HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: West Virginia (was Re: You started it, ...)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:18:00 GMT

In article <36767@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, carraghe@cs.ucsd.edu (Robert Carragher) writes...
>wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:

>>The case of West Va., however, was clearly illegal.

[...]

>Well, that depends on your interpretation of the legality of the
>Unionist Virginia legislature which voted to seceed from Virginia.
>If we have that "original" Virginia senators gave up their voice
>in Congress, and Virginia legislature the affairs of their own state
>(a very shaky ground, I admit), then the Unionist legislature was
>in their rights to create West Virginia.

Yes! I love it! 

I recall that after Richmond fell, Lincoln allowed the Va. Legislature to vote
to withdraw from the CSA.  When it was suggested that allowing a Confederate
body to act would lend legitimacy to secession, Lincoln remarked that he did not
mind if the people who had _claimed_ to be the lawfully constituted
representatives of Virginia decided amongst themselves to abandon their unlawful
activity. They were not allowed to do anything else but withdraw from the CSA
however.

On a related note, I have never been clear how Lincoln managed to be re-elected
President.  If the total number of senators+congressmen (for all of the United
States) is E, you must have at least (E+1)/2 votes to be president.  But some
fairly large fraction, say at least 0.25*E, of the eligible electoral votes were
from states in rebellion which presumably did not send electors.

So was the Constitution taken to mean you must only have a majority of the
electoral votes _cast_ or was there some other dodge?  What if all the Southern
states had sent people to 1864 Electoral College to vote for McClellan????

I suppose that wouldn't be "honorable"...

Dave

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (William E Van Horne)
Subject: General Officers' Uniforms
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 12:25:00 GMT


I believe army regulations have always allowed any general officer to
design his own uniform.  I know it was true during WW2.  Eisenhower
designed the "Eisenhower jacket", which was a standard blouse minus
the skirt below the waist.  Also, "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell always wore
his WW1-style broad-brimmed "campaign hat".

MacArthur justified his use of navy-type "scrambled eggs" on his visor
because he was a Field Marshall in the Philippine army before the war
began, and continued to hold that position after he was recalled to
duty in the US army.  Of course, he had every right to do so.  I
suspect that no other officer would have adopted it for fear of being
classed with MacArthur. :-)

Bill Van Horne, Sr.
wvanhorn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 21:57:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug18.152628.19046@bnlux1.bnl.gov> KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>In <1992Aug17.180908.6972@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU writes:
>
>[refering to Hood's (offensive) strategy at Atlanta]
>
>: It always seems logical to me; Johnston's policy seems like one designed
>: to turn defeat into slightly slower defeat, whereas Hood could conceivably
>: have achieved something. Hood claims he would have won Franklin and Nashville
>: if he had had better cooperation from his corps commanders, for whatever
>: that's worth.
>: "The logical outcome of defensive warfare is surrender."
>
>The book _Lee Considered_ refers to a commander from Classical times (whose 
>name I've fogotten) who won a war in which he was badly outnumbered without
>winning a single battle. Does anyone know this story? The point the author 

The Commander was a Roman General call Fabianus (sp?). After the Roman
Disaster at Cannae, where 8 legoins (40,000 men) were WIPED OUT (a one day
slaughter not exceeded until The Somme in WWI). Fabianus took over the
Roman Armies facing Hannibal. Fabianus refused to fight a major battle,
and would move basically dance around Hannibal, who was getting very frustared
at this since he could lay siege to rome unless he could eliminate this army,
while Fabianus never one a battle, he kept the Romans going until Scipo 
Africainus, Rome first great general arrived and defeated Hannibal. Delaying
tactics are sometimes referd to 'fabian tactics' in Fabianus honor.


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Slavery
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 03:52:53 GMT

sterling@crash.cts.com (Mike Sterling) writes:

>time of the Emmancipation Proclamation, desertion rates withen the Union army increased significantly.  Many Northerns did not like the idea of being killed to free the slaves.

This is very true. The slaves were freed as much as a military maneuver as for
any other reason. It created havoc at the very core of the South, and brought
it to state of crisis. By the end of the war, well over 10% of the Union army
was ex-slaves. Freeing the slaves brought fresh, highly motivated manpower into
a beleaguered Union camp.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: Lincoln's reelection (was Re: West Virginia)
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:52:09 GMT

In article <12AUG199222183096@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>On a related note, I have never been clear how Lincoln managed to be re-elected
>President.  If the total number of senators+congressmen (for all of the United
>States) is E, you must have at least (E+1)/2 votes to be president.  But some
>fairly large fraction, say at least 0.25*E, of the eligible electoral votes were
>from states in rebellion which presumably did not send electors.
>
>So was the Constitution taken to mean you must only have a majority of the
>electoral votes _cast_ or was there some other dodge?  What if all the Southern
>states had sent people to 1864 Electoral College to vote for McClellan????
>
>I suppose that wouldn't be "honorable"...
>
>Dave
>

Lincoln had a clear majority of TOTAL electoral votes, including those
from the south.  Lincoln won 212 electoral votes to McClellan's 21.  This
was, in fact, more electoral votes than he got in 1860 (180 votes).
Therefore, even if the south sent pro-McClellan delegates, it wouldn't
have mattered.

Joe Dzikiewicz

D
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 14:54:56 GMT

In article <1992Aug16.213302.6195@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>to the things said by Early and others about Longstreet. Longstreet's
>book is also milder than the section of Hood's book which is in reply to
>General Johnston's criticisms of Hood.

Yeah, Hood and Johnston did not have a very high opinion of each other. 
IHMO Hood was the on at fault. You only have to look at the result of the
Battles around Atlanta, Franklin, and Nashville vs. Kennesaw Mountain
to see the answer.

>Why doesn't discussion of Longstreet's role at Gettysburg touch on this
>issue? Is there some aspect of it that I don't understand? It seems to me
>that one brigade in the Union rear on the second day of Gettysburg could

One Brigade = ~1,500 troops.
While Longstreet (in hindsight) certainly should have done this, It is not
unreasonable for him not to have. What if there was a breakthrough and that
one brigade was not availible because it was wondering around the boonies?
Remeber they had not recon on the flanks due to the lack of Cav. And beyond
all this I don't think one Brigade in the mist of 85,000 troops is going
to be decisive. On the other hand, I certainly could have help take Little
Round Top (which might or might not have been significant)
From: jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joshua M. Sabloff)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:32:13 GMT
	<1992Aug18.152628.19046@bnlux1.bnl.gov>
Organization: Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 18-Aug-92 Re: Re:
Lee-Longstreet P.L. Cowan@BNLCL6.BNL.GO (2430)

> Unfortunately for Johnston, neither McClelland
> nor Sherman made many tactical mistakes.

One wonders what would have happened if Johnston had not been injured at
the Seven Days and had retained control of the AoNV.  Then again,
knowing Joe and Mac, they would still be fighting.

Seriously, Lee had some incredible luck with the way the Union chose his
opponents.  Would Johnston be lionized if he had gone up against Hooker,
Burnside et al.?  


-Josh Sabloff (jsa5@andrew.cmu.edu)
"Now go away before I taunt you a second time-a!"
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Date: 19 Aug 92 21:48:02 GMT
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <1992Aug18.233742.23348@dazixco.ingr.com> doak@sunbug.dazixco.ingr.com writes:
>
>In article <1992Aug17.182354.8824@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>
>>  Same thing with Jackson's and Longstreet's tries at independent command.
>>  Jackson was up against Frement and Sigel, while Longstreet was up against
>>  Rosecrans and Parke (and also Burnside, to be fair). If the Union army
>
>   Wasn't Longstreet in command at Chickaumaugua (Bragg had gone into a
>funk by then)?  And wasn't he responsible for the breakthrough that had
>Rosencran's fleeing for his life?  If this is the command you are
>refering too (I don't think so), then I don't see how Longstreet could
>have done any better.

Longstreet commanded a WING of the Army of Tennessee at Chickamuga. The other
wing was given to Polk. Polk bashed that half into the Union forces opposing
him until they were useless. What Stephen is refering to is Longstreet's
command at the seige of Knoxville, which IHMO was a pretty lost cause.
(And certainly that way after the rout at Chattanoga)

>
>>                      ..... I don't know whether I prefer genius or reliable
>>  brilliance... it's a tough call.
>
>   I'd settle for having a competently aggressive commander (Grant) and
>twice the army my opponent has.  

I'd take Longstreet over Jackson anytime also.`
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Re: Lee
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:12:09 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <5501@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu writes:

: my comment on his attire was in just a speculation.
: i more than most know that officers in general did not follow the
: regulations regarding dress.  This is a mistake which many sometimes
: make.  the "top button" is from regulation and Victorian ideals, but
: A quick check of officers pictures (not studio ones) will
: show that they were "bums" just like the enlisted men.
: 

The subject was Lee, not officers in general. Remember that as a West Point
cadet, Lee received NO demerits (I believe he was the only one to do so in its
history). There is every reason to believe he was no less fastidious as a
general. The commentaries of his subordinats on his unbuttoning his coat at
Gettysburg make this clear.

: One of the more "popular" ones is with the  2nd Corps commanders -
: Hancock and his div. commanders.  Hancock is in his usual well-dressed
: self (he wore a clean WHITE shirt every day).  And leaning against
: a tree is Brig Gen Fracis Barlow (in a sack coat?) buttons
: fully opened, no vest, showing his checkered shirt.
: 

Several authors have debunked the story that Hancock wore a clean shirt every
day. But, remarkably, he did have one on at Gettysburg.

While we are on the subject (even though this will agrivate Jones Murphy no
end), does anyone know the poop behind general's hats. Burnside, Hooker,
Sherman and Sheridan each wore distinctive hats (just as MacArthur [the younger]
did in WWII)? Is this some ancient Army tradition?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Benefits of slavery to non-slaveholders (was a fresh start)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 19:02:14 GMT

In article <0095F6CD.FAB237C0@OCTAVO> jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:
>I don't know that the effort to incorporate  slaves into maufacturing was 
>unsuccesful, I recall the use of slave labor at Tredegar Iron Works prior 
>to the civil war (at least one "employee" was given/bought his manumission 
>papers as a result of 'faithful service'). This always comes to mind when 
>someone says to me "but slavery would have just died out eventually, don't 
>you think?". No, it would have been adapted to whatever profit-making, labor 
>intensive enterprises Southerners developed.
>
There is a large literature on this subject and the conclusions have been
that, with rare and minor exceptions, slavery was not suitable for labor
in industry for a couple reasons: first, southerners were unwilling to 
educate their slaves to the necessary level for them to acquire machine
skills; second, slaves could not be supervised closely enough to maintain
product quality in a factory setting. (You can see why slaves would have
an incentive to produce substandard goods). Other reasons have also been
proposed.
If people are super-curious I can probably cite some papers, drop me a mail
note as most people won't be interested. Gavin Wright's book Old South New
South would be a good place to start.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Election of 1864 (was Re: West Virginia (was Re: You started it, ...))
Date: 13 Aug 92 19:32:14 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

In article <12AUG199222183096@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>
>On a related note, I have never been clear how Lincoln managed to be re-elected
>President.  If the total number of senators+congressmen (for all of the United
>States) is E, you must have at least (E+1)/2 votes to be president.  But some
>fairly large fraction, say at least 0.25*E, of the eligible electoral votes 
>were from states in rebellion which presumably did not send electors.
>
>So was the Constitution taken to mean you must only have a majority of the
>electoral votes _cast_ or was there some other dodge?  What if all the Southern
>states had sent people to 1864 Electoral College to vote for McClellan????

The U.S. Congress, in a Joint Resolution, passed 8 Feb 1865 (before it counted
the electoral votes) declared that since VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX,
AR, and TN were in rebellion, there had been no valid election for electors
held in those states.  Therefore the Congress would refuse to receive or 
count any electoral votes sent from those states.

A similar resolution was passed over Pres. Johnson's veto in 1868 during
to ingnore the unreconstructed states.

Then, Lincoln and Grant were elected by a majority of the electoral votes
_cast_ (which is not a dodge, but the normal way of doing things unless
specifically required to do otherwise).

Now, a question.  Certainly most CSA states did not attempt to cast electoral
votes for US Pres in the election of 1864, but did some of the partially
reconstructed states?  Like TN, VA, LA, or AR?
--
Justin M. Sanders    "Politics, like prison, seems to impart some 
Dept. of Physics        dubious skills to those who serve too  
Kansas State Univ.        many terms." -- Joseph Sobran 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: You started it, we finished it (was Re: Confederate Flags)
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 00:23:53 GMT

In article <Bsv6xD.Gxt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Wayne J. Warf writes:

>Huh? Could you cite a case where the Supreme Court issued any of these
>opinions? I wish it were so, but I find no basis for the assertion.

Chuck has already given some specifics for which I am grateful, because 
it saved me (for the moment) from having to go find a law library and 
dig through the records of the Supreme Court. 

Truth to tell, I read that assertion in a book on Constitutional law and 
history in college, and it stuck with me. I've never gone and looked up 
and specific instances. 

But I will, if you aren't already satisfied with Chuck's defense....

JZ
 

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: You started it, we finished it (was Re: Confederate Flags)
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 22:18:08 GMT

In article <Bsv6xD.Gxt@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>In article <1992Aug7.153853.21568@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
>>At various times, the SC has held that the "Constitution of the United States" includes
>>also the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist papers. There are even those
>>who maintain that our Constitution includes the fuzzy concept of "Natural Law." 
>>
>>So, if their justification for secession was the Declaration, they do, in fact, have a 
>>leg to stand on in terms of legal precedent. 
>>JZ
>
>Huh? Could you cite a case where the Supreme Court issued any of these
>opinions? I wish it were so, but I find no basis for the assertion.

You just haven't looked hard enough.  Try Transportation Co. v.
Wheeling, 99 U.S. 273 (1878) wherein the Court referred to "the
Federalist, which has ever been regarded as entitled to weight in 
any discussion as to the true intent and meaning of the provisions
of our fundamental law."

The Court makes reference to the common law of England so often in
interpreting the constitution that citations would be endless; if
you really want to see them read any of the cases involving the
definitions of cruel and unusual punishment, jury trials, and the
like.  The common law can't be identified with the concept of 
natural law, but the basic philosophy behind them, that the law
is something that exists outside of what judges say (Holmes's
"brooding omnipresence") is essentially the same.

(And just to give this a little more Civil War flavor, can you
name the three battles in which he was wounded?)

Dunno about the Declaration of Independence, but I'm pretty sure
that it gets mentioned whenever the Justices want some flowery
phrases about abuses of privacy, in Fourth Amendment cases.

I suppose it may be argued that these are all merely guides for
interpretation, not "included" as "part of" the Constitution.  
To that I would reply, if you are using these documents and 
concepts to tell us what the Constitution says, then I don't
see any distinction.
--Chuck



-- 
Bitnet:                 uclcjt1@uchimvs1
Internet:         cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Black resistance
Date: 20 Aug 92 23:51:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

>>>The US did not have a "long and bloody history of
>>> slave revolts." almost all were small and insignificant.   in
>>
>>This is a myth. In 1774, James Madison, that patriot and champion of democracy
>>promulgated a policy of suppressing news of slave revolts. In fact, there are
>>250 documented slave revolts that I know of. I'm sure the number and severity
>>must be much greater, because of the policy from the federal level down of 
>>heavy censorship in order to avoid encouraging even more rebellions.
>>
>Jones, this is interesting--what policy is it of Madison's that you are 
>talking about?  Is there any documentation?

I have read this in two books, already. Madison strongly opposed publishing 
slave revolts, particularly white casualty figures. I will post whatever I find
in my own library.

>  The 250 revolts I've heard from
> Apethaker, though I have not had time to read the whole thing yet--where else 
>do you get this info from?

One book is by some guy named Katz, entitled "Breaking the Chains". Another is
by Herskovits, "Myths of the Negro Past". A third is entitled something like
"A History of Negro Rebellions in the US", but I can't remember the author.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: You started it, we finished it (was Re: Confederate Flags)
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:57:04 GMT
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: SGI TechPubs

In article <Bt8p2D.4qC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Wayne J. Warf writes:
>Actually, no I wasn't. I would appreciate it you could find instances
>of the court maintaining that natural law or the declaration or the
>Federalist are part of the Constitution. As I said, I wish it were
>so. Chuck didn't grasp the difference between that which is binding
>is the Constitution and that which may used or ignored at will. There
>is a VERY great difference between the two.

I would maintain that the Declaration and Federalist are in the latter category,
or else this would be a much larger Constitutional issue than it is. If they were
consistently binding, they'd be referred to frequently. As I recall what I read
about the subject, the author said that the court occasionally said things like
"We find nothing in the Constitution, Declaration of Indepence, or the Federalist
papers to support this position blah blah blah." That, to me, says that when
they're trying to come to a decision about something, that they can look to 
those documents to find the intent of the Founders.  Therefore, it's part of our
constitutional canon, even though it's not part of the Constitution proper.
Natural Law is, I think, indefensible by its very nature. You either believe that 
it should be taken into account or you don't. 

But to relate this to the discussion we were having, I brought up the point 
in answer to the question of the legality of secession. Simply, *if* you consider
those documents to be part of the canon of our "constitution" (and throw in
English common law, natural law, and the Judeo-Christian tradition for a ripe stew), 
then you can derive a right to alter or abolish governments that have become 
destructive of your rights that are held to be self-evident.  

But no, I don't think that those other documents are given the same weight as
the articles and amendments that we call our Constitution. I did not and do not
mean to assert that if you wrote Justice Rehnquist and asked, that he would say
"Sure, the Federalist papers are just as important as the first amendment." I don't 
think anyone is making the particular assertion that you're fighting. 

But now you've got me wondering about this, so I'll try to track some of this info
down. Anyone got any good clues for a place to start looking? 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa