HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Capture of Washington: "Conventional Wisdom"
Date: 17 Dec 92 07:44:55 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec16.134924.21028@panix.com>, spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
> 
>>"One elderly veteran of the 25th New York Cavalry thought as late as
>>1915: 'If Gen. Early had the proper pluck, he could have gotten into
>>Washington....our skirmish line was thrown out n a single file over a
>>large front.'  Lieutenant Frank Wilkeson, assigned to Battery A, 4th
> ...
>>down the rifle pits on either side.  'The line once broken, the work
>>done, and the city would be in their possession,' declared Lieutenant
>>Edgar S. Dudley, 2d U.S. Artillery...."
> 
> A couple of artillery lieutenants from a garrison force? I'm quite
> sure they were qualified observers... of their platoon front. I
> repeat: Neither Early nor anyone else was ever going to take
> Washington.
> 
> dhs   spencer@panix.com
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   "I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic and a rodeo, but
                that's the stupidest thing I ever heard..."_Dr.Strangelove_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Capture of Washington: "Conventional Wisdom"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 19:30:28 GMT

Let me quote from the final paragraph of B.F. Cooling's "Jubal Early's
Raid on Washington, 1864":

"One elderly veteran of the 25th New York Cavalry thought as late as
1915: 'If Gen. Early had the proper pluck, he could have gotten into
Washington....our skirmish line was thrown out n a single file over a
large front.'  Lieutenant Frank Wilkeson, assigned to Battery A, 4th
United States Artillery (and witness to the battle at Fort Stevens),
thought he knew the answer too.  'I unhesitatingly answer yes,' he
contended, adding that the southern general could have taken the city
without losing more than one thousand men."

Elsewhere Cooling notes:

"At least one Federal observer thought that a determined enemy drive
at that moment could have taken the fort [Stevens] and then swept
down the rifle pits on either side.  'The line once broken, the work
done, and the city would be in their possession,' declared Lieutenant
Edgar S. Dudley, 2d U.S. Artillery...."

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: Winning the war in the West (Richmond and Washingtom`n
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:31:46 GMT

In article <tecump.724277205@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:

>Do you think that England would even challenge the Federal govt?  i am 
>still a little hazy on my opinion of the subject due to lack of study
>of that.  But the United States soon had the strongest fleet in the 
>world.  

A valid question.  Can somebody verify the "stongest fleet in the world"
assertion?  However, even if it is not technically true, the sudden
introduction of ironclad technology would surely have changed the
equation in American waters.  I am thinking here primarily of the po-
tential American threat to Canada.  The early ironclads were, I imagine,
both rather shortlegged (because of limitations on their fuel supply)
and unseaworthy.  This means that an American ironclad fleet operating
from, say, New England, would have had considerable advantages over 
a British ironclad fleet operating from the UK.  This, of course, begs
two questions -- British ability to sweep American commerce from the
seas, and possible British ability to rebase their fleet in American
waters.

But the primary threat to Canada would have been the massive Federal
army.  The British would, I think, have been hard put to match it.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Importance of Vicksburg (was Stonewall at Gettysburg)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 21:15:54 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: curie.phys.ksu.edu

In article <Bz93wp.II1@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
 (gary charbonneau) writes:
>In article <1992Dec13.165044.2763@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com
> (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>>The loss of Vicks burg was fatal to the CSA because:
>>
>>1.  The CSA was cut in half, and supplies such as food and horses from
>>Texas etc. were now eliminated (ok drasticly reduced).
>>
>>2.  An outlet for trade through Mexico was cut off.  Especially
>>important as the blockade tightened.
>
>What percentage of Cis-Mississippi food and horses came from the Trans-
>Mississippi?  What percentage of CSA trade moved in and out via
>Mexico?

James(?) Nichols' book, The Confederate Quartermaster of the Transmississippi, 
deals extensively with the Mexico trade (mainly through Matamoros).  
My impression was that the Matamoros trade was very significant for the 
Trans-Miss, but that it really did not develop until after the 
Trans-Miss was isolated.

Regarding the importance of Vicksburg, Michael Wright had an article
"Vicksburg and the Trans-Mississippi Supply Line (1861-1863)" in the
Journal of Mississippi History, vol ? (Aug 1981), pp210-225.  His conclusion
was that Vicksburg's was important as a shipping point for sugar, molasses,
and salt from Louisiana.  The sugar and molasses were valuable commodities
in the east and could be traded for meat.  While such trade was significant, 
I double that the Confederacy fell from a lack of sugar.

Even prior to the fall of Vicksburg, the Trans-Miss was reluctant to
send any more troops to the East.  A half-hearted attempt was made in early
1863 (if I remember correctly), but rumors of Union gunboats stopped it.
Certainly after the fall of Vicksburg (and Port Hudson), 
it was essentially impossible for the Trans-Miss to send troops East even
if they had wanted to.

--
Justin M. Sanders    
Dept. of Physics     "I could not fail to disagree with you less."
Kansas State Univ.                           -- Gabriel Weinreich
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Stonewall and nukes (was Re: Washington captured, not)
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:04:52 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec18.160952.2280@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink) writes:
------------------------------------------
> If we are going to talk about what *might* have happened, it would be
> more interesting if the hypotheses proceeded from some grounding in 
> reality, instead of the "Lincoln-with-a-sabre" argument.  This is
> similar to the notion that the loss of Culp's Hill on July 1, 1863, would
> have resulted in the fall of Washington, Philadelphia, and Baltimore
> within a couple of weeks.  We might as well ask what would have happened
> if the Confederacy had developed nuclear weapons.
> 
------------------------------------------
> --Chuck
> uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."

If you re-read the original "Stonewall at Gettysburg" post, you will see 
that the scenario does not state that the CSA (would have) captured 
Philadelphia (or Baltimore, or Washington) only that Stonewall (might have) 
urged Lee to make the attempt. Perhaps even this is ridiculous, but since 
Jackson had actively lobbied to make an attempt to reach Lake Erie (early in
the War, according to Foote), this doesn't seem completely out of character. 
The point is that Stonewall had his eccentricities as well as his, well, 
"qualities".

As for nuclear weapons, remember Jackson had ordered his ordinance officer
to obtain thousands of pikes for the Army of the Shenandoah, and although he
never used them, he did seem to prefer the bayonet to the rifle that held it.
At 2nd Manassas his men were said to have thrown stones. All this seems
antithetical to nuclear weapons 8^).

- Paul - 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   "I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic and a rodeo, but
                that's the stupidest thing I ever heard..."_Dr.Strangelove_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: Stonewall at Gettysburg (was Jackson at the Seven Days)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 03:47:27 GMT

In article <tecump.724011124@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
>TRUE.  even if Lee had won in PennsyLvania, losing Vicksburg was 
>a real fatal blow that could not be countered.  Sometimes too much
>emphasis is placed on the Eastern Theatre - the 100 or so mile
>corridor between DC and Richmond.  Not that it was not important.
>
>dom
>
I think this could be the start of an interesting discussion.  WHY was
the loss of Vicksburg a fatal blow?  Was it because it cut the Trans-
Mississippi off from the rest of the Confederacy?  If so, what was the
significance of the Trans-Mississippi to the overall CSA war effort?
Or, was it more important that the Mississippi was opened to Union
navigation (and, if so, why was THAT important)?

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: Re: Stonewall at Gettysburg (was Jackson at the Seven Days)
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 16:50:44 GMT

The loss of Vicks burg was fatal to the CSA because:

1.  The CSA was cut in half, and supplies such as food and horses from
Texas etc. were now eliminated (ok drasticly reduced).

2.  An outlet for trade through Mexico was cut off.  Especially
important as the blockade tightened.

3.  The use of the Mississippi was denied to the south and given to
the north.  Which included shipping goods from the midwest to the
world (I do not have access to numbers but only have read this as a
reason).

There are other reasons I'm sure, but these are the ones I remember.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+Dick Winningstad                                                    +
+                    Italian Wines are Fine                          +
+          I'd rather be on a Moto Guzzi in eastern Oregon.          +
+          Fourth gear curves at 7000 RPM are the greatest!          +
+dickwin@sequent.com                                                 +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Arlington Cemetery (was Re: Thomas)
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 15:24:20 GMT

In article <BzBFyB.1q3@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay) writes:
>In article <tecump.724200145@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
>>it was in DC proper.  (Arlington is in DC proper).  Is not the military
>
>Ah No. Arlington in in Virginia. As in the state of Virginia. As in
>the other side of the potomac from DC.

But it is worth noting that what is now Arlington County was once a part of
the District of Columbia, and was returned to Virginia in 1846.
--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. . ."
From: tecump@tangent.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Political importance of Washington
Date: 14 Dec 92 19:45:54 GMT

charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>While it is often assumed that a Confederate occupation of Washington
>might have led to recognition of the Confederacy by Britain and
>France, this is, of course, somewhat speculative.  Would such rec-
>ognition have occurred if:

>1. The Confederates had taken Washington without at the same time
>inflicting a major defeat on Federal field armies?

>2. The capture of Washington had occurred after the Emancipation
>Proclmation?

>3. The capture of Washington by the CSA had been accompanied by the
>capture of Richmond by the USA?

>4. The Union hadn't emphasized the political importance of Washington
>precisely by defending it so heavily?

>- Gary Charbonneau
>  charbonn@silver.indiana.ed

these are all good points, echoing thoughts i have had.  by starting to
"what if" it opens up a whole bunch of posibilities, as above.  I have
read a humorous book called "it all started with columbus" i think, which
talked about the question of capitols such as:


	Each side was after the others capitol.  As the North had
	more capital than the South, it had more to lose.  But if
	the Confederates had been allowed to take Washington, and
	the Union allowed to take Richmond, each side would have
	won, and the war would have been over a lot sooner.

or something like that.  Kinda reduces the captol question to a minimal
concern, doesnt it.  :)


dom
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Three Generals of the "Old Army" (was Re: Grant in the East)
Date: 16 Dec 92 11:03:59 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <15DEC199222145156@vxcrna.cern.ch>, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
> In article <1992Dec15.120024.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>, cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes...
>>In article <tecump.724370535@sulu>, tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
>> 
>>--------------------- Bulk of message deleted -------------------
>>> There were only 3 generals in the Fed army prior to the War.
>>> dom
>>> : 
>> 
>>I never heard this before. Obviously one was Lt.Gen. (Brevet) Scott and 
>>another was the Quartermaster General, Brig. Gen. Joe Johnston. Was the other
>>one Sumner?
> 
> What about Henry Halleck?
> 

Come to think of it, I believe that A.S. Johnston was promoted to Brig. Gen
shortly before the war (to elevate his status in dealing with the Mormons). 
Dom, could your confirm your statistic? Perhaps "prior to the war" does not 
mean "at the time of Fort Sumter" which is what I inferred.

- Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   "I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic and a rodeo, but
                that's the stupidest thing I ever heard..."_Dr.Strangelove_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: European Intervention (was "exit")
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 15:37:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.221932.25986@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>One point which hasn't been raised yet in this discussion is the fact that
>England's textile industry was suffering badly due to the inability to get
>cotton from the South. At this time textiles was still a major part of the
>British economy.

I think I've lost track of what "this time" is, but I believe the need for 
cotton didn't become critical until early 1863.  The British mills had 
overbought in 1860 and early 1861 (whether in anticipation of higher demand
than was realized, or in anticipation of the War) and had plenty of raw
cotton through most of 1862.  By the time the shortage was shutting down
the mills, the Emanicipation Proclamation had pretty much settled the 
issue as far as the mill workers were concerned.
--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
From: bitn@quads.uchicago.edu (nathan elery bitner)
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Reply-To: bitn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 00:14:34 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.192951.25670@midway.uchicago.edu> monsourc@dent.uchicago.edu (Christopher Monsour) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.143842.9822@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.075904.8431@midway.uchicago.edu> bitn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec14.060817.3986@news.acns.nwu.edu> dmeier@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Douglas Meier) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec14.035606.29927@midway.uchicago.edu> bitn@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>>In article <92Dec13.224339est.47890@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:


>>>That's why I said "in the modern sense of the word".  I don't think that he
>>>meant a "pure democracy" like the Greek city-states.  And how can you call
>>>the Roman Empire a democracy?  Julius Caesar was not the leader of a 
>>>democratic state and after him, it was an oligarchy.  At exactly what
>>>time would you call the Roman empire a democracy??
>>>
>>Well, you mentioned the era of Julius Caesar and the era after Julius Caesar. 
>>Three guesses as to the time period you haven't mentioned yet.
>
>Well, if you meant the Roman Republic (which you obviously did), then you
>shouldn't have said "the Roman Empire."  (You might correct me on this, but
>was the Roman _Empire_ ever at war with the Greek city-states?)
>
>It seems to me that if we mean democracy in the modern sense (and universal
>suffrage is hardly a prerequisite--otherwise those Greek city-states would not
>have been democracies), then possibly the War of 1812 and certainly the
>American Civil War were wars between democracies.
>
>                                      Christopher J. Monsour
>                                      monsourc@zaphod.uchicago.edu
>
>
	Yes, these are the two most brought-up cases. (And thankyou for
pointing out that the guy meant the Roman Republic -- I was beginning to
wonder what part of history class I had missed :).  The War of 1812 has
the best possibilities, but just how much of a democracy was Britain at the
time?  I believe the King still had a considerable amount of power, though it
was much less than 30 years prior.  As for the American Civil War, this was
not a war between *two* democracies, it was a war to preserve *one*.  Two
separate countries were not at war.  As for the Roman Republic, I'm not sure
this counts as a democracy, either.  If whoever posted that thinks so, please
explain why.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                         INTER ARMA SILENT LEGES                      |
| "Worship Ditka NOW."                email:  bitn@midway.uchicago.edu |
|______________________________________________________________________| 
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: Klaus.Moeller@arbi.informatik.uni-oldenburg.de (Klaus Moeller)
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Organization: University of Oldenburg, Germany
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:06:00 GMT

regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George) writes:

>In article <92Dec13.224339est.47890@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu
>(Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:

>Unfortunately, you *have* started a debate on what a democracy is -- the
>debate is implicit in your question. I would argue that Wilhelmine Germany
>was a "democracy" in 1914:
>          (1) elected legislature
>          (2) semifree press
>          (3) limited monarchy (at least relative to Tsarist Russia)
>Yet it went to war with France.

No, Wilhelmine Germany was no democracy, in the same sense as the Soviet 
Union was no democracy.

to 1) The elected legislature was not elected by the principle of
      "one man, one vote". The emperor could disband it or prohibit single
      parties without consultation of the legislature. The legislature
      had no pratical control over government or military.

to 2) What do you mean with "semifree". There was no thing like free speech
      in the way Britan or France had.

to 3) See 1) first. The limitation of the emperor was mere theoretical in
      nature. He could fire any member of the government (= executive)
      as well as appoint them. There was no division of power. The 
      judical power was practically absent. Something like a constitutional
      court/supreme court was first established with the foundation of the
      federal republic. So, almost all power concentrated on the emperor as
      superior of the executive.


What has to be done, is to clarify the term democracy. Most of us do not 
mean a simple elected legislative body when they talk about democracy.

I now define 9 more or less arbitrarily choosen points, that have to be
fullfilled to qualify a state as democratic in a modern sense. 
There may be other and better classifications, but I use this from
the top of my head to classify a state.

1)  Free, secrect and equal elections.
    (This would rule out *a lot* of states, including antique greeks and
    romans, the soviet systems, wilhelmine Germany, etc...) 
2)  A constitution.
3)  Established judical equality of all people. 
    (i.e. no slavery, womans right to vote, etc.) 
4)  Three way division of power.
5)  Freedom of speech and media (press, radio, etc.). 
6)  Civil control over police and military.
7)  No political prosecution.
8)  No torture.
9)  Respect of privacy. 
    (Secrecy of mail, housing, etc.)

Most of this terms are of a more judical nature, but I consider them 
important enough to classify a state as free and democratic.

The whole topic dosen't belong here, I know, but when we want to talk 
about wars between democracies, we've to do a little clarification here.

					Klaus


-- 
 /     Klaus Moeller, Leiteweg 2, 2940 Wilhelmshaven, West - Germany       \
<    Klaus.Moeller@Informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE   078326@DOLUNI1.BITNET      >
 \             security is an exercise in applied paranoia                 /
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham)
Subject: War & Democracy
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Distribution: na
Date: 14 Dec 92 03:44:03 GMT

This came up during a conversation with some friends and we don't know the 
answer. Has there ever been a war between two democratic countries?  
I don't want to start a debate on what a democracy is. Let's say it's 
something like those of the USA, France, Britain, etc.
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: War & Democracy
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:50:45 GMT
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: access.digex.com

In article <92Dec13.224339est.47890@neat.cs.toronto.edu> quoctp@cs.toronto.edu (Quoc Tuan Pham) writes:
>This came up during a conversation with some friends and we don't know the 
>answer. Has there ever been a war between two democratic countries?  
>I don't want to start a debate on what a democracy is. Let's say it's 
>something like those of the USA, France, Britain, etc. 

American Civil War?  American Revolution?  War of 1812 (would you count
Britain as a democracy at that time?)?

I suppose you could argue that these were rebellions and not real wars,
but they sure looked like wars to those who fought in them...


Newsgroups: alt.war