HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: What the FAQ?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:49:56 GMT

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

>In article <1992Aug28.122257.1791@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>>I did *not*. The ideals of the USA were not nearly as explicitly racist as 
>>those of the CSA. The US at least was ashamed enough of it's racism to keep it
>>somewhat under the table. The CSA had no such reservations.

>This isn't really true. First, because there were some Confederates who
>opposed slavery. More importantly, because the Northerners were just as
>vocal about their racism as the Southerners. Go back and read some of the
>things written by McClellan or some of the prominent Democrats (and even
>some of the Republicans) and you'll find they were completely unabashed
>about being racists.

You must be kidding. You have only to contrast the official documents of the
USA and the CSA(like their constitutions) to get a sense of which group of
people more explicitly idealized racism as a way of life.

>The definition of a FAQ is "Frequently Asked Question." It doesn't make any
>moral judgements as to what should or should not be asked. Mr. Murphy is
>free to make any moral judgements he wants (and he should) but the standard
>for including something on a FAQ is the number of people that ask it.
><shrug>.

And if a lot of white people want to talk about Confederate flags, then so
be it. (shrug)

>There is some truth to this but it does disservice to the historical record.
>Only two Union generals had to be explicitly ordered to return captured
>slaves, apparently the rest had no particular qualms about it.
>There were many riots in Northern cities, but race was not the only factor
>that motivated them. An important one, but not the only one.

I rest my case.
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: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Re: Diplomatic help by Russia?
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 18:44:29 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1684D757B.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org> M20614@mwvm.mitre.org writes:

: Amidst all this discussion of whether the Southern slaves, when helping
: themselves to freedom and a military voice, were actually backed up by
: explicit wording in such documents as the Emancipation Proclamation,
: I recollect the following:
:  
: Russia, under Nicholas I (?), freed their serfs (= slaves) in 1861.
: After the EP was promulgated, Russia leaned on Britain to not help the
: CSA; Britain remained "neutral" 'til the end of the war.  Supposedly,
: this was at the instigation of the U.S. State Department.  Can anyone
: shed more light on this?
:  
: **  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616

Russia not only offered diplomatic help, it offered military help. Lincoln
discouraged this because he felt this would have made it easier for England and
France (who had recently fought Russia over the Crimea) to join forces with the
CSA. 

It basically took a concerted effort from many parties to keep England from 
intervening in favor of the CSA. In my opinion the decisive support came from
the textile workers of England who had been put out of jobs when the CSA
stopped exporting cotton. Rather than side with the CSA so they could resume
their jobs, the workers were vocally opposed to English help to the CSA because
they hated the concept of slavery. Their opinions became even more emphatic
after the Emancipation Proclaimation.

There are excellent discusions of the two topics above (along with many other
topics and much documentation) in _Europe Looks at the American Civil War_
If anyone wants a more complete citation please E-mail me (or if there is
enough interest I will post).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: root@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Date: 4 Sep 92 03:17:28 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <1992Sep3.223457.23529@leland.Stanford.EDU>, Stephen Schmidt writes:
>I don't qualify as a pathlogist :( but it's my understanding that the
>minie ball didn't mushroom unless it actually hit bone. A deep flesh wound
>that partially severed a muscle might cause something like what you
>describe without destroying the limb.

Well, it's kind of a grisly thought, but the next time I haul my charcoal burners
to the range, I'll stop and get a ham and plug it a few times and see what I come up
with. I'll get a ham with "bone in" to get good statistical sample.  

I'll preface the article so that those who are squeamish can give it a miss. ;^) 

In re: splitting the group - I've read the charter and there's nothing in there 
granting a right of secession to anyone. ;^) I expect the flamewars have come and
gone for now, anyway, so my vote is no. Does it really have to come to that so 
soon? Pretty soon we'll be getting newgroup notifications for "alt.war.civil.sheridan's.horse"
and "alt.war.civil.ellis.county.alabama" -This may be the most written about period
of U.S. history, but I think we can all live here in one group. 

JZ

  
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Smoking the peace pipe
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 19:40:03 GMT

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.
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: Jones M. Murphy and the charter of this group
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:25:29 GMT

casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:

>In article <1992Aug28.151047.1@cc.uvcc.edu>, jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu writes...
>>In article <1992Aug28.130948.1@cc.uvcc.edu>, jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu writes:
>> 
>>Let me say, like Jeff Zurschmeide, that, although I accept Jones Murphy's posts,
>>I don't necessarily go along with his presentation of them in all cases.  I don't
>>think that slamming is appropriate, and that the discussion needs to remain civil.
>>In the same vain, I don't appreciate the responses of individuals like Dave Casper,
>>who appears to have taken it upon himself to lash back at Jones Murphy.

>If you have been following this discussion, which is admittedly difficult, you
>will remember that I started out by agreeing with Jones.  Then I suggested he
>moderate his tone in a manner which would be more effective at having a
>topical discussion and focus attention on whatever valid points he may
>make rather than his rudeness and arrogance.  His responses in every case have
>been to hurl back invective and insults.  Enough is enough.  Turning our
>collective cheeks to Mr. Murphy apparently doesn't work, so now I am telling
>him he can plant a big fat kiss between a certain two of mine.


With friends like you "agreeing" with me, who needs enemies?

Dream on about the kiss. Your sexual overtures are not welcome.
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
Organization: Administrative Systems, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:00:41 -0400 
From: "Thomas J. Joyce" <tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Sickles (Was: Re: Lee-Longstreet)


As much flak that Sickles takes, I'd like to invite those who condemn
him to actually go to Gettysburg and survey the area [specifically
where his troops were engaged]. Look at the lay of the land. He
really had no choice.

Tom Joyce
Carnegie-Mellon University Administrative Systems
(usual disclaimer et al)
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Volunteers v. Regulars
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:31:15 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

A regular army artillery sgt. of my acquaintance is fond of calling
out "Let the volunteers through, boys, the army can't afford to
lose *trained men*."  

The volunteers, on their part, thought themselves superior because they
were fighting for "something. . .higher."  It suited their self-image
to believe that they were fighting for honor rather than pay.
--Chuck

-- 
D'Angelo Law Library       "And lo! the shadow of a mighty presence
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu    shall wrap them in its bosom, and the 
uclcjt1@uchimvs1            power of the vision pass into their souls."
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 18:08:48 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Aug28.123857.2310@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu writes:

> 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.
> Jones

  Tsk.  "gimme or I'll kill you/burn your homes/destroy your businesses/etc."
I suspect that the real instigator of any new race war will be greedheads like
Mr. Murphy, seizing power by exploiting the (IMO) just complaints of a people.
Not that this is anything new--history is replete with examples (including
US history).

  These statements point out Mr. Murphy has little care for "justice", but
power, for himself and those he likes.  Not via good old-fashioned hard work,
but through threats of violence.

  There are those who ask only for a fair opportunity.  Then there are those
who ask for tribute.  I believe Mr. Murphy has placed himself in the latter
group, freely and in his own words.  A pity he will do more harm to the cause
of equality than good.

  He is obviously a fan of Hasan Mutlu.

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: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Military impact of freeing slaves
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:29:35 GMT

peter@mitre.org (Peter J. Spellman) writes:


>>I am crystal clear, far more so than anyone else in this group. If you are

>Transparent you mean?  For someone who is trying to educate people on 
>an issue important and dear to his heart all you are doing is making 
>your way into people's kill files.  Soon you'll be talking

I'm not trying to educate the ineducable. I state my views, as you are doing
right now. Or are you trying to "educate" me?

>to/berating/arguing with yourself.  Who will your message reach then?
>Not everyone is going to agree on an issue, but a civil manner makes
>for better concentration on the issues, whilst childish superlative 
>assertions like the one above opaques them.  Trying coerce people into
>agreement by insults and foot stomping betrays a certain obtuseness in
>its own right.

Speak for yourself. No foot stomping here, except to the loud rap music in my
earphones.
Jones

"CHORUS: Fuck you, Ice Cube!
Say what? It's the nigga ya love to hate!"--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: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: "Coloured" troops in the Union Army
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 17:38:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.064721.15963@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>
>>The Emancipation Proclamation authorizes ex-slaves to "garrison forts,
>>positions, stations, and other places, and man vessels of all sorts." As
>>I stated, this did not allow them to serve in combat.
>
>This is simply not the case, even ignoring the fact that blacks were already
>fighting in the Union army.
>
>>The decision to enlist colored troops was made May 22, 1863 when the
>>Bureau of United States Colored Troops was established by order of
>>Edward D. Townsend, AAG, not in "late 1863", and some USCT did see
>>combat in November and December 1863. Serves me right for not checking
>>first. The argument is not substantially altered by the facts.
>
>The establishment of this USCT was simply a recognition of what had been
>going on for some time. It did not inaugurate a combat role for Africans.
>
>>All of the above information comes from the book United States Colored
>>Troops 1863-1867 by William A. Gladstone.
>
>And mine comes from "Breaking The Chains", by Loren Katz, and other sources. I
>like Katz' book because it's relatively light reading.

Ah, better to get your facts from "light reading" than from serious historical
documents. I understand now.
>
>This distinction is quite academic, in any case. There is not a substantial
>difference between Union troops per se and "state-recruited" troops, as far
>as the military advantages of emancipation are concerned. Your fixation with
>the issue is inexplicable, given the other more substantial issues that you
>are leaving alone.

You've completely missed the point of my post. My point is that the
Emancipation Proclamation had little to no effect on the miltary conduct
of the war, especially with regard to colored troops. The fact that colored
troops were already serving in combat, as you point out, before the
Proclamation only serves to highlight that point, not to refute it.
I agree that the distinction between state-recruited and Federally
recruited troops is fairly academic. I only brought it up because I was
making the point that the Emancipation Proclamation did not authorize
the Federal government to recruit colored regiments and to avoid confusion
I wanted to point out that the colored regiments in service were not USCT
regiments.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Aiming.
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:55:53 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

I haven't found figures for regulars, but here are some other enlistment 
figures:
Union Army: In addition to native-born WASPs (no offense meant, I'm just a 
lazy typist) there were; 200,000 Germans, 178,892 African Americans, 150,000 
Irish, 50,000 English, 50,000 Canadians, 3,500 Native Americans, and less than 1000 Mexican Americans.
Confederate Army: Figures are not exact (the Confederate government destroyed many enlistment rolls and service documents as it collasped). 9% of the army 
was foreign born. In addition to WASP's there were; 12,000 Native Americans 
less than 1000 Mexican Americans, and less than 1000 African Americans 
(including the regiment raised in 1865, which never saw combat service).

In addition, up to 400 women enlisted as men.
JTHoppers
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 01:34:33 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.223813.17045@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>  Well, I make no claims to being an academic historian, but it seems
>to me that industrialization revolves around the steam engine, which
>was "perfected" around <surprise!> 1750.  (I'm referring to the Watt
>engine.)  I cannot imagine anything that I would call an "industrialized"
>society without the steam engine or some equivalent.  I will grant that
>the steam engine didn't magically appear, but was developed slowly
>over time.  Nevertheless, I am not aware of any uses of the steam to do
>anything except pump water prior to Watt.  Those with more knowledge
>of the field will no doubt correct me.
>  Is the current crop of historians suggesting that "industrialization"
>would have proceeded smoothly forward without the steam engine, or that
>it was inevitable the steam would be perfected by an "industrialized"
>society?

Well, it's the economic historians (of which I am one, tangentially) but
they are focusing as much on the organizational aspects of indistrialization
as the physical ones.
Before you can have steam-powered factories, you have to have the steam
engine, but you also have to have companies capable of organizing 100 or
more workers into a single production team, and you have to have an educational
and economic system that allows people to develop the skills needed to run
machines. You also need legal institutions capable of enforcing long-term
contracts and providing patent protection to industrial designs.
These are the kinds of things that were developing in England in the 17th
and early 18th century that made it possible for England to take advantage
of the development of the steam engine to build a global empire. When the
steam engine was invented, it became available to all countries; it was
because the organization of production in England was conducive to its use
that made England the dominant economic power in the world in the 19th
century, rather than Holland or France or Russia.
This is straying _way_ off the theme :) so I'll stop now, but that's the
development of economic history of that period in the last 10 years or so.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Women soldiers of the Civil War
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 22:03:31 GMT

jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:

...................
>In addition, up to 400 women enlisted as men.

 Was there a law against women in combat yet? As far as I know the 
current law was passed in 1945.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
From: root@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:14:36 GMT
Reply-To: root@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Super-User)
Organization: SGI TechPubs



They revoked CMHs After WWI?!?! 

I can scarcely believe that people would do that. (only the fact that Congress
did it renders it believable.) 

To think they'd revoke medals over 50 years after the fact is astonishing. 

I don't blame her for not surrendering it. 

If I were her, I'd be tempted to stuff it up the fundamental aperture of my Congressman. 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: State vs. US Regiments (was Black Troops)
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:08:25 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <a750288.12@pan.mc.ti.com> a750288@pan.mc.ti.com writes:

: In article <1992Aug25.163221.24332@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
: 
: >Addressing the point about State-mustered troops being less thought of
: >than regular army troops, there was a clue to the truth of this in the
: >book "Private Elisha Stockwell Jr. Sees the Civil War." - He describes being
: >in camp near a regiment of regular army infantry and notes that they did
: >not care for the volunteers and that the volunteers eventually made life so hot
: >for them that they had to move. 
: 
: >Just another data point,
: 
: >JZ
: 
: 
: I didn't realize there was this sort of rivalry between regulars and 
: volunteers.  Thanks for the info!  Somehow I don't think the volunteers
: would have thought themselves less than the regulars!
: 
: John Brennan 
: 

I observed a re-enactment at Harper's Ferry were a "US Infantry Colonel"
chewed-out a "state Colonel" for giving orders to "a regular army" regiment.
The state colonel was nominally in command at Harper's Ferry. I must say that
the acting (or re-enacting) was extremely effective. The state colonel 
blanched under the on-slaught. In all my reading I had seen nothing to suggest
such friction, but that one re-enactment convinced my it must have been true.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------