HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: don@q-aais.navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb)
Subject: Celts vs English or ASW as seen by McWhiney & Jamieson
Keywords: Celt English theory McWhiney
Nntp-Posting-Host-[nntpd-18999]: q-aais.navo.navy.mil
Reply-To: newcomb@navo.navy.mil (Don Newcomb)
Organization: U.S. Naval Oceanographic Office
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 02:48:23 GMT

I would like to know how our gentle and learned readers consider
the theory of McWhiney & Jamieson regarding the causes and
execution of the ACW. This theory can be best stated by this
quote from their book _Attack & Die_:
 
 "...-the majority of the white people  in the South on the 1860s
were of Celtic origins and most of those who were not had become
culturally Celticized; the majority in  the North were of English
origins and many who were not had become culturally Anglicized."
  "This cultural dichotomy  in America was not only the major
cause Civil War but it explains why the war was fought the way
it was. Because the American Civil War was basically a continuation
of the centuries-old conflict between Celts and Englishmen, it
is understandable that Southerners would fight as their Celtic
ancestors had and that  Yankees would follow the ways of their
English forebears, even to the extent od recruiting foreigners
and blacks to do  some of their fighting for them."
 
Please also, let me know if you have read this book or other
writings by the authors.
 
_Attack & Die, Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern
Heritage_, McWhiney, G. & Jamieson, P., Univ. of Ala. Press,
Tuscaloosa, 1982. (p. 178)

*******************************************************************
* Donald R. Newcomb                * Views expressed are strictly *
* Naval Oceanographic Office       * those of the author. Mention *
* Stennis Space Center, MS 39522   * of commercial products or    *
* newcomb@navo.navy.mil            * organizations in no way      *
* Phone (601) 688-5998             * constitutes an endorsement.  *
*******************************************************************


Xref: sparky alt.war.civil.usa:1141 soc.roots:6125
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,soc.roots
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Date: 10 Sep 92 20:13:44 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley Community College

Question:  Has anybody heard of efforts of the National Parks Service, etc.
           to try and create an indexed computer system containing information
           concerning Union and Confederates soldiersthat the public could
           eventually access at the various Civil War Battle Parks?

I have heard a rumor that the different state historical societies are to be
involved somehow.  Sounds like a great idea.

Marc D. Jerome
From: trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Quiz #3
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:00:41 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


	NOTE:

	This quiz is being conducted just for the hell of it.
It is not intended to be a quiz to gain points or prizes.
	If you *KNOW* the answer to a question, PLEASE do not
post your repsonse to the question.  If you do, you are a 
party pooper.  Please let others try to figure it out.

	Also, there is no need to repsond to my e-mail account
with an answer.  IF you wish to do so, that is perfectly fine.
However, there is no need to do so.  This quiz is meant to
be strictly for readers own good and so we can all learn a
little more (myself included).


	Since this is a quiz for everyone's own benefit,
you are on your own as far as how to answer questions.
(i.e., you can look it up in a book, or you can trust yourself
by trying to get it without help.)

	You are the tester testing yourself.	
***********

	Answer:

	The portion of our country which first considered secession
was the New England area.  The reason was that the citizens of this
area were opposed to the War of 1812.  There was no depth to the discussion
as the war ended soon after the first meetings.  (the war was on its
last leg).

***********
	
	Question:

	In 1859 (October), voters (remember who had rights to vote...
that is why I say voters) in Kansas were following Congress's guidelines.
What were they doing in the polls of 1859?



	Good luck!  Remember, please do not post the answer to the
newsgroup.

Thanks

-- 
         Swallowing your pride rarely leads to indigestion.
         A hard thing about business is minding your own!
-trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu   &    trwagner@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu-
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight)
Subject: Followup to discussion of flags, and a question...
Organization: Jes Grew Carriers -- Metaphysical Bunko Squad 
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 18:12:12 GMT

I found a book down in Columbia yesterday entitled _Sumter_, which was
an in-depth history of the first firing on the US flag.  This group
recently got involved in a discussion of various national flags of the
CSA, and I asked about a flag currently being pushed at The Citadel 
as an alternative to the standard navy jack being flown at football
games.  This flag is the same as the South Carolina state flag (a
palmetto tree in the center with a crescent moon in the upper left
corner on a blue field) except that the Citadel flag is on a red field.

This book I found seems to indicate that this red Palmetto flag was
being flown at the various manned positions surrounding Fort Sumter
in Charleston Harbor (Fort Moultrie, Castle Pinckney, etc...) by
Citadel cadets.  The captain of the _General Clinch_ describes 
entering the harbor and seeing the red Palmetto flying.  It was 
when the _General Clinch_ entered the main channel in the harbor 
that Stevens gave the first order to fire.  Here's where my question
comes.  

The identity of the firer of the very first shot, I understand, is
questionable.  The Charleston _Mercury_ reported an eyewitness 
account that the #1 gun, the first to fire, was commanded by senior
Cadet Whilden and its lanyard pulled by Cadet George Edward 
Haynesworth, a young man of sixteen from Sumter County, SC, when the 
command came down from Stevens, who had orders from Pickens to fire on 
any strange vessel in the main channel.  Of course, I went to the 
Haynesworth campus of Sumter, SC High School, so it's obvious why 
I learned this bit of history.  The book I found confirmed this,
but I have seen other tales elsewhere concerning the first shot.
I realize that this is pretty much folklore, but do any of you 
have any reason to believe otherwise?

Also, the captain of the _General Clinch_ could not sail into
Charleston Harbor under the US flag, so did he raised the blue
Palmetto flag as a disguise?  Perhaps the sight of the red Palmetto 
flags turned his stomach as the shelling began at 7:15 that morning.
Is this the probable reason for the use of the red instead of the
blue, or is more symbolic of South Carolina's rebellious stance?

Good discussion fodder, and no flamage!  I knew I could do it...
 
Trevor Bauknight         trev@hubcap.clemson.edu    ...gatech!hubcap!trev
 
                                                     +-----------+
                                                     | _> ###    |
                  Quis separabit?                    |     |     |
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Question concerning the secession of Virginia.
Date: 6 Sep 1992 17:41:35 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu
Keywords: Lincoln, Virginia, Davis, secession, Fort Sumter

In article <1992Sep4.221723.16063@bnlux1.bnl.gov> COWAN@ANL.GOV writes:

>Foote (and others) cite
>Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops as the reason for the second wave of
>secession. 
>
>It is clear that the governors of the 4 second-tier states (Va, NC,
>Tenn. and Ark.) plus Ky. and Mo. expressed outrage at Lincoln's call
>for men. This seemed to have taken Lincoln by surprise, and I can't
>blame him since it puzzles me too.

I think the key to the decision of the upper south states was that they
agreed that a right to secede existed.  The only disagreement they had 
with the lower south states was on the *advisability* of secession at
that time, not on its *legality*.  Therefore, when the lower south states
had seceded-- an action which the upper south considered perfectly legal--
then the upper south would not wish to be part of coercing them back into
the Union.  Lincoln's call represented coercion of the lower south states,
and the upper south wanted no part of that.

Lincoln's call for troops showed that there was not going to be a peaceful
separation.  The upper south could either secede and join the states with
whom they had the most ties of kinship and economic interest, or remain
in the Union and be required to fight to "invade" the lower south states
(which in the upper south's eyes had been precipitate, but not criminal,
in seceding).  Kentucky tried to remain neutral, even Missouri tried to
remain neutral for a while, but by early May 1861 in Missouri, it was 
clear that neutrality was impossible.

--
Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
Kansas State Univ.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: An open letter to Jones Maxime Murphy (was Re: What the FAQ?)
Keywords: none
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 21:37:54 GMT

KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>I very much regret that this post will undoubtedly result in a renewed
>attack waged across this newsgroup. However, after ignoring the final
>insult I received at the "pen" of Mr. Murphy for over a week, I have 
>decided my sense of "honor" compels me to respond.

Chill, homie. Your honor was never in question. I've always regarded you as a
well-intentioned victim of the brainwashing that passes for history in this
country.

>In <1992Aug28.122257.1791@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu writes:

>: That you're basically a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler who must be killed 
>: forthwith. 

You asked a silly question, you got a silly answer. That remark was a farcical
retort to a farcical question.

>Now, admittedly Mr Jones was engaged in a fairly brisk "fire fight" with two
>other readers of the group at the time. Nevertheless, my strongest criticism
>toward him to that point was that some of is arguments were, "so narrow as 
>to be facetious."

And they were intended to be interpreted as being facetious, in many cases.
This is certainly one of them.

>Short of receiving I public apology from Mr. Murphy (which I am not 
>expecting), these will be my last words directed toward him. Thanks to
>the existence of news readers with kill-file capability, for the past
>week I have enjoyed reading this newsgroup with neither his ratings, 
>nor the rantings of those who have engaged him. From my perspective, 
>it has been a week without personal insults being exchanged, without 
>debates degenerating into comparisons of one's opponent to genocidal 
>meglomaniacs, a week without threats of bodily harm. And yet, the topics 
>that Mr. Murphy berates us for ignoring have proceeded to be discussed, 
>on a very high intellectual plane (with sincere thanks to Mr. Sanders 
>and Mr. Rath).

That's bull. These subjects have once again been swept under the rug. Not to
worry, though. There is a Creole expression, which roughly translates to "If you
keep kicking a dog, one day you will lose your foot". Perhaps centuries from now
Africans will no longer be impoverished and shut out from access to the net,
and we'll see a more balanced accounting of the American Holocaust.

>     Sir: I have just received and read your letter of the 12th instant.
>     Its language is, as you say unusual; its arguments and statements
>     utterly one sided, and its insinuations as unfounded as they are
>     unbecoming.
>        I am &c.
>                                        Jeff'n Davis.
>Same to you, Mr. Murphy.

In the same vein, I will concur that calling you a reincarnation of old Adolf is
somewhat hyperbolic. So go ahead, suspend my poetic license.
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: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P. L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: REFRESHRe: Question concerning the secession of Virginia. '8p!lj
Date: 8 Sep 92 00:21:05 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab

In article <18dfsfINNqc7@moe.ksu.ksu.edu>, jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
: In article <1992Sep4.221723.16063@bnlux1.bnl.gov> COWAN@ANL.GOV writes:
:
: >Foote (and others) cite
: >Lincoln's call for 75,000 troops as the reason for the second wave of
: >secession. 
: >
: >It is clear that the governors of the 4 second-tier states (Va, NC,
: >Tenn. and Ark.) plus Ky. and Mo. expressed outrage at Lincoln's call
: >for men. This seemed to have taken Lincoln by surprise, and I can't
: >blame him since it puzzles me too.
: 
: I think the key to the decision of the upper south states was that they
: agreed that a right to secede existed.  
: Lincoln's call represented coercion of the lower south states,
: and the upper south wanted no part of that.
: 
: Lincoln's call for troops showed that there was not going to be a peaceful
: separation.  [much deleted]
: --
: Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
: Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
: Kansas State Univ.

This seems like a plausible argument, but is it clear that Lincoln did 
intend to use the enlistment to force the seceded states back in? 
Up until that point, he had been extremely careful not to offend the 
slave states that had not seceded, and appeared to believe that the if 
he left the others alone "they would come home, wagging their tails..."

The regular army had been only 16,000 strong before secession. These
were committed to the western frontier, and the officer corps had
since been decimated by resignation of Southerners. If the CSA was a
month ahead in building an army of 100,000 with one-year enlistments,
and this army had demonstrated the use of military force against the
Federal installations that Lincoln had pledged to defend, it is not
clear that Lincoln thought (at that point) that 75,000 three-month
enlistees would be enough to maintain the status quo, let alone coerce
anybody.

I have previously bemoaned my inability to read Lincoln's mind during 
the first half of 1861. Let me appeal again, if anyone knows of a good
biography or history that treats this period in detail, I would be
anxious to read it. Authors seem to want to rush through this period
to get to the "good stuff".

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr. Strangelove: or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: v201lrxa@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (BILL S. PRESTON, ESQ.)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: civil war relatives
Date: 15 Sep 92 01:47:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

don't have any famous civil war relatives that i know of, but my 
grandfather who suffered from alzheimers once thought that his
grandmother lee was related to robert lee. however, in the same
breath he described her as 'an old swamp yankee from way back', 
which made him realize that maybe there really wasn't much relation
at all....... :)

mike
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P. L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Lincoln in the Black Hawk War (was Re: Secession Crisis Lit)
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:56:09 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab

In article <goose.716417394@camelot>, goose@camelot.bradley.edu 
(Bradley Riley) [BR] writes:

[BR] In turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell) [DT] writes:

-------------- Stuff deleted ---------------
[DT] - and that Lincoln himself was
[DT] neither warmonger nor pacifist but felt, finally, that to compromise
[DT] on Fort Sumter without, say, Virginia promising to dissolve its
[DT] secession convention was futile appeasement.

[BR] Interesting.  About Lincoln not being warmonger not pacifist.  He did server
[BR] as a Captain, elected by his fellow men, in the elimnation of the Blackhawks
[BR] while he lived in Salem.  I found this out by serving in 86th ARCOM named
[BR] Blackhawks.  I'm also interested in comfirmation of this info since I live
[BR] in Lincoln, IL.
[BR] 
[BR] 		A little respect                  Bradley A. Riley

Yes, I can confirm that Lincoln participated in the Black Hawk War of
1832. According to Foote, Lincoln interrupted his first campaign for
the Ill. State Legislature to join a 30-day company of volunteers.
Lincoln was elected captain, but the company saw no military action.
After the 30-day enlistments expired, Lincoln re-enlisted for 20 days
as a private, after which he went home and resumed his political
campaign.

I have read elsewhere that Lincoln served under Jefferson Davis in the 
Black Hawk War. Foote gives Davis's rank as 1st Lt., but since he was
in the Regular Army, it is not unreasonable that he might have
"ranked" Lincoln (even while he was a captain). I believe Davis did
see action (serving under his father-in-law, Col. Zachary Taylor) and
after Chief Black Hawk was captured, Lt. Davis was given the
responsibility of escorting the prisoner.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: An open letter to Jones Maxime Murphy (was Re: What the FAQ?)
Keywords: none
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 05:06:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.213754.10418@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>>In <1992Aug28.122257.1791@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu writes:
>
>>: That you're basically a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler who must be killed 
>>: forthwith. 
>
>You asked a silly question, you got a silly answer. That remark was a farcical
>retort to a farcical question.
>In the same vein,I will concur that calling you a reincarnaton of old Adolf is
>somewhat hyperbolic. So go ahead, suspend my poetic license.

Against my better judgement, I will comment that, like Mr. Cowan, I took
this insult (and the others that Mr. Murphy has made) at face value and
did not see anything in any of Mr. Murphy's posts (which I have read) to
indicate that it was "farcical" or "hyperbolic" or "poetic license". If
anyone did, I would ask them to please indicate so.
If no one does this, I would suggest to Mr. Murphy that he consider
seriously revising his method of indicating use of "poetic license."
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Xref: sparky alt.war.civil.usa:1155 soc.roots:6131
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,soc.roots
Subject: Re: civil war connections
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:21:10 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep10.131344.1@cc.uvcc.edu> jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu writes:
>Question:  Has anybody heard of efforts of the National Parks Service, etc.
>           to try and create an indexed computer system containing information
>           concerning Union and Confederates soldiersthat the public could
>           eventually access at the various Civil War Battle Parks?
>
>I have heard a rumor that the different state historical societies are to be
>involved somehow.  Sounds like a great idea.
>
>Marc D. Jerome  

I spoke with one of the rangers about this when I visited Antietam in
June.  They are indeed constructing such a database.  I was told that a
preliminary version of it would be available sometime in the summer of 
1993, but that it would probably take years to make it anywhere near 
complete.  I believe that they are relying primarily on records in the
National Archives, but since these are notoriously unreliable for 
Confederate soldiers, they are probably involving state and local 
historical societies as well.
--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: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: Poetic License (was Re: Reenactment)
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 14:29:36 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1686386F4.M20614@mwvm.mitre.org> M20614@mwvm.mitre.org writes:

> In article <14SEP199222262078@vxcrna.cern.ch>
> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>  
> > In article <2925477496.6.p00098@mail.psi.net>, p00098@mail.psi.net (Jones M Muphy Jr) writes...
> > >>For those of you in North/Central California:
> > >>There will be a Reenactment event on Saturday, Sept. 12 and Sunday
> > >>Sept. 13, in Nevada City, California.  [...]
> >
> > >Perhaps some Africans will be whipped and lynched, to add realism?
> > >Jones
> >
> > Well ah, gee Jones, are you volunteering?
> > Dave
>  
> Perhaps Jones' point is this:  Some people view ACW reenactments as simply
> a chance to strut about and play at toy soldiers.  Jones would like people
> to remember that the ACW wasn't just a series of exciting battles fought in
> a vacuum, that the social and economic tides (no, I *DON'T* want to argue
> just exactly what these were) that gave rise to the ACW should be
> recognized as well.

  Yes, but those tides are awfully boring to watch.  And they take so LONG!
Years, literally, years!

> Didn't Lee say something like, "It is well war is so terrible, else we
> should grow too fond of it."  I think Jones is objecting to some people
> becoming perhaps too fond of the "glory" of reenacting ACW battles.
> **  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616

  No, he objects to their ignoring what HE feels is important.  If he feels 
that strongly about it, then he should stage his own reinactment of slave
auctions and how slaves were treated by the war heroes of both sides.  Build
yourself up, don't tear the other side down, I say.

"War is cruelty." -- William Tecumseh Sherman


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* 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, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian