HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Slavery nearly abolished in Virginia?
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:33:58 GMT

In article <1a1qc0INN2rv@moe.ksu.ksu.edu> jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders) writes:
>Jefferson did publicly sponsor the
>proposed Ordinance of 1784 which would have outlawed slavery in the
>Southwest Territory (Alabama and Mississippi) as well as what would
>become Illinois and Indiana AFTER 1800.  This ordinance was not passed
>by the Confederation Congress though; and my source implies that it
>lost by 1 vote.

But note that the Confederation *did* include such a stipulation in the
Northwest Ordinance of 1787; my sense is that it was acceptable because
no one thought that slavery could be sustained there anyway.

>All this is from William W. Freehling's "The Road to Disunion:
>Secessionists at Bay 1776-1854" (Oxford U. Pr, 1990).  This is a very
>good book.  It gives a nice overview of the development of secessionist
>thought in the South as well as treating the history of emancipation.
>My two complaints with it are: 1) a very breezy writing style that at times
>I found annoying(*), and 2) (a consequence of (1)) occasional lapses
>into stereotypes (even in a book which has as one of its themes that
>there is no stereotypical single-minded, one-voiced antebellum South).

I agree, but just want to emphasize that occasional lapses in style 
should not scare anyone away from reading this otherwise excellent
work.  I hope its sequel will be as good.
--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.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Cadet gray
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:46:20 GMT

As long as we are on the subject of uniform colors, what the heck
is Cadet Gray?  I have a print of the Elder portrait of R. E. Lee,
in which his uniform is a fairly dark blue-gray.  Is that it?
(This is getting reminiscent of the flag discussions; if only we 
could come up ASCII colors.)
--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: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Poetic License (was Re: Reenactment)
Date: 28 Sep 92 21:46:33 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

As a reenactor, I take exception to the description of a re-enactment 
where a "slave got a good whippin'.". Just what is a "good whippin"?

I have, on occassion, had to rebuff members of the public who presume 
they know my modern politics because I play the part of a Confederate 
cavalryman. I would have serious reservations about explicitly depicting 
the abuses of slavery from a dislike of being considered a part of a 
modern hate-group. 

It's not my intention to flame the previous poster, I detect to tone of
 homespun dialog in your post. I hope that if this particular living-
history demonstration was given it was done without any coercion, 
concern for the sensibilities of the reenactors, and a clear explanation 
to any spectators.

JTHoppers
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: CW Round Table questions
Date: 2 Oct 1992 12:54:14 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

I've heard about CW Round Tables, but I know little about them.  Are
they all independent groups, or part of a national (or worldwide?)
organization?  How often do they meet and what happens at meetings?
And is there one in Austin TX?

Thanks for any info,
Russ
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Cadet gray
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:29:47 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Distribution: na

regarding "Cadet gray":
Grey uniforms were produced in one of two ways: 
1) threads of a dark color were interwoven into fabric with threads of lighter and darker cast (the closest analogy today would be the alternating of dark and light threads in modern denim). From a distance this would appear light to 
moderately grey.
2) entire bolts of fabric were dyed one predominant color. Grey is usually a 
mixture of blues, blacks, and browns. The proportion of the mixture determines the hue and cast of the fabric. Cadet grey was predominantly manufactured in 
Great Britain, and was a medium grey with a blue cast. Another color produced later in the war was a dark grey with a high black content, sometimes referred 
to as "Richmond grey". 
Just another line in the uniform thread...
JTHoppers
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan)
Subject: In the News
Organization: CALIFORNIANS ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:45:23 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

From: clarinews@clarinet.com (UPI)

	CHICAGO (UPI) -- A black alderman vows to keep a monument to
Confederate soldiers who died as prisoners from receiving landmark
status.
	Despite Alderman Allan K. Streeter's objections, a City Council
committee Thursday recommended landmark status for the 40-foot-tall
monument topped by an 8-foot statue of a Confederate soldier.
	The monument was built in 1893 in a cemetery on the former grounds of
Camp Douglas where the 6,000 Southern soldiers died as prisoners. John
Underwood, a former Confederate general and one of 30,000 southern
soldiers held at the camp, raised funds for the monument. Among the
contributors were Marshall Field, Potter Palmer and George Pullman.
	``Giving landmark status to Confederate soldiers in a Northern state
is like saying to African Americans, 'We're going to rise again and
you're going to fall.' It's a slap in the face to black Chicago,''
Streeter said.
	Alderman Robert Shaw said he would join Streeter in voting against
landmark designation when the full council votes.
	``Let them go somewhere in the South and designate a landmark
monument to the Confederate soldiers who lost their lives. In fact, they
should have lost their lives, trying to enslave hundreds of thousands of
blacks,'' Shaw said.
	A defender of landmark status said he understands their reasoning.
	Alderman Burton F. Natarus said that as a Jew he would oppose
landmark designation for a monument to Nazi soldiers.
	But Natarus said the deaths of 6,000 Southern soldiers should be
remembered.
	``It was a terrible, terrible war. The net result was we brought the
Union back together. The slaves were freed. The war made this a better
country. That's the way we have to look at it....Not to designate it is
to say it never happened,'' Natarus said.
	Alderman Lawrence Bloom blamed the thousands of deaths on conditions
at the camp.
	``They died because the Union Army did not maintain a sanitary
prison,'' Bloom said. ``The normal conventions of war say you don't kill
your prisoners. You treat them humanely. Apparently the Union Army
didn't do a very good job of that.''
	Alderman Bernard Stone had reservations about landmark status, but
only because he thinks the city has too many landmarks.
	``The city seems to feel that if it doesn't move, designate it,''
Stone said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
The above is posted as information and without comment.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 13:24:49 EDT
From: <JCEHC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Question for Reenactors

    I have recently come to learn that some Civil War reenactors particularly
those affiliated with the N-SSA, where shooting competitions with live
ammo take place, are using newly built replicas of some of the less than
common firearms encountered by reenactors such as the Harpers Ferry 1855
two band rifle.  I have read that some prefer these shorter guns to to
more frequently encountered mass produced replicas of Enfields, Springfields
and Remington Zouves.  My question is:  if there are exact reproductions of
the Harpers Ferry Model 1855 rifle being built, as copies of the 1841
"Mississippi" rifle (not the Italian copy), who is building them and
where are the builders getting parts.

   I already know quite a bit about the Italian and Japanese made
copies of Civil War guns, but what I'm asking about are American
made copies.  If you have any experience with or know any reenactors
using newly built American made copies of the above mentioned muzzle
loading guns, please e-mail you responses to me, or if you wish, please
follow up on rec.guns.  I am not a reenactor, but am interested in building
muzzle loading arms and am currently interested in duplicating some of
the less common Civil War, and antebellum period guns.

   One more question:  About ten years ago a small company called Springfield
Firearms Corp located in Springfield, Mass was making exact copies of
the Colt Special Model 1861 rifle musket.  Does anyone know what became of
this company?

Michael Gordon
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Ironclads (was Re: News of the World)
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:27:33 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Sep26.153641.2220@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
>
>Sorry to quibble on such minor points, but Steve Schmidt and Chuck Ten
>Brink are so rarely inaccurate on even the smallest of matters, I
>couldn't resist the opportunity to correct them both (however
>slightly) in one reply. ;-)
>
Geez, keep talking like that, and I'll have to stop shooting from the hip.
Guess it's time to move the reference collection into my office.
--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.civil.usa
From: COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan)
Subject: Oops! CSA "butternut" uniforms (2nd try)
Organization: CALIFORNIANS ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:45:34 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

One quick question:  We all know that the North and South are often refered
to as the Blue and the Grey. We also know of many examples where Union
forces wore grey uniforms and CSA forses wore blue (to say nothing about
the more outlandish outfits). However most authors refer to the CSA 
army as wearing "butternut". I have always assumed that butternut was a light
brown, similar to khaki, but I can think of no basis for my assumption. 

What color is it?  

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
        "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: glhewitt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gary Livingston Hewitt)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Oops! CSA "butternut" uniforms (2nd try)
Date: 27 Sep 92 04:08:29 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Sep26.234534.28680@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
>One quick question:  We all know that the North and South are often refered
>to as the Blue and the Grey. We also know of many examples where Union
>forces wore grey uniforms and CSA forses wore blue (to say nothing about
>the more outlandish outfits). However most authors refer to the CSA 
>army as wearing "butternut". I have always assumed that butternut was a light
>brown, similar to khaki, but I can think of no basis for my assumption. 
>
>What color is it?  

Sounds like a CW Quiz part 5...

My sense is that it's a light grayish-brown.

Those people living in the Ohio Valley, on the North side of the River 
(that is, people who settled from Kentucky & Tennessee), are often
called butternuts, after their use of homespun dyed with walnut or
butternut shells.  These people were unenthusiastic Unionists or down-
right southern sympathizers -- often virulently racist, unlikely to 
enlist, likely to vote for peace candidates.  So we have butternuts
wearing blue once conscription goes in...

GARY
-- 
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
  ||    |    Gary| L. Hewitt|       |   ||  HELP!  I've been imprisoned
  || glh|ewitt@ph|oenix.prin|ceton.e|du ||  by my .signature!  HELP!
  ++====+========+==========+=======+===++
From: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Artillery Question
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:30:41 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

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

>Just saw "Last of the Mohicans" and there's a scene where the French artillery
>is shelling a British fort. Both sides are using exploding shell, both from
>field pieces and from siege mortars. The movie is set in 1757. Isn't this
>about 50 or 100 years too early for them to have exploding shell? Or is my
>memory about the introduction of shrapnel wrong?

Look at contemporary engravings of 16th, 17th and 18th century sieges
-- they clearly show in-air explosions.

Shrapnel is not the only form of exploding shell -- only the most
effective for its range. Artillerists started experimenting with
exploding shells as soon as metal shells replaced rocks as
projectiles. They weren't successful until effective methods of
corning gunpowder were discovered; unless corned, gunpowder separates
very quickly, paricularly under shock and vibration.

Hollow iron balls filled with powder were the first exploding shells,
if I recall correctly; they weren't particularly effective because the
shell tended to rupture into a couple of big pieces instead of lots of
tiny pieces. The big advantage of shrapnel is that it breaks up into
lots of little pieces.

I believe shot and canister, which would look a lot like exploding
shells, were also invented fairly early.

I think this is covered in _The Pursuit of Power_. One of the standard
books on Gettysburg (Coddington's _Gettysburg Campaign_, I think) has
a pretty good description of the various types of ammo current in the
Civil War. (This is in describing how the gunners changed ammunition
types as Pickett's charged progressed).

I've never been an arms and armor nut, and I don't have sources handy,
so this is hazy.

dhs   specner@panix.com
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: butternut
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:21:27 GMT
Organization: Indiana University


 I always got the impression that it was a light yellow or dun-colored
brown. If you've ever gotten the juice from black walnut peels on your
hands you'll know where I got my impressions from. I don't know why they
used butternuts as a dye, when other easily available dyes, or grey
wool, or unbleached cotton would have produced a greyish color. Also,
white cloth would have quickly greyed with grunge in the field. 
    
I am also interested in instances where grey clad troops fired on
friendly blue clad troops (either side). I know that the N.Y. militia
and an Iowa militia unit were dressed in grey and that the Washington
Artillery (Louisiana) and the N.C. militia were dressed in blue at the
start of the war. A lot of Zouve units also wore essentially
interchangable uniforms. This must have generated great confusion on the
battlefield. 
	I know of at least one instance (at First Bull Run/Manassass)
where blue clad southerners were mistaken for northerners, there must
have been many other instances before a semi-standardized uniform got
worked out for each side.
	I have also heard that the Confederate first national flag was
replaced by the infamous "stars and bars" because the 1st Natl flag was
too easily mistaken for the U.S. flag at a distance. (easily
understandable if the flag is hanging and not waving in the breeze).
	
	Have fun,

	Tom.
D
D
D
D
D
replaced by the infamous stars and bars
From: dargan@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Sunken roads.
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:55:49 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Oct3.155328.18608@morrow.stanford.edu>, COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
> This is from way out in left field, but exactly how does a road become
> "sunken"?  For example, I could never understand how the "bloody lane"
> near Sharpsburg got that way.  If it was water errosion, how come it didn't 
> become so badly rutted that it became unusable as a road?  Even in the 
> East, the roads surely hadn't been used long enough for the road bed 
> to be lowered by several feet below the surrounding terrain simply by
> wind and wagon wheel errosion.  What am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
> COWAN@ANL.GOV  (I'm posting from my own account, but not the preferred one)
>         "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a War Room!"
> from _Dr._Strangelove_or:_How_I_Learned_to_Stop_Worrying_and_Love_the_Bomb_
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While soil and wind erosion do indeed play some part in "sinking" the road,
most of the sinking is caused by compaction of the soil.  Notice how nowadays
when roads are constructed the soil is removed to a considerable depth and
replaced with compacted fill and rock.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Sunken roads.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 16:20:46 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.155328.18608@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
>This is from way out in left field, but exactly how does a road become
>"sunken"?  For example, I could never understand how the "bloody lane"
>near Sharpsburg got that way.  If it was water errosion, how come it didn't 
>become so badly rutted that it became unusable as a road?  Even in the 
>East, the roads surely hadn't been used long enough for the road bed 
>to be lowered by several feet below the surrounding terrain simply by
>wind and wagon wheel errosion.  What am I missing?
>
Since many roads were little more than dirt tracks, the iron-rimmed
wagon wheels of the day could and did erode the road bed below the
surrounding terrain. If this erosion was aided by erosion from a bank or
upward slope on one side of the road, or if there was a wall on one side
of the road, you have an instant fortification.
	Remember, that in the east, it is concievable that some roads in
Virginia had been in use for over 200 years before the ACW rolled
around. If you have ever seen a dirt road after it has gotten a lot of
traffic, especially if the road is muddy, you can imagine how quickly a
road could be sunken, especially over a period of years.
	Evidence of wagon wheel ruts is still visible on the American
prarie, along the routes the wagon trains took west, along the Oregon
trail (and I believe, others).
	I believe Shelby Foote says that the reason that the sunken road
on the Fredericksburg battlefield was sunken is because it was the major
wagon road to a mill. Presumably the wagon traffic, with each wagon
laden with loads of grain/flour gradually wore down the surface of the
road.
	It would seem logical though, that if the surface of a road got
too rutted or boggy to be used, that it would be repaired, just like
today.
	Other examples of the terrain being altered, uninentionally by
human activity, is the "wilderness", that Lee, Hooker, Grant, etal.
fought through. It was young, closely growing saplings and dense
under-brush that was grew up out of abandoned tobacco fields. (The
fields had been abandoned some 50 to 20 years before after the land had
been exhausted).

Tom \|/
     0

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: Re: Sunken roads.
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems Inc.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 92 19:20:50 GMT

The sunken roads became sunken (I believe) due to the usage they
recieved and the less than excellent maintanence they recieved.  Most
roads during that time in the country were little more than dirt paths
with no bed of any sort. Maintenance at best flattened out the ruts
but no maintenance in any consistant manner was usually performed as
the counties were typically responsible for these roads and they did
not have much money.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+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: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Subject: Re: Ironclads (was Re: News of the World)
Keywords: Ironclad, warships, _Monitor_, _Virginia_
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 23:46:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.213635.25620@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>My memory of it:
>
>The British and French ships were the first ironclad ships. The Virginia
>and Monitor were the first two to see combat: France and England weren't
>at war with anyone.
>Foote's boats had iron armor but it was partial, not complete. I think this
>is why they're not counted as ironclads.
>This is all from memory, flame away if I'm wrong... :)

I believe that armored floating batteries were used in the Crimean War.  These
were not self propelled and can't really be called ships, of course.  

I've heard Foote's boats referred to as the "Eads ironclads."  Not wanting to 
quibble about whether or not they were "real" ironclads, they operated out in 
the wilderness of Kentucky against land targets.  On the other hand, the 
Monitor vs. Merrimac(k) fight was on the civilized east coast of the USA  
after the Virginia/Merrimac had easily destroyed two or three first line 
wooden ships of the US Navy while suffering minimal damage.  This was a ship 
vs. ship battle practically on the doorstep of Washington, and IMHO every 
naval attache in town was reading the newspaper stories and angling for a 
sight of the Monitor.  I'd doubt if there were any foreign naval officers 
within 500 miles of Forts Henry and Donaldson.

The Navy had another ironclad in commission soon after the Monitor-Merrimac
battle.  It was the USS Galena and was built on traditional wooden ship lines.
It was not considered successful, and most of the armor was removed after a 
couple of years.

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

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa