon, which didn't do the rebel guards armpit any good,
not to mention the loss of his arm.  Riley at the time kept a journal of
his exploits in the margins of newspapers that he got hold of, which he
unfortunately lost when his was discharged.

Marc
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Plantation Population
Reply-To: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:52:41 GMT

>jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>
>>Another interesting table in Campbell's book compares the age distribution
>>of the slave and the white populations.  The distributions are almost
>>identical, which indicates that the slaves had a life expectancy that was
>>just a little less than that of the white population.

A quick note of who made it into the records clears this up rather nicely.
Taken from the work of Jay Mandle--Don't remeber title offhand.
Fairly accurate records of slaves were kept in many large plantations.
They were the most valuable property held by southerners. More valuable
than land.  You can bet they were counted regularly and kept track of just 
as someone on say Wall St. ;] would regularly check their investments.  
The slaves who made it into the records did tend to live almost as long
as whites, but they were a particular type of slave.  They were the ones 
who lived.  Records were kept on slaves for financial reason, on whites for
 kin/genealogical/preservation of tradition reasons.  Thus little
Wally jr. who died at birth made it into the records--this, if counted
would lower the life expectency of whites.  Whites, who kept the
records from which Campell's reconstruction werer done, were only concerned, 
in most cases, at least as far as record keeping goes, with value
in the case of slavces.
A slave child was of little value.  The child could do no work until 
several years old, and only a partial load then.  The child also reduced 
the work which could be extracted from the mother for a while, thus reducing
the value of the mother as well.  Slaveowners provisioned children on a level
among the lowest in recorded history.  Infant and youth mortality
was among the highest in the world.  Slave mothers often had to 
take their infants into the fields with them.
	The infants who died were useles to record-keepers.  Of
no value whatsoever, like to a broken egg or a rotten vegetable--
cleared out of the inventory.  Record keepers
were aware of the high mortality of slave children and often did npot bother 
tracking them until they could be of value.  Of course such an awful system
selected the very strongest slaves to survive, at which point they were 
provisioned and cared for as a valuable investment rather than as a 
costly side effect.  Slave children who survived and entered into the 
planters' records thus had a survival rate *almost as high* as whites, 
including white children but excluding black children.
A slave who survived the most hellish upbringing on earth, in the midst of 
prosperity all around, could expect to live almost as long as a
white child's birthright.  Sound about even to you?
Rich
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:01:59 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.200758.709@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie) writes:
>>Her name deserves to be remembered:  Mary Walker, M.D., a graduate of
>>Syracuse Medical School.
>
>Do you know where she went after the war?  I have a vague notion she has 
>something to do with Cincinnati.  Am I right?
>
The Dictionary of American Biography lists only one Ohio connection, her
service with the 52nd Ohio Infantry.  She seems to have spent most of her
life in New York or Washington, D.C.
--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."
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Aiming
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 02:03:24 GMT

>  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                                           |

After action reports in WWII by American researchers found that only
about 1 man in 4 ever fired his weapon and that it took about 1000 shots
for each man hit by rifle fire. There is also footage I have seen of
American troops in Viet Nam (marines around Hue) firing over a 8' stone
wall by holding their M-16's over their heads and firing them in the
general direction of the enemy. It is in the background, as a reporter
talks with a war-weary sergeant, but you can see that many men are
cowering behind the wall, sitting down, or doing something else and only
a few are firing.
   
Hope you have fun with this,

 Tom
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Aiming at flagbearers.
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:14:25 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

The same details can also be found in "The Annals of Imperial Rome", 
by Tacitus, and "The Twelve Caesars", by Suetonius (sp?): the titles are of 
modern translations. Sorry to stray so far from the well-worn path, but 
it's not often one has an opportunity to put 'a classical education' to 
work nowadays...back to the present (1860...1865).
JTHoppers
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Women soldiers of the Civil War
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 05:14:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.220331.11790@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
> Was there a law against women in combat yet? As far as I know the 
>current law was passed in 1945.

There wasn't a law against women in combat because there weren't even
(legally) women in the Army to begin with. Only men could join.
Women could join starting with the WAVES in WWII. Only once they had
women in the ranks did they need a law preventing them from going into
combat.
In 1861 there wasn't even a Red Cross or female nurses. That changed during
the course of the war.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight)
Subject: Re: What the FAQ?
Organization: Jes Grew Carriers -- Metaphysical Bunko Squad 
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 22:32:23 GMT

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

>>Frankly, I'm surprised that you would rather racism be "under the table"
>>rather than out in the open where you would at least know who your enemies
>>were...

>I have no preference, I'm simply stating that there is a difference between
>the claim that a particular behavior is right, versus acknowledging that 
>it's wrong, but doing it anyway.

Oh sure...there's a difference.  In fact, I'd consider the de facto 
situation in the USA more despicable simply because it acknowledges that
racism, etc. are wrong, yet engages in them anyway.  Whereas in the 
antebellum South, most white people had been enculturated to actually
believe that their racism was good and proper and were simply living
what they believed rather than being hypocritical.  Sure, the mechanism
which gave them such beliefs is to be condemned, but still...
 
Trevor Bauknight         trev@hubcap.clemson.edu    ...gatech!hubcap!trev
 
                                                     +-----------+
                                                     | _> ###    |
                  fish on                            |     |     |
                                                     +-----------+
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 19:11:00 GMT

In article <kedX7J_00Uh7Q2BXJB@andrew.cmu.edu>, John Thorpe <jt3p+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
>Newsgroup apartheid? That may be the case. It could also be considered
>newsgroup secession. Let's get this on the floor of the Newsgroup
>congress immediately!

Apartheid, secession, splitting the group.  Three bad ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I move for cloture of debate.


Dave
From: tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas J. Joyce)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Date: 4 Sep 92 02:17:18 GMT
Organization: Administrative Systems, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


Newsgroup apartheid? You guys are a trip.

Ok, for those of you who ARE interested in the Civil War battles, and NOT
interested in all this other waste of bandwidth being dumped here
drop me a piece of mail. Maybe we can start a new newsgroup concerning
the battles, etc. and leave these other folks to flame each other
ad infinitum. 

Tom Joyce
Carnegie-Mellon Administrative Systems
(usual disclaimers apply)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Aiming.
Keywords: Aimed shots casualties
Organization: Purdue University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 17:03:34 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.053808.12422@quick.com> srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett) writes:
>As poor as it may be, it's a darned sight better than current standards.
>As I recall, something like 250000 rounds were expended for each claimed
>casualty during the Vietnam conflict.  Even assuming they were all
>M-16 fodder, that's 1964 pounds of lead and nearly 1000 pounds of powder
>per casualty.  On the other hand, I think something like 80% of the
>dead during the civil war fell to disease, not bullets.  We've
>certainly improved things there.

An AC-130 gunship will use that much ammo on a likely target during one 
attack.  When the air/lead ratio approaches one-to-one, a lot of ammo
and a lot of casualties result.

Also, does your 80% factor for disease include septic wounds?  Just wondering
since needs to factored in for combat/post-combat deaths.

Larry J

-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    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.   #
From: daggs@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Date: 3 Sep 1992 18:04:38 GMT
Organization: Houston Civil War Roundtable

In article <gebg8v_00WBNI76nZ5@andrew.cmu.edu> tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas J.
Joyce) writes:
>
>I'm glad I found this newsgroup. However, I wouldn't mind seeing it
>split into two groups:
>
>    alt.war.civil.usa.mil   (purely military & battle topics)
>    alt.war.civil.usa.soc   (social, political and diplomatic topics)
>
>I like reading both groups, but wouldn't mind just reading about one and
>not the other. Safe to say that my main interest in the war is in the
>battles. This doesn't mean that I don't have any interest in the 
>non-military facets of the war.
>
>Opinions?
>
>Tom j.
>
	I think the two are inseparable. Splitting the group up this way
would have little effect, except to make it twice as hard to commu-
nicate. Perhaps it is different for others, but I have the liberty
of marking unwanted notices "read" without reading them. If this is
a poll I'll vote "no".

Clark
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: coronell@athena.mit.edu (Dan Coronell)
Subject: No To Split
Keywords: Split
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:23:40 GMT

To anyone who suggests to split this newsgroup :
"I propose to move immediately upon your works!"

					Dan Coronell
					coronell@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Reply-To: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 14:49:04 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.151324.4856@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.123137.1998@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>>
>>By all means. I will dig up my copy of Walter Rodney's "How Europe
>>Underdeveloped AFrica". It's a book I strongly recommend.
>
>Please do, I would look forward to seeing excerpts. I'll hunt for it in
>the loca bookstores.
>
This is an *excellent* book, and started off a long discourse on African
underdevelopment.  It was published in 1974, and there were severasl 
articles or forums in the Journal of African History, both for and against
as well as in between, in response to its publication.  While Rodney's
book is indispensible, another book which summarizes and updates
the argumentsIs John Thornton's _Africa and Africans in the 
Making of the Atlantic World, 1400-1680.  It just came out in papervback 
in Cambtridge U Press, 1992, and is pretty cheap new (important 
factor to us grad studemnts).  THornton is an African historian who 
approaches the contributions and costs of and to Africans in their peopling
 of the Americas from an African perspective rather than from the perspective
of whichever group held political rights.  So instead of the history
of Africans in Jamaica or Brazil or Dutrch Guiana or Charleston VA,
There is the historical context of what was happening in Akan states, , 
Kongo, Benin, Sierra Leone, and what the people from these places brought 
with them and contributed when they were removed from Africa.  This is 
an excellent background to African cultures in the Americas, as well as 
being very well written.  Almost all of the research is from primary sources,
and Thorn,ton speaks about nine languages, so he has access to many
sources in languages which are inaccessible to most scholars.  

I have also written a fairly long critique of economic issues of southern 
US development, and the northern role of capital in regards to the 
bondage (antebellum) and oppression (postbellum) of African-Americans
in the southern US.  If there is an interest, I will post it in a few
 shorter parts which pertain to the time period of this group.
Best, 
Rich Rath.
From: daggs@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: "Coloured" troops in the Union Army
Date: 25 Aug 1992 15:33:01 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Engineering & Sciences Co.

In article <1992Aug24.150104.19197@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu
(Charles Ten Brink) writes:
>While we're on this topic, can anyone tell me whether there is a 
>difference between the US Colored Troops and the US Colored Infantry?
>I would have thought that the troopers should be cavalry, but I
>don't see the usage split that way.  Or are the two terms simply used
>interchangeably?
>
>If you are ever in the neighborhood of Altoona, PA, there is a USCI
>cemetary in nearby Hollidaysburg, across from the high school.  It 
>appears to have been abandoned, and many headstones are missing.  If
>it weren't for the fellow who lives next door, who mows the grass and
>sets flags out every Memorial day, it would be even sadder.
>--Chuck
>
>-- 
>_____________________________________________________________________
>". . . and lo! the shadow of a mighty presence shall wrap them in its
>bosom, and the power of the vision pass into their souls."
>

	On that topic. Please post anything you know about threatened US
historical sights (Military cemetaries qualify). I belong to more than
one organization which acts to preserve and restore these. We need 
information such as the above...and people who care to help.

Clark J. Daggs
1864 El Mar Ln.
Seabrook, Texas 77586
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett)
Subject: Re: Aiming.
Keywords: Aimed shots casualties
Organization: Quicksilver Engineering, Seattle USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 05:38:08 GMT

morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
> pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
> 
> >Soldiers in the war used to guess that it too a man's weight in lead to kill 
> >him.  An "expert" estimated that it took 240 lbs. of powder and 900 lbs. of
> >lead for a Confederate to be hit in a battle.
> 
> This is pretty poor. What was the percentage of professional soldiers,
> draftees and volunteers in the armies?

As poor as it may be, it's a darned sight better than current standards.
As I recall, something like 250000 rounds were expended for each claimed
casualty during the Vietnam conflict.  Even assuming they were all
M-16 fodder, that's 1964 pounds of lead and nearly 1000 pounds of powder
per casualty.  On the other hand, I think something like 80% of the
dead during the civil war fell to disease, not bullets.  We've
certainly improved things there.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Just Say the 'N' word (Was Re: Smoking the peace pipe)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 15:03:36 GMT

coronell@athena.mit.edu (Dan Coronell) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.201156.7582@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug28.194003.14064@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>>>jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:
>>>
>>>>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?
>>>
>>>By all means. I'd be happy to stop insulting my hapless opponents if they stop
>>>insulting me.
>>
>>What can you do when the person insists on making smart-ass comments in his
>>alleged peace messages?
>>
>Here is what you do. You simply ignore him. Do not respond to his posts 
>or replies. When you come across his posts on the newsgroup, press 'n' 
>or better yet create a KILL file to do it automatically. I have done this 
>and can tell you it works. By responding to Mr. Murphy, you are only 
>adding fuel to the fire. Can I appeal to all out there to just say 'n' to 
>Mr. Murphy if his posts bother you?

Yeah, if only white deaths matter, and a far greater death toll of Africans is
something you could care less about, just say the "n" word.
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: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:38:57 GMT

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

>>Cash, lots of it, to compensate me for the sufferings of my ancestors. You 

>Why do you deserve compensation for the sufferings of anyone else?  I 
>haven't had any, and I'm not whining...

..And neither am I. This is a demand, not a whine. Otherwhise I'll make the LA
riots look like a Sunday picnic.

I'll start off by giving myself, oh, $10 mil or so. After all, I have more
slavemaster blood than most white Americans.

>Maybe you don't remember that I fully realized that saying that was a 
>paradox, and I said it within the context that some (you conveniently left 
>that word out of your "quote"...) of them treated their slaves as human
>beings, IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they had been enculturated to believe 
>that their slaves were NOT human beings.  And stop trying to suggest 
>that I was defending the social order in the antebellum South.  It isn't
>true.

You can't enslave someone and treat them like a human being, cool guy. It's just
not possible. Enslavement is depriving someone of their labour and forcing them
to work for no pay, in case you've forgotten. How do you simultaneously do that
and treat someone like a human being???

>Yes.  But not the only aspect.  You almost seem to be admitting that the
>South was not fighting solely for slavery...I'm glad to see that you're
>beginning to concede the one point I was trying to make.  :-)

I never said that the South was fighting solely for slavery. They were fighting
for murder, robbery, and humiliation, the crimes they were able to commit
against AFricans with impunity. They were fighting for racial aristocracy.

>Why won't you let us concede your point once and for all instead of 
>conceding it over and over again in response to every conceivable
>discussion in this group?  Do you really think we disagree that 
>slavery was a horrible institution, should never have been conceived
>and was the primary cause of the War?  I hope you can find it in 
>yourself to supply the necessary African perspective without insisting
>that we all apologize to you and compensate you every time a new subject 
>arises.

OK, I'll dispense with the apologies if you just fork over the cash. In small,
unmarked bills.
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