HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis
Date:         Wed, 08 Apr 92 12:36:01 CST
From:         C05705DA@WUVMD
To:           NETNEWS@WUVMD
Subject:      Re: Battle of Shiloh
Newsgroups:   soc.history

In responce to the lack of possible southern occupation in Cincinnati,
if I interpreted it correctly, was not far fetched.  For quite a while,
the southern underground had been planning a large revolt IF the south
could prove themselves in the west.  Gen. Price new the significents of
Holding Missouri.  This is why troops, including Gen. Forrest, were sent
to invade Missouri, since Quantril did such a good job of keeping the
state in a constant state of kaos, instead of to Atlanta to help
Gen. Johnston.  If Missori fell to the south, Iowa, some of Illinois,
and Cincinnati in particular, would revolt, much like the French
Underground in WWII.  Thus, the Union would panic and relieve a lot of
pressure off of Gen. Lee.  But, the invasion failed at the Arcadia
Valley by a single Union regiment and a single battery out of St. Louis.
The south surrounded the Billies, charged twice and repulsed with heavy
casualties per capita, allowed the Billies to retreat under the stars,
woke up to no Union; so they packed up and went back south.
Xref: sparky soc.history:3681 rec.arts.books:8135
From: heath@athena.cs.uga.edu (Terrance Heath)
Newsgroups: soc.history,rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Did Jefferson father Heming's child?
Date: 17 Apr 92 15:04:09 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

In article <14APR199207265958@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov> packer@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Packer) writes:
>What is the consensus among historians as to whether Thomas
>Jefferson ever fathered a child by his slave Sally Heming?
>
     I am not sure about the consensus among historians, but I would cite the early african-american novel "Clotel : or the President's Daughter" byu William Wells Brown.  The author alleges that Jefferson did indeed father a daughter by one of his slaves, though the book was printed with that allegation deleted, until 1969.  Williams, in his last chapter, claimes that the novel is very much based in factual accounts from runaway slaves, etc.  I know literature and history are two different things, but per


haps this citation might help.
From: c34657b@saha.hut.fi (Tuomas Viljanen)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Armenian Religious History
Keywords: Christian, atheist
Date: 10 Apr 92 12:37:07 GMT
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

In article <1992Apr8.204609.13656@trantor.harris-atd.com> sl@ccd.harris.com (Scott Linn) writes:

>    I have heard it said that Armenia was the
>first nation as a nation to convert to Christianity
>and the first nation as a nation to "convert" to 
>atheism.  I know that the first part of the 
>statement is true - they converted to 
>Christianity in the early 300's AD.  Can
>someone confirm the second part ?

Unfortunately it is not true - just another story by Soviet propaganda.
The first and up to date the only country to 'convert' to atheism has
of course been Albania, where religion in all its forms was outlawed
in 1967. The prohibition was abolished a couple of years ago.

  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: jyanowitz@hamp.hampshire.edu
Subject: Being pro-active, corrections
Organization: Hampshire College
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 17:28:50 GMT

I left out a few
things in my previous post...I assume Ralph isn't so close-minded as to
limit his bigotry to Jews.  Blacks, Latino/as, Asians, Homosexuals of any
race, women of any race (well, maybe, the cult of true white womanhood is
okay...but you better not wink at a black man, otherwise you're a race
traitor), etc...  Also, extreme Kudo's going out to Danny Keren and others
who have carefully critiqued the "science" in the IHR bullshit. 
-- 

Jason

   "Uhhh...Uhhh..Uhhh..I...Uhhh...Would...Uhhh...like to recognize...uuhhh...
    speaking of director's....uuh...John Singleton and Matty Rich...(...)people
    who bring new lifeblood to this industry."
       ---Jonathon Demme, stammering to a damn good point at the Oscar's.
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:11:16 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

(Jeff Zurschmeide) engages fingers before brain and types:
>a man (Grant) who held the field at
>the end, albeit at tremendous cost. His tenacity in holding the field 
>was the one thing that worked most to defeat the rebels from then on,
>I think. 

I don't whay I typed that. It was certainly a valuable trait of Grant's,
but by no means the one thing that did the most to turn the war around. 
I think that superiority of resources was the big thing, and Grant's 
tenacity simply took advantage of that superiority of resources. 

OK,

JZ
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	      One Shift		 ,			   Two Shift
Re d  S   h    i     f      t    ,       B     l      u      e     S    h  i ft
From: cdf@naucse.cse.nau.edu (Craig Fischer)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Gettysburg/Shiloh turning point
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:44:52 GMT
Distribution: usa

From article <1992Apr11.234514.21885@sequent.com>, by dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad):
> 
> It has been said in earlier postings that it was downhill for Lee
> after Gettysburg.  I do not think this is the case.  To me it looked
> liked another in a series of invasions that were beaten back by the
> other side.  In 1862, the union tried two and the south one, in 1863,
> the north and south one each.

> comments?
> 
Gettysburg was not deciding battle in military terms.  But, 
it was the deciding battle in diplomatic terms.  The 
Confederacy up to Gettysburg had a good chance of being
recognized by European Nations, like France and Great Britain.

After the Battle of Gettysburg, many of these nations were 
unwilling to give aid or diplomatic recognition to a 
nation/cause that would fail.  Without the support of these
nations, in the area of financing, supply(both in domestic and
military goods) and diplomacy, the confederacy could not win
independence through military or diplomatic action.

You must understand that the Confederacy depended on Europe for
most of its factory goods.  When the war started the Confederacy 
had little or no industrial capacity.  So, the failure  to win
continued European economic support hurt the confederate war 
effort.

Furthermore, the Confederacy, expected European aid in forming
a diplomatic settlement.  The Confederate Army never really 
expected to win the war against the Union.  It only had to force
official recognition of indepence by the United States.

This is why many historians consider the Battle of Gettysburg
significant.
From: 00rdharringt@bsu-ucs.uucp
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: turning point definition
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:40:38 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <1992Apr8.034639.12287@sequent.com>, dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
> First off thanks for all the replies to my Shiloh as turning point
> idea.  I now have a lot to consider, and would still welcome more
> ideas or thoughts on the topic.
> I am also inerested in knowing if there is a definition of "turning
> point" for wars.  What constitutes a turning point anyway?  Is it
> strictly military, or are other fsactors included?

I don't know if there is an exact definition for "turning point" but for me
it is the point in when one side gains the momentum that eventually leads
to victory.  Virtually every war has one.  The turning point not only
gives one side a military advantage but it also boosts the morale of the
"home team" (meaning troops and homefront).

I'd also be interested in hearing your opinions on what the turning points
of other wars were.

-- 
/---------------------------------------v-------------------------------------\
|  Rob Harrington                       |              Ball State University  |
|  Department of History                |               Muncie, Indiana, USA  |
|  Vax--00RDHARRINGT@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  |       Unix--herring@bsu-cs.bsu.edu  |
>---------------------------------------^-------------------------------------<
|  "It is good fortunes for politicians that people don't think."- A. Hitler  |
|                       Aoibheann beatha an scol/aire!                        |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Israel
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:47:06 GMT
Article-I.D.: techbook.1992Apr7.204706.21195
Organization: TECHbooks of Beaverton Oregon - Public Access Unix

fsars@acad3.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks) writes:

>In article <1992Apr2.055151.2423@ccsd.uts.EDU.AU>, swalker@uts.EDU.AU (S
>Walker) writes:
>> Can somebody tell me how Israel was formed?. Was the land now known
>> as Israel called palestine until about 50 years ago?. Why is there
>> such an uproar with these Palestine people?, did they already have 
>> their own country and along came the israelis and kicked them out?
>> 

>Yeah, let's all get our flame-throwers out.  If you're serious, look
>it up in an encyclopedia.  It'll give you a better summary than anyone

Actually, an encyclopedia isn't such a great idea, but you should be
able to find plenty of interesting reading on the subject at the
library. You might try Simha Flapan's The Birth of Israel, Michael
Cohen's The Origins and Evolution of the Arab-Zionist Conflict, and
David Fromkin's A Peace to End All Peace (The Fall of the Ottoman Empire
and the Creation of the Modern Middle East).  I've just finished an
excellent book called Holy War, which traces the conflict back to the
Crusades, but unfortunately can't remember the author's name.

--Jeff

>on this group has time for.  === Al
-- 
gummitch@techbook.COM  Public Access UNIX at (503) 644-8135 (1200/2400) 
"Where the press is free and every man able to read, all is safe."
                                    --Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad)
Subject: turning point definition
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 92 03:46:39 GMT

First off thanks for all the replies to my Shiloh as turning point
idea.  I now have a lot to consider, and would still welcome more
ideas or thoughts on the topic.
I am also inerested in knowing if there is a definition of "turning
point" for wars.  What constitutes a turning point anyway?  Is it
strictly military, or are other fsactors included?
From: court@newton.physics.mun.ca (J. Lewis)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Educational cultures (was: The British Lost!)
Summary: Quotations re Oxbridge prior to ca. 1850
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:06:04 GMT
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland


In article <1992Apr10.093742.88551@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au> phs172m@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (Stephen Harker) writes:
			.
			.
>	Similar claims are made for the British system, when it is good it is
>very good, but when it is poor it is very poor.  This seems to be particularly
>true of the late 19th and early 20th century when nothing like the German
>technical and trade training existed.

Three quotes more-or-less relevant:


	"Byron has been accused of drinking deeply.  Our universities,
certainly, did turn out more famous drinkers than scholars.  In the
good old times, to drink lustily was the characteristic of all
Englishmen, just as tuft-hunting is now."

               -Edward John Trelawny, "Memoirs of Byron, Shelley,
          and the Author", 1878.  Byron studied at Cambridge, while
          Shelley was sent down from Oxford.


     "In the Middle Ages Oxford sometimes had 13,000 students at
one time - nearly all poor.  The Town and Gown street battles,
marked by ringing of bells on one side, and by blowing of horns on
the other, were earnest, bloody, often fatal affrays.  Even into
the nineteenth century serious battles took place ..."

               -Florence Becker Lennon, "The Life of Lewis Carroll"


     "From this [remarks on German universities] it is possible too
see what Oxford was not, and to adumbrate what it was.  Bishop
Gore's statement in the House of Lords called Oxford a 'playground
for the sons of the wealthier classes, and not in any serious sense
a place of study at all.'  Gentleman Commoner John Ruskin, in the
1840's, wrote: 'I gave a chess party last night ... Liddell [later
co-author of the "Greek Lexicon", and father of Lewis Carroll's
Alice] appeared too ... Liddell was soliloquizing to this effect on
the figure that he should cut at collections: "I've had three
lectures a week from Mr. Brown, and have attended five in the term; 
I've had ditto from Mr. Kynaston, and have attended two in the
term; and three a week from Mr. Hill, and I've attended three; and
I'll be dashed if I don't come off as well as the whole set of
you."  And in fact, the examinations were so graded that 'nothing
but extreme incapacity, extraordinary want of school-education, or
gross idleness at the University will absolutely exclude a student
from his degree.'"

               -Florence Becker Lennon, "The Life of Lewis Carroll"


John Lewis
Physics Dept.
Memorial University of Newfoundland
From: hhm@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (herschel.h.mayo)
Subject: Re: Famous conferences in history?
Organization: Chicago Home for the Morally Challenged
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 13:17:19 GMT


> flames and nothing about the Holocaust, but here goes anyway:
> 
> Here at work they want to find names for a number of conference rooms.
> I thought, how about naming them after famous conferences in history?
> For instance, `Yalta', and ... er ... ?
> 
> I am soliciting suggestions for the list `History's most famous
> conferences' - please e-mail me.
> 
How about the Munich room, or the Wannesee room. Those should go over
big with some of the revisionist yayhoos that have been cluttering up 
this group lately.

                                             Larry
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Hemp-less history.  Can you help?
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:40:36 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <9204062142.AA29413@echidna.swdc.stratus.com> lpb@stratus.swdc.stratus.com (Len Bucuvalas x5363) writes:
>I find it amazing after all these years that so few know anything at all
>about the value to this specific biomass.
>
>Re: Article: 10100 of soc.history
>Path: stratus!olivea!spool.mu.edu!mips!swrinde!gatech!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mace.cc.purdue.edu!jewell
>From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
>Newsgroups: soc.history
>Subject: Re: Hemp-less history.  Can you help?
>
Nothing in this posting was from me.  Please watch your atributions.
(Not directed at anyone in particular, just wishing to short-circuit
any responses that might be sent to me.)

Enjoy,
Larry J


-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)  JEWELL@PURCCMACE   jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu     # 
#"Sunday's horoscope is noteworthy because of its strange, sudden and wholly#
#unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all phases of life." #
#--"Your Horoscope," L.A. Evening Herald Express, Saturday, Dec. 6, 1941.   #
From: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Guillermo J. Rozas)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: The jewish expulsion (was Re: article)
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:21:55 GMT
	<1992Apr2.224107.11662@techbook.com> <14235@pitt.UUCP>
Reply-To: jinx@zurich.ai.mit.edu
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
In-reply-to: geb@dsl.pitt.edu's message of 6 Apr 92 16:18:39 GMT

In article <14235@pitt.UUCP> geb@dsl.pitt.edu (gordon e. banks) writes:

* In article <1992Apr2.224107.11662@techbook.com> gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane) writes:

* >why not: "Juan Carlos _should_ apologize, because it can't hurt!"  What
* >possible harm could it do for him to apologize for the actions of his
* >ancestors, when they were clearly in the wrong?  The persecution, not

* Do the Bourbons have any bloodlines back to the Catholic Kings?
* I thought they were French grafts.

King Juan Carlos is a direct descendant of the Catholic Kings.  The
genealogy is as follows:


	Isabel de Castilla y Fernando de Catalunya y Aragon
* Juana "la Loca" 		- Felipe "el Hermoso" de Austria (Habsburgo)
Carlos I 			- Isabel de Portugal
Felipe II
Felipe III
Felipe IV
* Maria Teresa 			- Luis XIV de Francia (Borbon)
* Luis de Borbon
Felipe V (duque de Anjou)
Carlos III
Carlos IV
Fernando VII
Isabel II
Alfonso XII
Alfonso XIII
* Juan de Borbon
Juan Carlos

The people whose names are tagged with an asterisk never held the
crown of Spain.

Other people who held it during the 500 years covered are:
  Carlos II, the last Habsburg, son of Felipe IV. His death led to the
    war of succession which Felipe V ultimately won after concessions
    (he gave up all claims to the French throne, gave up the European
    possessions of the crown of Spain, and ceded Menorca and
    Gibraltar Britain -- they had been taken by the Dutch and British
    during the war).
  Luis I, son of Felipe V, was king for seven months until he died.
    His father regained the crown after Luis's death (he had
    abdicated).
  Fernando VI, son of Felipe V reigned before Carlos III, but
    died childless.
   
  
The names are in Spanish because I don't know the English name for
"Juana la Loca", and it seems silly to switch languages in the list.
From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 8 Apr 92 17:40:34 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

In article <1992Apr7.211922.22010@cs.umn.edu> thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) writes:
>>
>I've been wondering about the lifting of the blockade.  Granted that the
>British (and probably the French) Navy was capable of lifting the blockade,
>would they have?  If the USA and the CSA were recognized as at war, the
>blockade would have to be considered legal and lifting it would be an act
>of war.

The British and French used Southern cotton in their textile mills. Those
mills and their owners needed cotton. No cotton, no work, no work, no income,
no income, no taxes. Damn the legations! ;^} But they weren't willing to go
on record as supporting slavery. Big win there for Lincoln with the
Emancipation Proclamation.

>Granted that Britain never liked blockades used by other nations, and granted
>that there was a considerable amount of sympathy for the Confederacy (which
>extended to providing them with warships), would Britain really have committed
>itself to an alliance with the Confederacy and a war with the Union?  We're
>talking about some real serious actions here.

They also would have liked to stunt the growth of the U.S. before it 
became what it has become. They were stuck, it seems to me, between 
distaste for the South and fear of the Union. That distaste won because
of emancipation. Read up on the Slidell and Mason embassies to England
and France. The Union caught the British-flagged ship that was taking
them across the pond and they arrested the two of them. *That* nearly
brought England into the war. (Taking people off a foreign vessel was
and is an act of war.) Lincoln freaked and gave them back. They spent
the rest of the war in Europe waiting around for appointments with the
politicians, getting nowhere.

Curious, huh?

JZ
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	      One Shift		 ,			   Two Shift
Re d  S   h    i     f      t    ,       B     l      u      e     S    h  i ft
Newsgroups: soc.history
From: rwmurphr@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Robert W Murphree)
Subject: BOOK: PURSUIT OF POWER  by William McNeil
Summary: Has anybody got any opinions on this book?
Keywords: military, technology, society, western
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:29:12 GMT

Has anybody read or have opinions about william mcneil's book the;
pursuit of Power?

The book describes the influence of technological progress on war 
and on society as a whole through war.  It complements his other
book on physical causes of history -Plauges and People which is
about the effects of diseases on human history. It starts up with
a paralell history of China -mostly economic and political and
technological from 1000 AD to 1500.  It then briefly discusses 
military technology from 3000 bc to 1000 ad.  The rest of the
book is spent describing the development of military technology
'in the competitive european state system from 1000 ad to the 
present.

He says that when the market system got out of control in europe
(but not in China) that the stage was set for runaway technology.
While he doesn't blame capitalist greed for all the arms races of
the 19nth and 20th century-=- he does note that the arms producing
portions of the state are out of control. 

It is an interesting book on the origin of the arms race (which is
why I read it to begin with) as well as a good history of war in
general (????). I am an electrical engineering student not a historian.
If anyone wishes to comment or discuss this-I wish they would send
me mail, as I don't read  soc.history regularly.

				thanks,\
				robert murphree

general (
From: ccspgo@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Paul Overend)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Why did Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commit suicide?
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:48:12 GMT
Organization: Bath University Computing Services, UK

If I remember my, Rommel's son was called Manfred.

				Paul G. Overend
Displaced San Franciscan
Organization: Brigham Young University
Date: Sunday, 5 Apr 1992 21:19:39 MST
From: J MICHAEL ALLEN <HISJMA@BYUVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: A question about soc.history

I don't mean this question to sound flippant or anything like that, though
I have no idea how it will come across.  It is actually a serious question
from one who tunes into this newsgroup only very infrequently.  The question
is this:  My impression is that the primary topics of discussion cluster around
arguments about the reality (or otherwise) of the holocaust (Egads! Do serious
people still doubt it happened?), and whether or not this person or that
argument is anti-Semitic.  Am I right, or has my timing been such that I have
simply tuned in during several cyclic returns to these topics?

Just want to know what's being talked about, that's all.
From: salter_duke@darwin.ntu.edu.au
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: 1302 - a boring year
Date: 15 Apr 92 10:42:34 +0900

Did anything happen in 1302?

I ask, because I've just been given this as a telephone number (after
the area & local codes), and I've found that associating numbers with
noted events is a good way to remember them (eg a writer friend has 
the number 1564 - Shakespeare's birthday, and 1492 is the phone number
of another friend who travels a lot.)  So I looked up 1302 when I got
it as my number.

Nothing appeared to have happened in 1302.  Edward 1 of England had
a break from hammering the Scots: the Aztecs hadn't got round to building
Tentotichlan (sp?), the Pope hadn't schismed and moved to Avignon,
the barbarians weren't hording, the plague was still confined to
rats. 

It might have been a good year to plant crops, I guess.   But did
anything happen that year?

Linden

-- 
Linden Salter-Duke		email: SALTER_DUKE@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU
Northern Territory University
Darwin, Australia		Snail: Box 40146, Casuarina, NT 0811