HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Date: 27 Aug 1992 22:38:13 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>>whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
 
>>>  I think some people are confusing the beginnings of industrialization with
>>>the development of large factories, which occured starting around 1750. The
>>>development of factories occurred considerably after the development of an
>>>industrial structure.
>>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.
>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.

  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?
-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         |
                 N5WVR                                                  |
  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cld1@ra.msstate.edu (Charles L. Dunn)
Subject: Re: Errata
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 13:25:58 GMT

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

>I still believe the inference I drew from my (incorrect) statistic is valid,
>namely that a very few large plantation owners exerted inordinate influence on
>the governments of the Southern states, and that this minority was highly 
>motivated to protect the institution of slavery. However, I may have
>tended to underestimate the importance of the influence of owners of 
>medium-sized holdings. 

I am still bothered by your inference that large slave holders supported
secession. Most studies that I have read suggest that they were Whigs and
tended to oppose secession. Now it is very possible that opposition to
secession was the most rational defense of slavery.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 21:11:34 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.223813.17045@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>>>whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> 
>>>>  I think some people are confusing the beginnings of industrialization with
>>>>the development of large factories, which occured starting around 1750. The
>>>>development of factories occurred considerably after the development of an
>>>>industrial structure.
>>>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.
>>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.
>
>  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.  (Deleted)

I was under the impression that the early factories were mostly powered by 
water wheels.  IMHO, the steam engine's major advantage was letting a
factory be located were there were no suitable streams.  OTOH, it produced
some nasty air pollution, occasionally blew up, and required wood or coal
(produced by clear cutting or mining).

Paul Hollander    pholland@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: What the FAQ?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 17:18:19 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.122257.1791@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

>KILL away, white man. The truth lives on.

Note that Mr. Murphy implies a racial cast to his opinions by assuming
that his opponent must be white. I know that's not true for at least one
of the people he's been flaming.
-- 
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: Aiming at flagbearers.
Keywords: Flags, flagbearers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 17:15:26 GMT

In article <3SEP199209553179@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>In article <1992Sep1.170223.28740@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, COWAN@ANL.GOV writes...

>Your mother wears army boots (just kidding).

Or, if you're from the South, "Your mother goes barefoot".  :)
>
>>This brings me to another military-related question. Often it was the
>>flagbearer that drew a disproportionate share of the enemy fire. Also, I have
>>often read references to the number of flags a given unit captured, or that a
>>given unit had never lost "a gun or a flag". It almost sounds like a game 
>>was being played. Was there really enough military signifiace to a regimental
>>flags (i.e. "Rally 'round the flag, boys!") to warrant all the attention they
>>were apparently given? Or was it simply a "morale thing"?
>
>I think the same argument as above might apply. The flagbearer was supposed to
>do hazardus things like stand up on the battlefield while carrying an unwieldy
>banner and standard.  Since he was supposed to lead, he was also the first to
>leave cover.  While I can believe people might aim for the flag-bearer, I'd
>bet a lot were killed incidentally while doing the stuff flag-bearers are
>supposed to do.

A Civil War regiment of 400 men in line of battle has a front of maybe
200 yards, or about 1/8 of a mile. In the din of battle there's no way to
pass orders by voice, hence the flag. Particularly if you want to know
what the regiment next to you is doing...
Also, if you could shoot down the flagbearer you could seriously hamper the
colonels' control of the regiment until someone else picked it up, and the
common soldiers knew this, so I believe they did in fact aim at flagbearers.
I think the morale issues that were attached to the flag were created so
that people would do as the flagbearer did, which they might not otherwise
care to do when the flagbearer went charging up Lookout Mountain...
>
>The fixation with unit regalia goes back to the Roman legions if not farther.
>I believe three legions lost their "eagles" once to a German attack
>(Teutoburger Wald?) and the following year a counterattack was mounted, one of
>whose objectives was to recover them.  (Two were retaken, if memory serves).
>
The details can be found in I Claudius and Claudius the God, by Robert
Graves, for the curious.


-- 
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: Mac
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 17:12:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.125508.13715@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

>Cash, lots of it, to compensate me for the sufferings of my ancestors. You must
>either be blind or stupid if you've missed the many defenses of the social order
>in the antebellum South. Such gems as "white people treated their slaves like
>human beings", etc.
>
I'm not clear on why we should compensate Mr. Murphy for the sufferings of his
ancestors. His own sufferings would be different, of course. When the
reperations were paid to Japanese survivors of the WWII concentration camps
you had to be a survivor to claim compensation (as I recall it, anyway).
There's an extent to which slavery has caused lasting inequality which does
affect living African-Americans (even those with French, English, Irish, and
probably Afghanistanian descent) but that's why we have affirmative action
programs, to remedy _current_ discrimination.

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

>Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
>NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
>100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113


-- 
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: Re: Industrialization and the Civil War
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:29:21 GMT

spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:

>It's pretty far off the topic for this group, but the notion of an
>earlier Industrial Revolution has been generally accepted among
>economic historians since at least the early 70's.

It's not far off the topic at all. Many people, influenced by Marx, have down-
played the racial aspect of the Civil War and characterized it as a battle
between modes of production, with one side having been through the Industrial
Revolution. I don't buy it, but there it is.
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
Xref: sparky alt.war.civil.usa:1063 alt.appalachian:671
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Date: 4 Sep 1992 15:44:11 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Yes, Gemma, it's quite plausible that soldiers were sent to burn your
ancestors' house, or at least hassle them.  The famous example of taking
the war to the civilians was Sherman's March, but it went on all over
the place.  E.g., Missouri was apparently a hellacious place to live
(kind of like Yugoslavia today) with civilians afraid to admit to
allegiance to either side.

Russ
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: Mon, 24 Aug 92 02:13:12 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?
>
More specific information from the appendix: The following regiments were
principally from Maryland.

4th USC Inf.
9th USC Inf.
19th USC Inf.
30th USC Inf.
39th USC Inf.

All were organized after June 1863 so I don't know about the part about
"the beginning 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: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Lincoln's motivations for the E. P. (was Slavery)
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1992 00:16:13 GMT

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

>This leads to an interesting point concerning the people governing the CSA
>(not necessarily those fighting for it). I have read diplomatic inquiries
>suggesting things like (a) the South resuming its place as an English Colony
>and (b) The CSA giving Texas to Napoleon III of France, in exchange for help in
>avoiding being  reunited with the Union. I have never seen any hint of a
>suggestion that they offered to do what would have been most effective in
>gaining European support, namely that which Lincoln had done, free the slaves.
>I think this gives an interesting insight into the priorities of the leaders of
>the CSA.

Interesting and informative.

>: >It created havoc at the very core of the South, and brought
>: >it to state of crisis.
>: 

>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. (Plus I am sure that Mr. Murphy
>will share more facts related to this.)

Yes, the EP spurred the black guerilla movement in the South. These groups were
poorly equipped and untrained, but were a constant threat to unguarded
plantations, the heart of the Southern economy.

>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.

My sources corroborate this, altough I've forgotten the specifics(it's been 16
years since I've done any serious reading on this!).

>: Try not to be any more revisionist than your distorted positions force you
>: to be.
>: Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

>From the above discussion it is not clear to me who is the one being
>revisionist. The remark about "distorted positions" is entirely out of place!

I have no particular problem with being labelled "revisionist". U.S. History as
currently taught is a sham. I always get a kick out of Americans who get pissed
at how the Japanese history curriculum downplays WWII. The US is in an exactly
analogous position when it comes to the frightful and atrocious experience of 
Africans here.
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: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: More on the Bonnie Blue Flag (was The cycle begins again)
Summary: Connection betwee the Bonnie Blue Flag and a speech by Davis
Keywords: Jefferson Davis, Mississippi, The Bonnie Blue Flag
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:49:44 GMT
Reply-To: COWAN@ANL.GOV
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <0095F95C.2E996500@OCTAVO> jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:

: The melody of "The Bonnie Blue Flag" was taken from a pre-war ditty 
: 
: called "The Irish Jaunty-Car" (a car being a small horse buggy). The words 
: were written by Harry McCarthy, supposedly while witnessing the celebration 
: of a pro-secessionist crowd from his hotel window, following Mississippi's 
: exit from these United States.
: 

This account seems to jive with the story I heard (told by Jim Morgan, a 
folk singer of Civil War songs who lives near Harper's Ferry) that a blue flag
with a single star was first displayed at such a celebration. I just came
across an item in Shelby Foote's book that appears to be relevant. 
On the eve of the 1860 presidential election, Jefferson Davis gave a speech
including the following passage:

     "I glory Mississippi's star! But before I would see it dishonored
     I would tear it from its place to be set upon the perilous ridge of 
     battle as a sign around which her bravest and best shall meet the 
     harvest home of death."

I believe this speech was fairly famous in the South (or at least Mississippi)
so it seems likely that the creation of the flag (with Mississippi's star 
"torn" from the Union flag) was a direct reference to Davis's speech.

BTW, I have always liked the song (even though I'm a Yank).



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)

     "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: coronell@athena.mit.edu (Dan Coronell)
Subject: Just Say 'N' (Was Re: Smoking the peace pipe)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 13:26:08 GMT

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?

					Dan Coronell
					coronell@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jmm@world.std.com (Jones M Murphy)
Subject: Re: Plantation Population
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:02:36 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.

Beware of those numbers. My parents are the first black people in my lineage
to have birth certificates(or to read, or whatever....) in the Americas. 
They were born in '38 and '45, not that long ago.
Recordkeeping has been extremely poor for Africans.
Jones
-- 
********************************************************************************

Jones M Murphy, Jr
Associate, Derivative Products Group
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:33:36 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.123857.2310@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>
>OK, I'll dispense with the apologies if you just fork over the cash. In small,
>unmarked bills.
>Jones

Gee, it's almost worth it just for the quality of the rhetoric.  Where should
I send the money, and should I limit it to bills without pictures of
slaveholders on them?  (I assume that you will accept some bills with
DWEM's on them - otherwise this won't be easy.)

Joe Dzikiewicz
From: tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas J. Joyce)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Splitting this news group to military and social
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:18:03 GMT
Organization: Administrative Systems, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA


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.
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 12:24:37 GMT

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!

Take Care,
 
John 



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

a750288@pan.mc.ti.com 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa