HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Slavery
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 05:13:06 GMT

Some clarifications, having checked through my reference shelf:

6 state-recruited colored regiments existed: 1st South Carolina, 1st 2nd and
3rd Louisiana, 1st Kansas Colored, and 54th Massachussetts. Most of the men
in the 54th Mass were also from the South. (There were some other state-
recruited colored regiments that become designated as USCT, as did the
Louisiana regiments above.)
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.
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.

All of the above information comes from the book United States Colored
Troops 1863-1867 by William A. Gladstone.
-- 
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: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 92 21:33:02 GMT

Having just read _From_Manassas_To_Appomattox_ in the last week, I would
say I didn't find it particularly vitrolic, certainly not when compared
to the things said by Early and others about Longstreet. Longstreet's
book is also milder than the section of Hood's book which is in reply to
General Johnston's criticisms of Hood.

As I understand it, all of the allegations raised against Longstreet at
Gettysburg are false. That said, it has always seemed to me that he was
guilty of not allowing Hood to move one brigade to the right of Little
Round Top. Hood believed that this brigade would have taken the Union in
rear and found itself among the Union trains, and I've never seen anyone
claim otherwise. In his book he is quite explicit about it.
Longstreet only replied "General Lee's orders are to attack up the Emmitsburg
road" and never gave any reasons why not to move one brigade right. It seems
to me that such a move would be entirely within the discretion Lee allowed
his corps commanders in battle.
Why doesn't discussion of Longstreet's role at Gettysburg touch on this
issue? Is there some aspect of it that I don't understand? It seems to me
that one brigade in the Union rear on the second day of Gettysburg could
quite possibly have changed the outcome of the battle and I've never heard any
reason not to blame Longstreet for refusing Hood permission to send it there.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Organization: Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:14:20 -0400 
From: "Joshua M. Sabloff" <jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
	<1992Aug20.233912.17855@cco.caltech.edu>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 20-Aug-92 Re: A fresh start.
Negroes .. Jones Maxime Murphy@cco. (6638)

> I agree. And I understand why simple greed and racism motivated southern whites
> during the Civil War.:) What I've never understood is how the North managed to
hold together during the war.

Oh, it might have had something to do with Lincoln suspending Habeas
Corpus.  He arrested Copperheads quite liberally.

-Josh Sabloff (jsa5@andrew.cmu.edu)
"Now go away before I taunt you a second time-a!"
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf)
Subject: Re: Secession
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:46:38 GMT

In article <5460@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal Bello) writes:
>Just a quit note concerning the Xth Amendment:
>
>i.e. the Powers not given to the Fed. Govt. are reserved for the states.
>
>
>How, in the world, can the Federal government secede from the United
>States.  it cannot.  it is a "power" that is cannot posses.  So, can
>the states "logically" (for lack of better term) use this X Amend argument 
>It seems these "powers" refer to those which the Fed. govt could have.

The 10th Amendment says, simply, that anything that the Constitution
does not give the Federal government the explicit power to do, then
it is prohibited from doing it. Anything that that the states are
not prohibited from doing by the Constitution and which are not
at variance with the common law rights of the people, they have the
power to do.

-- 
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
 | 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: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Hood was horrible
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 17:26:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.081330.21133@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>I have a very poor opinion of Hood as a theatre-level commander.  Johnston had
>said that he could have held Atlanta forever, behind massive
>fortifications.

Well, that's what Johnston said. However, his movements during the Peninsular
Campaign of 1862 don't lend much credibility.

>inside of it before the '64 elections.  A prolonged and bloody siege a la
>Petersburg would almost certainly have swayed the election away from Lincoln.
>
>But what does Hood do?  He attacks a force that greatly outnumbers him, coming
>out from behind those fortifications.

This is exactly what Johnston and Lee both did in 1862. The only difference
is that they were up against a greatly inferior opponent.

>After getting his butt kicked, he goes marching off into Tennessee, where he
>manages to wreck what's left of his army at Franklin and Nashville.  This guy
>was a lousy strategist, and I think he was worse than McClellan:  sure, he was
>the pits as a soldier, but at least McClellan didn't get his soldiers killed
>needlessly.

Hmm. Considering Antietam, I'm not sure I'd agree with that statement. A lot
of McClellan's men got killed pretty needlessly there (Sedgewick's division
to name one bunch).
Also, we might also point out that McClellan's men rarely got killed at all,
needlessly or otherwise, because of his reluctance to attack.

>Query: Stonewall Jackson was also noted for his audacity, and he was never at
>the head of a major army (unless you count the Valley campaign of '62, which I
>do not).  How would Stonewall have performed as the head of a major southern
>army?
>
The first time he came up against a Union commander who knew how to march
his army quickly he'd have been crushed. Not unlike what happened to Hood.
Jackson also has a long record of making attacks (including frontal attacks)
against numerically superior forces.


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

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: errata
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:37:13 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara


sorry, the XI corps was not a "hardluck regiment" has i stated stupidly,
but a hardluck corps.

yours,

d
From: hall@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Date: 21 Aug 1992 17:28:16 GMT
Organization: McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company

>Yes, I'm sure you don't. Yet the situation in the CSA certainly was a crime 
>against humanity of as great a magnitude as the situation in Hitler's Germany.
>It also endured for centuries, as opposed to a few years. The death toll was
>far greater, despite inferior technology and the lack of an articulated ideology
>of genocide as such.

>I understand the motivations of the South, too. Greed, racism and the arrogance
>that comes with being able to get away with horrific crimes for extended periods
>of time.

One thing that seems to be ignored in this discussion is the fact that there were
many Northern "entrepreneurs" who got very rich by buying slaves in Africa and
selling them to the Southern planters.

The Northeners only got this attack of revulsion concerning slavery when they
were no longer able to profit from it. Seems like everyone with motivations of
greed and racism may not have been located South of the Mason-Dixon line.

PH
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William E Van Horne)
Subject: Re: Who wrote Grant's memoirs?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 12:23:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.113516.10261@access.digex.com> dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:
>I have heard rumors that Mark Twain ghost-wrote Grant's memoirs.
>I know that he editted them, and Grant's memoirs are very much in Twain's
>style.  But Twain denies that he did more than edit.
>
>Anyone out there have any light to shine on this subject?
>
>Joe Dzikiewicz


There have been many stories, written by many people and including
photographs, of Grant's labors in personally writing every word of
his memoirs on his front porch while in great pain.

Remember he was dying of cancer, and knew it; also he was bankrupt.
He was terribly worried about support of his wife, Julia, after he
was dead.  He felt his only chance of leaving any substantial estate
was to finish his memoirs before his death.  In fact, as I remember
it, he finished it only a couple of days before his last breath.

Bill Van Horne, Sr.
wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:16:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.050628.24676@nwnexus.WA.COM> renge@halcyon.com (Robert Hilton) writes:
>
>It seemed to me that Johnson was playing the defensive game in hopes of
>chopping up a portion of Sherman's army, because Sherman did have three
>separate army groups, and they kept maneuvering around to catch Johnso
>off-guard or outflank his own army.  If not take a bite out of one of
>Sherman's armies, then to watch the Union troops wear themselves out on
>the solid southern defenses. However, Sherman was too adept, and his
>troops too practical about their lives, to spend themselves on those
>lines.  Wasn't it Resaka that Johnson nearly got a bite out of
>Schofield's army, but just missed the timing due to Hood not getting
>there in time?

It was beyond that. Hood DIDNT WANT TO ATTACK. Mr. Aggressive, whose
brigade took 50% losses at Antietam, and whose divison took 50% losses
at Gettysburg, and whose army would take 50% losses in infantry at
Franklin, was worried about a detachment of troop reported on his flank.
Might this have something to do with the letters he was sending to Davis
at the time, saying HE should be in command of the army?

>
>					Robert Hilton
>					renge@halcyon.com
>


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Re: Re: Hood was horrible
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 12:52:24 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Aug21.030630.28691@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com writes:

: >>
: >The first time he came up against a Union commander who knew how to march
: >his army quickly he'd have been crushed. Not unlike what happened to Hood.
: >Jackson also has a long record of making attacks (including frontal attacks)
: >against numerically superior forces.
: >
: >
: 
: Whipping a superior force with attacks is what separates the
: audaciously briliant commander from the stupid commander.
: 
: Lee knew he could win with attacks against the various union
: commanders in the early phases of the war.  He was also smart enough
: to switch to defense when Grant came on the scene (Ok, Gettysburg
: probably had a little to do with this too).
: 
: Hood did not know when to switch.  It's too bad we will never know how
: Jackson would have fared when the strategy needed changing.  Johnston
: was probably right in his strategy of strategic withdrawal toward
: Atlanta as he tried to force Sherman into a battle to his (Johnston's)
: advantage several times during Sherman's advance, but Sherman would
: not bite. Staying in Atlanta would have forced Sherman to attack a
: heavily defended area that could not be circumvented.  And the effects
: on the 1864 elections could have been different if Johnston had still
: been in command.
: 
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: +Dick Winningstad                                                    +
: +                            Two Wheels                              +
: +                          Two Cylinders                             +
: +                             Two Fast                               +
: +dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 18:23:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.155857.25877@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>battle fought by Lee after losing Jackson.  Longstreet was a reasonably
>good leader, but he didn't have the touch of genius that Jackson and Lee
>shared.

Hm. Two thoughts on this subject. First, I think that most of the "touch of
genuis" that Lee and Jackson had was largely based on complete contempt
for their opponents. In many of Lee's and Jackson's great battles, they
did things that would have enabled a competent opponent to crush them:
eg, Seven Days, Antietam, Chancellorsville. I have always thought that
their reputations were built less on their own skill and more on the lack
of skill of McClellan, Pope, Burnside, and Hooker. On the other hand, you
have to credit them with recognizing when they were up against inferior
generals and taking advantage of it.
But, when Meade and Grant took over, Lee continued behaving as if he was
up against McClellan, and it was Longstreet who was warning that the Union
army had better commanders and the old tricks wouldn't work anymore. Hence
the loss at Gettysburg.
Same thing with Jackson's and Longstreet's tries at independent command.
Jackson was up against Frement and Sigel, while Longstreet was up against
Rosecrans and Parke (and also Burnside, to be fair). If the Union army
had a competent commander in the Valley in 1862 Jackson might just be
a footnote in the history of a nine-month war.

Second, Jackson was occasionally brilliant and occasionally incompetent,
for example at the Seven Days battles. Longstreet was not at good as Jackson's
best but was much better than Jackson's worst. (Of course, Jackson wasn't
at his worst very often.) I don't know whether I prefer genius or reliable
brilliance... it's a tough call.
-- 
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: Slavery
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 05:00:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.035253.22360@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

>This is very true. The slaves were freed as much as a military maneuver as for
>any other reason.

Not true. That was his rationalization for it, because he could only issue
edicts for military reasons. In fact, however, it was done for purely
political reasons stemming from the conflicts between Lincoln and the
Senate, but going deeper than that.
Rather than try to sum up an entire literature, I'll refer you to Catton's
Terrible Swift Sword which discusses it in some detail.

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

Not true. It had essentially no effect on the South whatever except to
confirm the impression that they already had, that the Republican party
wanted to take their slaves away. Since they already thought that, what
impact could it have had?

>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.

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.)

Try not to be any more revisionist than your distorted positions force you
to be.
-- 
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: Secession
Date: 17 Aug 92 19:20:07 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

If I recall, the Supreme Court serves a reactive function; it hears cases which are brought before it (and often declines to hear cases). It does not initiate review of general prinicples as a matter of course (if this is a gross oversimplification, or wrong, I apologize in advance: it's been a long time since 7th grade civics class). I am not sure how secession would have been brought before the court. Jefferson Davis stayed in Washington, D.C. several days after vacating his Senate seat, in part to await






 
arrest for treason, thereby bringing the issue of secession before a court.

Also, a southern packed court would not have wanted to review the legality of secession prior to 1860: at least one northern state (Vermont?) had threated to seceed earlier, and seceeding Northern states would not be bound by the fugitiveslave laws or constitutional protections of slave-owners.

Your obedient servant,
JT Hoppers
9th Va. Cav., Co. B
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:19:48 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.185554.3274@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug21.172816.8056@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> hall@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031) writes:
>>One thing that seems to be ignored in this discussion is the fact that there were
>>many Northern "entrepreneurs" who got very rich by buying slaves in Africa and
>>selling them to the Southern planters.
>>
>>The Northeners only got this attack of revulsion concerning slavery when they
>>were no longer able to profit from it. Seems like everyone with motivations of
>>greed and racism may not have been located South of the Mason-Dixon line.
>>
>Well, the slave trade was outlawed by the Constitution in 1808.
> (Deleted)

It was illegal to import slaves, yes.  But, any such illegally imported 
slaves were seized as contraband by the customs people and sold at
auction.  Thus he becomes a legally purchased slave.  It was possible to
work out a nice little racket if you cut the customs people in on the 
take so that you could buy back the confiscated slaves for a song at the
customs auction.  Then sell them at normal prices.  I believe that 
Jean Lafitte, of Battle of New Orleans fame, engaged in this racket.

Slaves aboard captured ships in African waters could be landed in Liberia or
some such place.  But it would be too costly to ship slaves back to Africa
from the USA.  And, IMHO, there were too few US and British navy ships 
near Africa to do more than slightly dent the slave trade.  It was too 
profitable, and more than one proper Boston or Bristol merchant had a 
finger in the pie.

Whatever names one calls slavery, we have to remember that every great
empire in history had slavery.  Make a list of slaves and slavers, and 
nearly every group of people within the last 4000 years would be on one 
or both.  With all of technology's drawbacks, at least it has made
slavery uneconomical.  

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



Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: steven@jaynes ( Steve Novak)
Subject: Re: Colorado Reenactors?  (WAS Reenactment questions)
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 20:32:59 GMT

> = (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:

>If you've just finished Vol. I of Foote you will recall a Naval officer by that 
>name (on the Union side...) He was the very pious one, who was killed on the
>deck of his gunboat....
>
>I believe that guy was Shelby's great-grandfather. 

In Volume II (~ pg. 160) another Foote is mentioned (damn, forgot his
first name...).  He was a quite bellicose Southern Congressman.

I wonder just how many Feete :) in the war Shelby was related to?

-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Steve Novak |    |"Wacker the K"| 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
steven@advtech.USWest.Com
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: More News of the World
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:11:29 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

More Lee - Texan quotes:
"General Hood, When your Texans are here all the chickens have to roost high",
a tribute to their skill at foraging. "My Texans are always ready", a reply to a question put to Lee regarding units available for the offensive.

I've always been partial to Sam Houston's description of Jefferson Davis as, "as cold as a lizard and as ambitious as Lucifer."

JT Hoppers
9th Virginia Cav., Co.B.
NCWA
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Re: Re: Let's get a decent title for the slavery thread
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 23:11:14 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <1992Aug22.045046.29773@hubcap.clemson.edu> trev@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:

: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
: 
: >>> Your culture and heritage are built on the blood and suffering of mine. 
: 
: >was the wealth of the US. In any case, I was responding to someone who 
: >identified the *Confederate flag* as their "heritage & culture". Surely you
: >do not want to identify all "white" culture with the Confederate flag. Or
: 
: You were responding to me, and I was in no way limiting my discussion to
: the "Confederate flag."  The subject header read "A fresh start...,"
: meaning a departure from the discussion of the Confederate flag.  

As the author of the original posting of "A fresh start", I say that it was
suppose to mean, "This newsgroup is only a few months (and a couple hundred
postings) old and already the the decibel level is becoming annoying. Let's
cool it!"

I have communicated privately with both of you guys, and neither is irrational
except when you are bashing each other's heads. If that's what you really enjoy
doing, keep it between the two of you and TAKE IT OFF THE NET!

Sadly, "RE: A Fresh Start" is going into my KILL file. (Who says, I can run but
I can't hide?)


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