HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Plantation Population (correction)
Date: 3 Sep 1992 03:53:17 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

Sorry to follow-up my own post, but I do wish to correct/retract some 
errors I made:

In article <181mfcINNg5q@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>  
>One would think that if the mortality rates of the slaves and the free 
>whites differed greatly, then the age distributions would not be 
>essentially identical as they are.  For a comparison with infant 
>mortality rates, I got the following age distributions and infant
>mortality rates from "Phillips Geographical Digest 1992-93"
>
>            0-4   5-14   15-59   60+    infant mort(*)
>Belgium       6    12      62    21         8
>U.S.          7    14      62    17         8
>Bangledesh   17    27      52     5       108
>Ethopia      19    27      50     5       122
>Kenya        20    30      45     4        64
>Texas 1860 (**)
>      slave  18    28      52     2   
> free white  18    29      52     2
>
>(*) deaths less than 1 yr. old per 1000 (1990 U.N. est.)
>(**) my computation from the "Population of the United States in 1860"
>     (Washington:Govt. Printing Office, 1864)
>
>Note the considerable similarity of the age distributions for
>Bangledesh and Ethopia to those for the 1860 Texas free white and
>slave populations.  As a caution, however, note also that while
>Kenya's distribution is also similar, the infant mortality rate is
>half that of Ethopia (Kenya's is 8 times that of the U.S. or Belgium
>and the age distributions are quite different).  From this admittedly 
>limited sample, it would appear that there is *some* correlation
>between the age distribution and the infant mortality rate.  And this
>correlation seems to support the contention that similar age
>distributions have similar infant mortality rates (within a factor of
>two).

Lo and behold, the weak point mentioned above-- that age distributions
may be identical while the infant mortality rates vary by factors of
two-- comes to pass.  In Kenneth M. Stampps, "The Peculiar Institution",
he has some figures that pretty clearly show that infant mortality among
the slaves was about twice that of the free whites.  I would call a factor
of 2 to be a significant difference, so I yield to Rich Rath on this 
point.  Thanks, Rich, for pointing it out.
--
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: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: The cycle begins again: CSA Flags (was the slavery thread)
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:23:43 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23


In <ceZxwje00WBO020pob@andrew.cmu.edu> "Joshua writes:

: The person who called the Stars and Bars the foundation of his cultural
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: heritage is also patently wrong.  Perhaps it was a contributing factor
: -Josh Sabloff (jsa5@andrew.cmu.edu)
: "Now go away before I taunt you a second time-a!"

Okay, now this is going to sound absurdly irrelevant, but believe it or not
this whole business began with a calm discussion of the names and appearances
of the various National Flags and other flags used by the CSA and their
military forces. I therefore find it somewhat ironic that weeks later the same
thread had drifted so far that you can innocently make the same mistake that
triggered the original discussion of this trivia in the first place. 

Since many people are joining the group, let's review what we've learned so far.

What we call the "Rebel Flag" is actually the "Confederate Navy Jack". 
The "Confederate (Beauregard's) Battle Flag" looks the same except it's square.
These two flags were military banners and not the National Flag of the CSA.

The original National Flag of the CSA was the "Stars and Bars". In appearance
it was an approximation of the "Betsy Ross Flag" except it had only 7 stars,
and two red bars (surrounding one white bar) in place of 13 red and white
stripes. Stars may or may not have been added as other states joined the CSA
(we never established this point). 

Roughly in the middle of the war the "Stars and Bars" was replaced by the
"Stainless Banner" as the CSA National Flag. This was a white flag with a small
version of the "Confederate Navy Jack" as its field. One other flag, whose name
I've forgotten, was a modified "Stainless Banner" with a red stripe down one
end. This was the last officail National Flag of the CSA, but it was adopted
too late for many to have been made before the war's end.

If this group ever gets past the current round of trading political opinions and
starts asking factual questions again, I nominate the names of the CSA flags as
the first entry for the FAQ.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: wwarf@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Slavery
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 17:57:16 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.035253.22360@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>sterling@crash.cts.com (Mike Sterling) writes:
>
>>time of the Emmancipation Proclamation, desertion rates withen the Union army increased significantly.  Many Northerns did not like the idea of being killed to free the slaves.
>
>This is very true. The slaves were freed as much as a military maneuver as for
>any other reason. It created havoc at the very core of the South, and brought
>it to state of crisis. By the end of the war, well over 10% of the Union army
>was ex-slaves. Freeing the slaves brought fresh, highly motivated manpower into
>a beleaguered Union camp.

I just finished responding to a note of the "Battle Hymn of the Republic"
and this note reminded me of another called "Give us a Flag"
by a Anonymous member of Company A of the 54th


Oh, Fremont he told them when the war had first begun
How to save the Union and the way it should be won
But old Kentucky swore so hard and Abe he had his fears
Till every hope was lost but the colored volunteers

MacClellan went to Richmond, 200,000 brave
He said, "Keep back the Niggers" and the Union I will save
Little Mac, he had his way and the Union still in tears
Now they call for the help of the colored volunteers

Oh, give us a flag, all free without a slave
We'll fight to defend it as our fathers did so brave
The gallant Company "A" will those rebels dance
And we'll stand by the Union if we only get a chance

Old Jeff says he'll hang us if we dare to meet him armed
A very big thing, but we are not alarmed
For he first has got to catch us before his way is clear
That 's "what's the matter" with the colored volunteers

So rally, boys, rally, let us never mind the past
We had a hard road to travel but our day is come at last
For God is for the right, and we have no need to fear
The Union must be saved by the colored volunteer
-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
 |"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" |
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:31:37 GMT

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

>>This is a curious and interesting viewpoint. It means that Western Africa was
>>also industrialized when the Europeans arrived.

>I don't think that Western Africa had developed the regional specialties, and
>I'm pretty sure they didn't have the putting-out system of production.  My
>knowledge of Western Africa is sadly limited (no courses in African economic
>history here, which I'm sure will displease Mr. Murphy) so if Mr. Murphy
>can post some further information he can probably convince me otherwise.

By all means. I will dig up my copy of Walter Rodney's "How Europe
Underdeveloped AFrica". It's a book I strongly recommend.
The absence of AFrican History courses in your University is not surprising,
although Africans are the largest ethnic group in the US. It is a continuation
of the great American race war on the intellectual front.

>>But that is what is referred to as the Industrial Revolution, I'm afraid. Your
>>definition is reasonable but unconventional.

>The original poster mentioned industrialization, not the Industrial Revolution.

That person was tilting at windmills, since I referred to the period commonly
called the industrial revolution, and the century preceding that.

>The idea of an Industrial Revolution has been significantly downplayed in
>the last ten years. The stylized facts used to be that England underwent a
>major change in the mid 1700's, but on close examination that turned out
>not to be true; the changes leading to industrialization were not
>"revolutionary" but were introduced over a period of 150 years or so, between
>about 1625 and about 1775. The research on this is all from the 1980's, so
>people who went through school before then wouldn't have caught it unless
>they keep up with the economic history literature. My definition wasn't
>conventional in 1980, but has since become so. It hasn't worked its way
>down past the academic community very far, I guess. It will as people start
>re-writing the textbooks.

That's neither here nor there, as far as this discussion is concerned. Between
1625 and 1775, England vastly expanded it's colonizing and enslaving, stealing
a vast amount of wealth and labour from other nations. That was key in securing
the explosive growth of industry in England.
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: a750288@pan.mc.ti.com (John E. Brennan)
Subject: Re: Black Troops
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:25:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.172722.16682@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>The reason I made the distinction between state and Federal colored
>regiments is that the question at hand was whether the Emancipation
>Proclamation had authorized the recruiting of former slaves into
>military service. Since the EP could only affect Federal troops, I
>wanted to point out that existing regiments were state-recruited,
>hence their recruitment was not related to the EP, a Federal document.
>I had nothing more than that in mind.
>-- 
>Steve Schmidt                  <><                whale@leland.stanford.edu

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


Oops, my mistake.  Sorry I read more into your statements than you intended.

Take Care,
 
John 



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            
John Brennan 

a750288@pan.mc.ti.com 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Re: "Coloured" troops in the Union Army
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 20:54:21 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23


This is not specifiacally in reference to previous threads (which I hope are
showing some signs of returning to rationality), but the title more or less
fits the following question:

When I lived in Maryland, there was a fair amount of discussion of many blacks
(escaped slaves and free-born) enlisting for the Union from the begining of the
war. Some Maryland units simply accepted black recruits, and in other cases
the enlistees "passed". Does anyone have any knowlege of this in other states,
or was Maryland unique?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight)
Subject: Re: Confederate flag, Swastika, etc....and an apology (!)
Organization: Jes Grew Carriers -- Metaphysical Bunko Squad 
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 18:28:02 GMT

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

>>My comments about "culture and heritage" were in no way related to the 
>>discussion of the Confederate flag.

>Then what were they related to, exactly? There were no attacks on Southern

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

>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...
 
>impose "ownership" on someone else can then "treat them like a human being".
>This is so farcical as to be beneath rebuttal. You should be ashamed of
>yourself.

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.

That's why I wrote:

>>of legal ownership was indeed still present and resulted in a feeling
>>of superiority among whites, but not all of them were cruel and harsh.
>>Many of them were simply doing what they learned was proper.  Remember

>This is great. I love it. It cogently summarizes the whole issue. To what
>extent are people justified in inflicting pain on others because that's what
>"they were taught was proper"? And this was industrial-strength pain!

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

>>that the South was (and is) an extremely religious section, and the
>>fact remains that slavery is sanctioned and its details legislated, by
>>the Christian God, according to the Old Testament.  One defense of 

>I agree entirely. It is difficult to understand why AFricans in the US are

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?
 
Trevor Bauknight         trev@hubcap.clemson.edu    ...gatech!hubcap!trev
 
                                                     +-----------+
                                                     | _> ###    |
                  fish on                            |     |     |
                                                     +-----------+
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Lincoln's motivations for the E. P. (was Slavery)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 23:04:59 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.200911.6994@bnlux1.bnl.gov> KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>I think Mr Schmidt is overlooking the activities of the blacks in the south.
>There was mass exodus of slaves from the plantations. This disrupted the
>Southern economy as much or more than Sherman.

Yes, but that was happening before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued
as well. Read accounts of McClellan's landing on the Peninsula or Burnside's
landing on the North Carolina coast and you will see that whenever Union
troops arrived the slaves deserted their owners, both before and after the
Proclamation.
I'm not disputing that this happened, only that the Proclamation was the cause.

>: True but unrelated to the Emancipation Proclamation. That proclamation says
>: nothing about arming slaves. The decision to recruit colored troops into
>: the Federal army was made in late 1863, and no such troops saw action until
>: 1864. (Some state-recruited colored troops, notably 54th Massachussetts, saw
>: action in 1863.)
>: 
>
>I fail to understand Mr. Schmidt's point. The vast majority of Union troops
>served in State regiments. The 54th Mass was recruited early in 1863 and
>fought at Ft. Wagner days after Gettysburg. Ft. Wagner was not their first
>battle, nor were they the first Black regimant to see battle.
>
>Black regiments endured some of the bloodiest fighting around Petersburg. 
>When the war ended the Army was in the process of establishing an entire corps
>of Black troops (to be the 26th Corps I believe).
>
The point I was trying to make was that the Emancipation Proclamation did not
establish colored regiments.
To make that point, I stated that USCT did not see action until over a year
after the EP and that troops previously in action were state, not Federal.

As far as "distorted positions" goes, after Jones has attacked myself and
other people on this board as being racist and apologists for the South,
slavery, and the Nazis, I see no reason why I should not be blunt in labelling
his positions "distorted" if that's how I see them. You don't have to agree
with me, but what I'm saying is much less offensive that what he has said
about me and others in other debates.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
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 23:07:47 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.205421.7475@bnlux1.bnl.gov> KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>When I lived in Maryland, there was a fair amount of discussion of many blacks
>(escaped slaves and freeborn) enlisting for the Union from the begining of the
>war. Some Maryland units simply accepted black recruits, and in other cases
>the enlistees "passed". Does anyone have any knowlege of this in other states,
>or was Maryland unique?
>
According to "United States Colored Troops" 14 states raised colored
regiments that were redesignated as USCT. It doesn't say for sure, but
it seems more than likely that Maryland was one of them 14. Three states
raised colored regiments that retained their state designations: Connecticut,
Louisiana, and Massachussetts.


-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P. L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and socialdir
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:23:52 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab

In article <1992Sep3.043625.3799@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <NLHDqB13w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> djredick@bluemoon.rn.com (Darrin J. Redick) writes:
>>
>>Here, here!  I second that notion!  I don't enjoy seeing the current 
>>'battle' on here between Jones and everyone else.  I enjoy seeing stuff
>>on what really counts (for me, anyway): the actual CW battles.  Perhaps
>>a CFV, or RFD is in order here.
>>
> I'm opposed to the division: I think the majority of traffic would simply
> be crossposted or would be missed by a large interested readership.
> I think the appropriate response to Mr. Murphy (or Mr. Casper, depending
> on which side you take) is to create a kill file, not to divide the
> newsgroup.
> -- 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
> 
> "We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
-- 

I agree with Steve. (I only discovered this thread by accident since /urphy/
is in my kill file for both header and text.)

Mr. M-----'s and (Dr.?) Casper's recent discussions apparently have inculded
the library at Alexandria (and that is their most benign extreme) so if 
we did split the group there is no reason to expect they would respect the new
guidlines any better than the old. Kill files work quite well. You miss nothing
interesting (I've checked).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 prefered one)

   "I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall 
   adopt new views so fast as they appear to be true views." 
   - A. Lincoln, Letter to the Editor, New York Tribune, August 22, 1862.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:04:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.201930.1091@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie) writes:
>with blankets for the wounded, and a small amount of food. When she ran out of 
>blankets, she packed men in straw to keep them warm and stretched the food into 
>a watery soup.  The soldiers credited her efforts that night in saving many men 
>from freezing to death.
>
>I always picture her as a clone of my grandmother and my Aunt Irene --
>country women with physical strength and the ingenuity to make do with very
>little.  I'll have to read up on Mother Bickerdike again. It's been too long.
>
>Gemma McLuckie

This story reminds me of a legend in my family. My gg grandfather joined
the 100th Ohio regt in 1862, and fought with it in Thomas's army of the
Tennessee until he was wounded, allegedly in the thigh, at Peachtree
Creek, in the battles around Atlanta. Somehow, he was shipped North to
Washington D.C.. But, communications being what they were, his family
wasn't notified. Allegedly, his mother (my ggg grandmother) had a dream
in which she saw that he had been wounded and on the strength of it,
went off to Washington, found him and help to nurse him back to health.
    I don't believe the dream part of the story, but the rest is
entirely plausable. I guess it is a good example that a lot of
convalescent care was provided informally by family members.


    Also, I have to wonder about my gg grandfather getting shot in the
"thigh", he appearantly walked with a limp for the rest of his life, but
he managed to keep the leg. From pictures I have seen of him, he is
thin, and there wouldn't be a whole lot to hit in the thigh but bone. I
am amazed that a minie ball, which was notorious for causing huge, bone
shattering wounds, didn't hit something vital, which would have led to
a) death by bleeding, or b) amputation of an open fracture (with
attendant risks). I speculate that either my gg grandfather was hit by a
spent ball or piece of shrapnel, or he was grazed ("its only a flesh
wound...;) ), or he got shot in the butt and was too proud to admit it.
Any forensic pathologists out there who care to enlighten me?

   I would also be interested in specific info about where the 100th Oh.
was during the battles around Atlanta. The Atlas to Accompany the
Official Records only has listings by Divisions in its map for the
Peachtree Creek battlefield. Can anybody help?

   Thanks in advance,

 
   Tom
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa