HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: furr@pilot.njin.net (Grover Furr)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: bedford forrest
Keywords: forrest, ft pillow
Date: 23 Jul 92 04:48:17 GMT
Organization: Montclair State College, Upper Montclair, NJ


	What is the evidence that Bedford Forrest did NOT kill black
union soldiers and their officers after their surrender at Ft Pillow
in 1864? I've seen it said that this is "not proven."

	Second: I've also seen it written that Forrest, who helped
found the Ku Klux Klan in Pulaski, TN after the war, quit it after a
year because he opposed the violence. 

	Anyone who knows of any good evidence on either of these two
points, please e-mail it to me; I'd appreciate it very much. And
thanks.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Grover C. Furr

Home: 121 Oakland Terrace               Work: English Department
      Newark, NJ 07106                        Montclair State College
      ARS AA2GP                               Upper Montclair, NJ 07043
email: furr@pilot.njin.net
       furr@apollo.montclair.edu
 
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:49:51 -0400 
From: "Joshua M. Sabloff" <jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: "Angle"
	<1992Jul28.005654.22216@leland.Stanford.EDU>

As far as I can tell, the "Angle" was a Gettysburg and the "Bloody
Angle" was at Spotsylvania.  I think Shiloh was the "Hornet's Nest".

-Josh Sabloff
"We are the keepers of the three sacred words:
 Nee, Pen, and Nee-wom"
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Subject: Re: Looking for copy of PBS video The Civil War
Organization: Utah Valley Community College
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 17:55:51 GMT

In article <15bmtlINNgpj@network.ucsd.edu>, pete@chem.ucsd.edu (Peter Wotruba) writes:
> I would likt to get a copy of the series, The Civil War, that ran on
> PBS a few years ago.  If anyone has it, and wants to sell it, or would
> be willing to copy it for me, I am willing to pay for the tapes plus
> any shipping costs.  Thanks
> 
> Peter Wotruba
> (pwotruba@ucsd.edu)
> 

I managed to get a copy when it was on last year.  I put it on three tapes.  If you
figure in the cost of tapes, shipping and video machine rental, etc. I think I can
do it for you.
From: coronell@athena.mit.edu (Dan Coronell)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: ....gee.......
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:57:16 GMT
Distribution: alt.war.civil.usa
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <1992Jul21.170442.17161@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.162903.13491@news.iastate.edu>, Paul J Hollander writes:
>>What about General "Beast" Butler?  I vaguely remember he got his nickname 
>>for threatening to lock up some southern ladies in New Orleans.  I believe 
>>he was corrupt and a poor battlefield general, but was he responsible for
>>any atrocities?
>
>Before you go villifying old Ben Butler, check out his performance later in the 
>war on the east coast. (He held some seaboard territory...) I'm not real familiar
>with the history of it, but my recollection is that he did a very good job.
>
>JZ
>

You are correct that he held territory, the Bermuda Hundred peninsula, 
but this was because he was trapped (or "bottled up" as Foote writes) 
there by numerically inferior Confederates. Butler later led a combined 
Navy and Army assault on Ft. Fisher outside of Wilmington, NC with 
similar results. I think the assessment is valid.

					Dan Coronell
					coronell@athena.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (07850_LS)
Subject: Question regarding 1st Bull Run/Manassass
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 13:06:23 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

I have been puzzeled for some time about the early evolution of the war. 
How exactly did Lincoln's position change from telling the South, "You can 
have no conflict without you yourselves being the agressor," in his inaugral 
address to sending McDowell on an invasion of Virginia four months later? 
I've read that Gen. Scott, a native Virginian, had stated that he would have 
no part in invading his native state, yet he clearly did. 

This period between the bloodless fall of Fort Sumter and (at that time) the 
bloodiest battle ever fought on North America would seem to be the most 
critical in understanding the politics of the day, yet the books I have 
read usually say the invasion was in response to newspaper editorials urging 
"On to Richmond". Was Lincoln so easily swayed? Was the intention to arrest 
Jeff Davis et al or what? After First Manassas there was really no way of 
stopping the process short of a decissive defeat of one or the other army.
Did they simply not know what they were in for?

----------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	(This account is a friend's. Send responses to COWAN@ANL.GOV)

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann)
Subject: Re: News Item
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 05:57:01 GMT

M20614@mwvm.mitre.org (Hugh Pritchard) writes:

>In article <1992Jul27.182331.18326@odin.corp.sgi.com>
>zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
> 
>>	RICHMOND, Va. (UPI) -- The nation's only black governor, within hours
>> of finding out a Virginia Air National Guard unit had an insignia
>> bearing the Confederate stars and bars, ordered the symbols removed and
>> replaced....
> 
N>The "Stars & Bars" still flies daily over the Mississippi state capitol,
N>doesn't it?
No, the Mississippi state flag flies over our capital.  Our flag "does," however, have the Confederate Battle flag as part of its design.

Roland Mann
In M'sip

?

> 
>Not that I approve.
>  --  In my personal opinion, Confederate flags (Stars & Bars, etc.) represent
>      regional pride in many of the ideals of the Confederacy (spunkiness,
>      self-sufficiency, independence, etc.).  It's understandable to be proud
>      of such things.
>  --  However, those flags also stood for a system which relied on
>      labor-intensive agriculture almost exclusively for its existence:
>      Slavery.  The symbolism of the Confederate flag was tainted with stains
>      of arrogance and bigotry right from the birth of the Confederacy.
> 
>Pollution makes even an otherwise clear, cool mountain spring undrinkable.
> 
>I approve of Gov. Wilder's action.
> 
>**  Hugh Pritchard,  hapritch@mitre.org,  703/883-6616
>[Born in the northeast U.S., of European-American ancestry.]
From: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: News Item
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:19:43 GMT
Reply-To: <roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com> (Roy Wells)
Organization: Never Never Land


 
>	RICHMOND, Va. (UPI) -- The nation's only black governor, within hours
>of finding out a Virginia Air National Guard unit had an insignia
>bearing the Confederate stars and bars, ordered the symbols removed and
>replaced.

I'm just curious.  Has anyone seen this emblem?  Is it really the "Stars and Bars" 
or is it the Confederate Battle Flag (the Southern Cross) that the press always 
*calls* the "Stars and Bars."

Really, for an organization that so prides itself on research and accuracy, I 
rarely see the Press get this one right!

----
"If you can't make 70 by a comfortable road, don't go."
--Mark Twain
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Ben Butler (was .....gee.....)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 92 06:19:34 GMT

I believe this is the expedition on which Admiral Porter notified General
Grant that Fort Fisher "could be taken any time he cared to send down a
competent general to take it." Which tells you what the Navy thought about
Butler.
I'm away from my books so I can't check this, but my memory is that the
incident is well-described in Catton's Stillness_At_Appomatox and that
the quote is in there somewhere.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 09:49:10 -0400 
From: "Joshua M. Sabloff" <jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: bedford forrest
	<1992Jul23.051034.26097@leland.Stanford.EDU>

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 23-Jul-92 Re: bedford forrest
Stephen Schmidt@leland.S (619)

> I was of the distinct impression that the incident happened. Maybe the
> claim is that it is not proven that Forrest ordered it, or isn't proven
> that he participated, or something like that.

Certainly the Fort Pillow Massacre happened; you're correct that the
debate is whether or not Forrest ordered it.  I'm inclined to believe
that he did, in spite of Shelby Foote's arguements (I'm ALMOST DONE with
his trilogy!!!)

-Josh Sabloff
"We are the keepers of the three sacred words:
 Nee, Pen, and Nee-wom"
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cooper@monster.umd.edu (Dale Cooper)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Reenactor
Date: 31 Jul 92 20:20:08 GMT
Organization: Univ of Maryland - ASDG

In article <5406@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal Bello) writes:
>jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu writes:
>
>> Hello to a fellow re-enactor.
>
>Bully for you!  I too wear the blue.
>I wonder how many on the group are reenaactors?

How about former re-enactors.  The hobby just got too expensive for me.

I honestly miss it at times.  Some of my fondest memories were sweating my arse 
off at the 125th Second Manassas, 125th Cedar Mountain, 125th Gettysburg.
Soaked to the bone at the School of the Soldier at Fort Fisher (sp) NC and
at Fort Stevens (Washington DC).  Freezing my butt at 125th Antietam and
125th Balls Bluff, VA...Burning my hands on a hot musket at 125th Gettysburg.
Getting camp diahrea at Fort Fisher, scrubbing layers of grits off of the
cooking kettle at 125th Gettysburg.  Pulling off ticks til the sun went down
at 125th Cedar Mountain.  Nearly getting heat stroke at 125th and 126th
New Market...Those were the good old days...  ;)

Some day I will do it again but for now I just read about it...and do a lot
of relic hunting when the weather's colder.

One of the highlights of my tenure was being selected to grace the cover of
Civil War Times Illustrated in February of 1989 (or was it 1990).

That was me.  Pvt Dale Cooper of the 42nd VA Infantry, Co I.

Greeting to all of those from the West Coast.  I am astonished at the level
of activity.  Keep it up ya'll.

I'm trying Oh so hard to get my employer to get this news group so I don't have
to use this account :(  I can't post from my usual site.


Dale Cooper
(actually working at...) 
Center for Seismic Studies
Arlington, VA					cooper@seismo.css.gov
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Ben Butler (was .....gee.....)
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:34:41 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Jul22.124309.3280@panix.com> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
[Much interesting info re Butler/Bermuda Hundred deleted]
>
>I'm at the office, so I can't consult Grant's _Memoirs_; I assume he
>has an incisive summary of Butler. Butler was a very good
>administrator at New Orleans (if you discount the views of the
>die-hard Confederates in the city and his own bombast).

I just finished the Memoirs, and I was surprised to find that
Grant was very kind to Butler. He seemed disposed to forget Butler's
many mistakes, and actually apologized for giving currency to the
phrase about the Army of the James being shut up as effectively
as a cork in a bottle, explaining that he meant by that no criticism
of General Butler.

I would speculate that Grant's memory of the affair had been 
colored by subsequent political dealings with Butler, but I have
not facts to back that up.
-- 
Bitnet:                 uclcjt1@uchimvs1
Internet:         cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Re: Confederate Flags
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 22:23:18 GMT

One of the things that is missing in the discussion of Confederate flags is
that when they were used as battle flags they were square, rather than
rectangular.  The "Red Cross Banner" (aka Battle Flag, Southern Cross) was
52" x 52" in infantry units, 38" x 38" in artillery units, and 32" x 32" in
cavalry units.  The only use of the rectangular battle flag was in the CSA
navy, in which in was used as a jack.

Another interesting variation of the battle flag was one that was used in
Kentucky during the Perryville campaign.  It WAS rectangular, and looked 
something like this:

          _________________________________________
          !         ! * !                         !
          !         ! * !      (blue)             !
          !_________! * !_________________________!
          !  *  *     *      *   *   *   *  (red) !
          !_________     _________________________!
          !         ! * !      (blue)             !
          !         ! * !                         !
          !_________!_*_!_________________________!


Anybody ever seen this flag?

PDunn
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: 131st anniversary of 1st Bull Run/Manassass
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 17:09:00 GMT


No comment, just a notation that today is the 131st anniversary 
of the first battle of Bull Run/Manassass. 

JZ
From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Reenactors
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:00:37 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

While we are on the subjest of living history and reenacting, does anybody have
a list of units that they could post to the bboard?

PDunn
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg )
Subject: Re: BBN II -- Murk-o-Vision World Update (Mau Mau/MacNamara)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:53:26 GMT

tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick) writes:

>->The U.S. had a very good army with excellent
>->unit cohesion based on a regimental system as in the UK until that
>->idiot MacNamara came along and decided to treat soldiers like
>->spare transmission bolts.  The resulting inability to form a coherent
>->unit in Vietnam came from this decision.  It has nothing to do with
>->the society.  Maybe you should compare small unit effectiveness in
>->Vietnam with that in Korea or WWII.  The U.S.Army called MacNamara's
>->decision Black Friday and they are returning to the regimental
>->system.
>Amen. MacNamara has been one of the banes of my life. He also
>was responsible for choosing to supply the army with inferior 
>weaponry during Vietnam as an economy measure (not to mention
>his worst sin of all, introducing the quarter system at Berkeley,
>fortunately now abandoned :-)
>If MacNamara wasn't a Soviet agent, they should have paid him
>anyway (couldn't have done more to ruin the country if he had
>tried. Harvard management theory strikes again).

i think you guys might find this interesting:

a Boy Scout leader of mine once remarked on one big difference between Korea
and Vietnam:  he said that we went into Korea with a weak army and came out of 
it with a strong army...we went into Vietnam with a strong army and came out 
with a weak army.

well, it was just one Vet's opinion, but it makes sense to me.
 

*******************************************************************************
* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
* Univ. of IL at Urbana-Champaign  |        OR      gtao@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* Department of Computer Science   |        OR      gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu     *
* --------------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*                                                                             *
*  	``Change, suddenly, is everywhere we look, sweeping empires and       *
*    ideologies before it, shaping a new era even as we watch. Such moments   *
*    are rare. Today we stand at such a moment.''                             * 
*                                                                             *
*******************************************************************************
From: tedrick@whistle.Berkeley.EDU (Tom Tedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: suggested war plan critique (was:Re: Saddam planning ...)
Date: 30 Jul 92 23:59:29 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: whistle.berkeley.edu

->>armored thrust on Baghdad aimed at driving Saddam from power,
->>killing him if possible.

->This hovers between silly and stupid. You must fight against your
->enemies army, not it's civilian government. A likely outcome is to 
->topple the government. but leave the military command structure 
->unharmed. 

Sounds like you belong to the "Douglas Haig School of Military Theory" :-)

The Iraqi military is a puppet of Saddam Hussein, and killing
Saddam would decapitate the beast at one stroke. Afterwards
I'm certain that we could negotiate with the Iraqi commanders.

The hard part throughout history has been determining the
strategic center of gravity. Sometimes its the main forces
of the enemy army, sometimes the political leadership. Blind
adherence to the dogma of "destroying the main body of the
enemy armed forces" is what led us into this mess. You and
your friend Bush pounded the enemy's body in Desert Storm
but left the head in place.

-- 
"Long before the outbreak of the war their brains had become ossified,
and even the terrible circumstances of this battle could not penetrate
the historic concrete in which they were encased." -J.F.C. Fuller
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jac54@cas.org ()
Subject: Re: Saddam planning a new invasion (bye bye Kuwait?)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:13:27 GMT

In article <EMERY.92Jul30091257@Dr_No.mitre.org> emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery) writes:
>
>The *LAST* thing we should do, tactically, is get involved in city
>fighting.  This causes significant U.S. casualties (and civilian
>casualties), and the media would have a field day with all of the
>gory pictures, etc.

	Agreed, nasty bloody business.  Nobody likes it.

>As I see it, either we go to the U.N. and get a new mandate to take
>out Saddam (e.g.  legalized execution/murder), or we get a mandate
>from the U.N. to completely take over the country of Iraq (both
>mandates would set dangerous new precedents, and I doubt we'd succeed
>in getting them), or we keep on the status-quo...

	I meant to say this in an earlier post but I forgot.  I do not
	think it would be wise to kill Saddaam without some form of trial.
	Assassination would turn him into a martyr.  He should be
	captured ALIVE IF AT ALL POSSIBLE and brought to a trial
	where the kidnappings, tortures, and murders for the sake
	of social engineering are brought out into the open.

	I'm not going to go in to the make-up of such a court, there
	would have to be a lot of juridical balancing to keep everybody
	happy.  Any such trial would have to be extremely and punctilious
	in its process.
>
>Finally, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the public posturing by
>the goddamn Democrats who didn't support the war in the first place,
>but now excoriate Bush for not "finishing the job".

	What about the Democrats who did support the war and so on?

>In particular, NOT ONE of them
>has proposed any serious view of what they want Post-Saddam Iraq to
>look like.  And, as we've learned the hard way in Iran, we shouldn't
>support a change of government unless and until we understand what its
>replacement will look like.

	I haven't heard any suggestions from Republicans either.  It
	is interesting to note that the Bush White House has not made
>       any contact with pro-democracy Iraqi dissident exiles.

	Alec Chambers.
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: emery@Dr_No.mitre.org (David Emery)
Subject: Re: Saddam planning a new invasion (bye bye Kuwait?)
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:12:57 GMT

>Add a twist. Drop the 82nd on Baghdad. Send VII corps north to link up and
>use air power to suppress any attempts to relieve Baghdad. You're almost sure
>to get Saddam that way.

Hey, I got friends in the 82, and I don't want to see them on a
suicide mission!  How long do you expect them to hold out?  It took us
5 months to deploy VII Corps (which has now deactivated) from Germany
to Saudi.  

The *LAST* thing we should do, tactically, is get involved in city
fighting.  This causes significant U.S. casualties (and civilian
casualties), and the media would have a field day with all of the
gory pictures, etc.  

As I see it, either we go to the U.N. and get a new mandate to take
out Saddam (e.g.  legalized execution/murder), or we get a mandate
from the U.N. to completely take over the country of Iraq (both
mandates would set dangerous new precedents, and I doubt we'd succeed
in getting them), or we keep on the status-quo...  

Finally, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of the public posturing by
the goddamn Democrats who didn't support the war in the first place,
but now excoriate Bush for not "finishing the job".  These idiots have
NO IDEA of what they're talking about.  In particular, NOT ONE of them
has proposed any serious view of what they want Post-Saddam Iraq to
look like.  And, as we've learned the hard way in Iran, we shouldn't
support a change of government unless and until we understand what its
replacement will look like.

				dave
From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Naval survival
Date: 22 Jul 92 10:40:46 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <7eN0NB1w164w@netlink.cts.com>, by galan@netlink.cts.com (Greg Gross):
> Have heard it said that the Japanese had a somewhat condescending
> attitude toward damage control...something to the effect of, "we're
> samurai, not smiths!"  If true, it cost them big-time.

That attitude was even more pronounced in submarine and commerce
warfare.  The better officers tended to avoid the submarine service,
considering it cowardly.  Apart from that their submarines always
concentrated on sinking warships.  The Japanese never tried
large-scale submarine campaigns against the Allied supply routes,
because attacking freighters was not honorable.  The other way round,
of course, dedicated anti-submarine warfare was anathema to them, and
I don't think they ever developed a real convoy system.  The crews of
dedicated escorts tended to be the dregs of the Navy, and destroyers
avoided convoy duties whenever possible.
-- 
Markus Stumptner                                mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at
University of Technology Vienna                 vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net
Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria             ...mcsun!vexpert!mst