HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William E Van Horne)
Subject: Re: Andrew's Raid (Re: BATTLE IN VERMONT?)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 12:15:47 GMT


Andrews' raid was ordered by Ormsby Mitchell, about whom we had several
postings a few months ago.  He was briefly in command in Cincinnati; a
short while later sent to South Carolina where he quickly succumbed to
yellow fever.

Bill Van Horne
wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Importance of Vicksburg (was Re: Stonewall at Gettysburg)
Date: 18 Dec 92 07:54:56 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec17.133237.29492@panix.com>, spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
> In <tecump.724463213@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
> 
>>the capture of Vicksburg:
>>1. cut off the Trans-Miss from the rest of the Confederacy, keeping supplies
>>and men from going either way.
>>2. enabled the federal navy to navigate up and down.
> 
>>Importance of both:
>>1. the first chapter in splitting the confederacy into pieces (see the
>>Anaconda plan and of course sherman's march.
> 
>>2. Supplies could now be run up and down the mississippi.  The Union
>>could [now] easily move entirely around the confederacy.  opening the
>>mississippi allowed better campaign support on other possible campaigns
>>along ajoining rivers.  Rivers and Railroads were key to this war.
> [I fixed your typo - dhs]
> 
> This is an essential, and often overlooked, point. The Mississippi was
> cheapest and most effective trade route for the whole area bounded by
> the Appalachians, the Rockies, the Great Lakes and Northern Alabama.
> Water traffic was far cheaper than rail. Remember that as a young man
> Lincoln ran riverboats, and read your Mark Twain. (As well as Fogel's
> seminal work on rails and canals.)
> 
> Reopening the Mississippi to Northern traffic reopened an economic
> lifeline from the counry's most productive farmland to the outside
> world. And it denied the rebels their cheapest internal transit.

Let me add more weight to this in connection with a parallel thread.
Europe was suffering a famine (due to drought I believe) and needed to buy
grain from the Union. Grain exports were not as lucrative for the US (or
Europeans) as the anti-bellum cotton trade, but one still has to eat.
The need for US grain was one factor preventing European intervention, 
and the Mississippi was the best pipeline.

- 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_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: ACW as Greek tragedy (was Re: Washington captured, not)
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:26:38 -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:
> I've been giving a lot of thought to the ongoing and very interesting
> discussion about the possible capture of Washington, D.C.  It seems to
> me that those of us (clearly a minority) who don't think that the 
> capitol could have been taken are being asked to prove a negative.  I
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> On the other hand, I recognize that my own reasoning is inherently
> suspect because I tend to think of these events as having the 
> inevitability of a Greek tragedy, which, as someone else has commented
> in another context, is an interesting point of view, but not exactly
> historical.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> --Chuck

I like Chuck's point about the Civil War being a Greek tragedy writ on
a national scale. The essential elements of a classical tragedy are
there, the national virtues (self determination, preservation of
democracy etc) leading inexorably (and frustratingly) to crisis,  
the inherent mortal flaw (slavery/racism), the evident workings of  
the gods/God ("blood drawn by the ... lash, repaid by the sword"),  
and especially the sense of inevitability. 

It was (IMHO) inevitable that slavery would end; inevitable that this
end would be convulsive. However, I would hesitate to extrapolate this
inevitability too far. I don't think it was inevitable that Dick Ewell
would refuse Lee's order to take Culp's Hill, I don't think it was
inevitable that Jubal Early would waste a day in Frederick, MD,
wringing a ransom out of the city fathers, I don't think it was
inevitable that Pvt. Mitchell would find Lee's order wrapped around
cigars, I don't think it was inevitable that the President of the
Union would have the political savvy and moral courage to issue the
Emancipation Proclamation, and (to jump quickly to the end) I don't
think it was inevitable (however likely) that the Union would be
restored. 

I don't feel that exploring variations on the theme necessarily spoils
the sense of tragedy. All I am saying is that the Fates could have
found other ways to thwart men's ambitions.

- 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_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: English Textile workers (was Re: European Intervention)
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:28:28 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec18.131943.29739@panix.com>, spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
> 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.
> 
> Yes. *But* the textile workers were rabidly anti-slavery. The
> Manchester wool and cotton workers organized a number of massive
> pro-Union demonstrations. Our ambassador wrote several letters of
> appreciation and (if I recall correctly) addressed one of the
> demonstrations. This has always amazed and touched me.
> 
> dhs    spencer@panix.com

I count the English textile workers amoung the great heroes of the ACW.
I doubt (but still I wonder) if there is any monument to their honor.
I recall a figure of one-half million unemployed. Their plight was someone
relieved by reverting to woolen cloth, cotton from India and Union exports from
New Orleans, but their hardships and courage should not be forgotten.

- 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_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: exit
Date: 17 Dec 92 19:45:03 GMT

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

>  The first and most important intervention would have been that the Royal
>Navy would have broken the Union blockade. While the monitors were ironclad
>and pretty nifty, in 1862 there were about four of them, hardly enough to
>blockade the entire Confederate coast. The British wooden navy in 1862 was
>much more than a match for the Union Navy.
>  After the blockade is broken, Southern cotton starts being exported again,
>which solves the Confederacy's financial problems and makes it possible for
>them to import rifles, artillery, and raiload equipment.
>  It's quite possible that a British, French, and Russian peacekeeping force
>arrives to try to end the fighting. The Russians were proposing this very
>seriously, I'm not sure how the British and French felt about it. It's also
>not clear what this force does if it arrives, but I think the probability
>is that end ends up on the Confederate side de facto, which would about do
>it for the Union.

Do you really think the European nations would intervene under any 
circumstances unless they were absolutely sure they could win.  Do you
not think britain had enough to do with all her colonies?  Do you think
france wouldve jumped in without British help, and, if so, what could
france do?  
This "intervention" would give lincoln more cause to issue is Emancipation
Proclamation, and wouldnt that put egg on the Crowns' faces.  Perhaps it
would be seen as a deperated attempt by a desperate man.  However, soon,
Federal ironclads would be steaming out of the drydocks.  the largest
army ever assembled in the modern western world would be on the march, now
, not only fighting for the Union, but for its survival as well.

As for the Russians, eh. their big fleet they sent to NY harbor was "hiding"
from the British was it not?  The Czar extended a hand of friendship, but
he was really looking for help, himself.

Breaking the blockade would set a bad precedent for England, a country who
had upheld in "maritime" rights, and had and would use the blockade 
"legally".

Well, i will close with a near "quote", found while doing some
"extensive research" about the topic (hahaha)  :)

Nor shall all the armies in Europe, Asia and Africa combined, ever set
a foot on the Blue Ridge, or take a drink from the Ohio.
			-Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln, Disneyland 

	Just something to lighten in up  :)

dom

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: Capture of Washington: "Conventional Wisdom"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:02:49 GMT

In article <17DEC199207163730@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov> stocker@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (ERICH FRANZ STOCKER) writes:
>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.
>> 
>
>I have to agree!.  Whatever, Early accomplished with his raid and it was an
>example of Southern pluck, he would not have taken Washington. It was not in
>the cards. I truly doubt that a long-term holding of the distrinct was ever
>in the cards for the South. I believe that Lee knew this. He used raids 
>against the capital to take off heat from union actions against his armies
>elsewhere.  A really effective strategy that took advantage of northern
>panic and southern manpower problems.

There's a big difference between saying that Early could not have taken
Washington and saying that he could not have held it.  One of the observers
quoted above went on to say that, if Early had taken the city (and remember,
the same observer said he could easily have done so), his starving troops
would have taken to plundering, gotten falling down drunk, and would have
been destroyed as an army by Union counterattack.  So it might have been
UNWISE for Early to take Washington, but that's not the same thing as
saying that it would have been IMPOSSIBLE.

But we seem to have strayed from the original point about Washington,
which is whether its capture would have made much of a difference in
terms of the outcome of the war.  I had argued that it would not.  Cer-
tainly by 1864 the fall of Washington would not have provoked British
or French intervention on the side of the Confederacy.  On the other
hand, there was the effect on the 1864 elections to consider.  What
if Washington had fallen in the fall of 1862?  The effect on the inter-
national scene would have been greater.  However, many posters have
assumed that the Anglo-French reaction would have been intervention.
I think recognition (of the Confederacy) would have been more likely.
So let's broaden the discussion.  Some time in 1862, Britain and France
extend diplomatic recognition to the CSA, but to do not interven in
its behalf.  What is the effect on the outcome of the war?

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: cb972@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (David J. Stanton)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Confederate Flag in 1861
Date: 16 Dec 1992 12:35:12 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a recent article (#1568) JDH was asking the meaning of the stripes
on the Conferate Flag of 1861.
The flag you are referring to is the First National Flag of the Confederate
States. This was alledgedly designed by a Mr Orren R. Smith of North 
Carolina. In his desciption of the design he says the following:

 "...the three colored bars are based on the Trinity, with the bars
  standing for the state with its judiciary, legislative, and exec-
  utive branches; the church; and the press."

I hope this is helpful to you.
                                    David Stanton.
-- 
*****************************************************************
* David J. Stanton            *  Company H 17th Virginia Inf.   *
* University of Exeter        *  (Old Dominion Rifles)          *
* Devon, England              * Email: DJStanto@cen.ex.ac.uk    *
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Three Generals of the "Old Army" (was Re: Grant in the East)
Date: 21 Dec 92 03:45:09 GMT

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?

You expect me to back up my statements.   :)

Scott, Wool and Johnston.  if memorey serves me correct.

dom
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Is it time to rm this group?
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:39:37 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec15.001510.25372@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1992Dec14.224908.9279@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>>
>>Readership and posting seem to be increasing in a.w.c.u., so should this group
>>be moved into a mainstream hierarchy?  What does everyone think?
>>
> I disagree for two reasons:
> 
> 1. as of now, this bump is only a week or two old. In two months we might
> be back to near-zero traffic again (though I hope not...)
> 
> 2. I don't think we have 100 posters+lurkers yet, so would lose in a call
> for votes even if no one voted against. I think we need to wait and build
> a larger base. Maybe try to crosspost on issues of more general interest
> and try to hook some more readers.
> 

Extrapolating from the number of unfamiliar addresses on private E-mail replies
I have received over the past several months, I'd guess that the total 
readership (that checks in weekly) is probably over 100. I don't know if that 
translates into votes.

Forgive me, but what are the issues involved?  Do we all get T-shirts with
"soc.history.war.civil.usa" printed on them?  Do we risk being banned 
from the net if we make a wrong step after we emerge from the security
of our "alt." prefix?  I really don't know much about the newsgroup ground
rules, but unless I hear a compelling argument to the contrary I'd say, 
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

- 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: cwa@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Carlton W. Andrews)
Subject: Union Command at Wilson's Creek
Organization: Raytheon Company
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:23:49 GMT



    I also had wondered about the command structure at Wilson's Creek.
    If we use the Order of Battle from Battles and Leaders, and remove
    the officers that were detached with Sigel on a flanking manuever,
    we have :
       1) B.G. Nathaniel Lyon         killed        Commanding Army
       2) Col. George W. Deitzler     wounded       Commanding Brigade
       3) Col. Robert B. Mitchell     wounded       Commanding Regiment
       4) Lt Col. George L. Andrews   wounded       Commanding Brigade
       5) Lt Col. William Merritt     wounded       Commanding Regiment
       6) Lt Col. Charles W. Blair                  2ic of Regiment
       7) Maj. Samuel D. Sturgis                    Commanding Brigade
       8) Maj. John M. Schofield                    Lyon's A.G.

    There are three possible explanations for Sturgis obtaining command.
       a) Blair was also incapacitated.
       b) Blair's regiment was extremely green (1 Kansas) and probaly he
          was also. He could have willingly passed command on to an
          experienced commander (Sturgis and Schofield were regulars).
       c) Schofield had been all over the field, commanding charges, etc.
          His first thought may have been that the three brigade commanders
          were next in line (and only Sturgis was healthy).



                                               C. Andrews



Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF)
Subject: Re: Is it time to rm this group?
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 92 04:09:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.001510.25372@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.224908.9279@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:
>>
>>Readership and posting seem to be increasing in a.w.c.u., so should this group
>>be moved into a mainstream hierarchy?  What does everyone think?
>>
>I disagree for two reasons:
>
>1. as of now, this bump is only a week or two old. In two months we might
>be back to near-zero traffic again (though I hope not...)
>
>2. I don't think we have 100 posters+lurkers yet, so would lose in a call
>for votes even if no one voted against. I think we need to wait and build
>a larger base. Maybe try to crosspost on issues of more general interest
>and try to hook some more readers.

I'm here, as of today.  I didn't know about this group until it was
mentioned in alt.folklore.urban and had to write the author of the post I
read there asking what the group's name was.  

I live in Virginia.  I drive through Appomattox all the time.  I have
driven over the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge-Tunnel (I-664 to you) across the
James and seethe every time I do so wondering why the hell it's not called
the Monitor-Virginia Bridge-Tunnel.  I go around using the phrase "the War of
Northern Aggression" in front of Yankees.  And I'd have been in this group
a long time ago if someone'd pointed it out to me, dammit!

So perhaps some cross-posting or maybe even just some outright ads in
various groups would bring *more* people in.  In fact, I'm vaguely
surprised that there's not already a soc.history.usa.civil-war group.  In
Virginia, historical recreations of War of Northern Aggression battles
draw thousands.  You couldn't mention "The War" in any of my undergraduate
classes at the University of Georgia without totally side-tracking
discussion of anything else that day. There are *lots* of people who like
discussing the War.

I think this is a legitimate example of a group stranded in alt. -- a lot
of people consider alt. worthless except for widely known groups such as
alt.folklore.urban, and also, it can be mind-boggling to scan through a
list of alt. groups searching for something that sounds interesting.
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: The "Other Hand".
Date: 17 Dec 92 08:05:31 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

Let me try to start a couple of new threads before the weekend.

One of Shelby Foote's favorite lines is to the effect that if such and 
such had happened to benefit the CSA, "the Union would have simply
taken the other hand out from behind it's back." (It has reapeared
recently on the group). The reference is to the fact the the
enlistment rate amoung Southern (white) males was so much higher than
in the North. It seems to me this ignores the fact that the enlistment
rate in the North was already unprecidented (before or since) in US
history. IMHO a big reason that the enlistment rate in the South could
be so anomalously high was because of the (too often ignored, Jones,
if you're out there) black labor base. I expect that the enlistment
rate in the North could have increased under certain circumstances,
but I doubt that it could have doubled (as the "other hand" analogy
suggests).

- 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_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------