HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carraghe@cs.ucsd.edu (Robert Carragher)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: West Virginia (was Re: You started it, ...)
Date: 12 Aug 92 17:51:04 GMT

wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
>The case of West Va., however, was clearly illegal. Article 4, section 3
>states "no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction 
>of any other state...without the consent of the legislatures concerned
>as well as of the Congress".

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.

It seems this act is no so clearly illegal as might be supposed,
although it really depends strongly upon how illegal secession
was.

			Bob Carragher

-- 
Reply: rcarragher@ucsd.edu       "Imagine all the people,
    or rcarragh@ucsd.edu          Living life in peace...."
if the above didn't work
                                          -- J.L.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Value of U.S. Greenbacks 1862-1866
Date: 21 Aug 1992 04:54:58 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

I have now got a file containing a synopsis of the fluctuations in
the value of U.S. greenbacks for the period 1862-1866, and I will
e-mail it to those requesting it (if sufficient interest, I'll post).

Among the interesting tidbits is that the U.S. public debt in Oct. 1866
was a whopping $3 billion (3,000,000,000 dollars).  These days the 
government looses that much between the couch cushions.
--
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: fgk@well.sf.ca.us (Frank G Kienast)
Subject: Where to purchase Confederate cannonballs/money
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 22:37:12 GMT

My father is a civil war collector and asked me to post this for him.
 
Does anyone know where he could purchase real Confederate currency or real 
Confederate cannon balls?  Also, a rough idea of the cost.
 
Please respond via email to fgk@well.sf.ca.us.  I will summarize responses 
in a followup post.
 
Frank Kienast
fgk@well.sf.ca.us
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Date: 18 Aug 92 15:26:28 GMT
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

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 
of _Lee Considered_ was making that the offensive strategy of Lee, Hood etc
was not sensible for the Confederacy. I think the implication that J.E.
Johnston's approach of conserving southern resources, and jumping on Union 
mistakes was the proper one. Unfortunately for Johnston, neither McClelland
nor Sherman made many tactical mistakes.

: >
: In article <1992Aug17.145456.5600@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay) writes:
: >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

: The Union army was sending massive reinforcements to Cemetary Ridge on the
: second day; a brigade in their rear would have slowed down the process
: considerably, maybe long enough to make the Confederate attack successful.
: That's what I was thinking, anyway. 

This sort of function would properly have been attempted by Stuart's cavalry
(if it had been available). Whether attempted by an infantry brigade or cavalry
it surely would have been defended against by Union cavalry (which was
present). In fact, Stuart did show-up the next day and did attempt this sort of
thing (during Pickett's Charge), but he was manhandled by Custer and the Union
cavalry (partially due to the Union cavalry being armed with new repeating
carbines).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Date: 17 Aug 1992 15:58:57 GMT
Organization: nasa-jsc

In article <1992Aug16.213302.6195@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> ...it has always seemed to me that [Longstreet] was
> guilty of not allowing Hood to move one brigade to the right of Little
> Round Top. Hood believed that this brigade would have taken the Union in
> rear and found itself among the Union trains, and I've never seen anyone
> claim otherwise. In his book he is quite explicit about it.
> Longstreet only replied "General Lee's orders are to attack up the Emmitsburg
> road" and never gave any reasons why not to move one brigade right. It seems
> to me that such a move would be entirely within the discretion Lee allowed
> his corps commanders in battle.

  This is where the death of Stonewall Jackson really hurt the CSA.  This
is the kind of cute trick that Jackson would have found and exploited
for maximum gain.  It is significant that Gettysburg was the first major
battle fought by Lee after losing Jackson.  Longstreet was a reasonably
good leader, but he didn't have the touch of genius that Jackson and Lee
shared.

> -- 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
> 
> "We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly

-- 
 Keith Mancus    <mancus@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov>                         |
                 N5WVR                                                  |
  "If I owned Texas and I owned Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live       |
  in Hell." -General Sheridan                                           |
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Confederate flag, Swastika, etc....
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 05:39:29 GMT

KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>As the author of the original posting of "A fresh start", I say that it was
>suppose to mean, "This newsgroup is only a few months (and a couple hundred
>postings) old and already the the decibel level is becoming annoying. Let's
>cool it!"

I'd be happy to help you, but I'm not responsible for your "decibel level".
I stand by my original statement. The Confederate flag is an insult to the
sensibilities of those who abhor the brutality and repression that it is
emblematic of. It should not be flown at institutions subsidized by our taxes,
to say the least.

>I have communicated privately with both of you guys, and neither is irrational
>except when you are bashing each other's heads. If that's what you really enjoy
>doing, keep it between the two of you and TAKE IT OFF THE NET!

I have not been irrational and would be pleased if you would point out a 
scintilla of irrationality in anything that I've posted. I am simply putting
forward facts. Feel free to dispute them. Anything else is simply--irrational.
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: jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Secession
Date: 17 Aug 92 16:38:10 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT USA

In article <BszIMp.GAK@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:

>In article <jf.20@pacnet.wesleyan.edu> jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN) writes:
>>In article <5470@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello) writes:
>>

>>You raise some interesting points, especially about "ratification" of the 
>>reconstruction amendments. As I recall, some of the southern states tried 
>>to rescind their "ratification" after they had been "readmitted." And 
>>perhaps someone can help me here--didn't some of the northern states 
>>also ratify and then try to undo it?
>>
>>By the way, I wonder if it might not be useful to 
>>distinguish, as did Lincoln and later the Supreme Court, between the Union 
>>and the Constitution. Lincoln's point, at least in the inaugural address, 
>>was that the Union was perpetual and anterior to the Constitution. It was 
>>the Union that states could not withdraw from. Were the "rebellious" states 
>>still states during the war? The Supreme Court thought they were, as 
>>indicated in the interesting case of Texas v. White. Nevertheless, the fact 
>>that these states remained in the union was not equivalent to saying that 
>>they retained the full measure of constitutional protection... or so some 
>>argued. On the other hand, wouldn't article 4 apply as a source of federal 
>>authority?

>I'm not sure how you mean Article 4 to apply. In what way?

>-- 
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Wayne J. Warf -- WWARF@ucs.indiana.edu -- I speak for myself only  |
> |"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master" |
> +--------------------------------------------------------------------+

I was thinking that Article 4 might provide authority for the federal govt 
to readmit states upon some "conditions," especially if those conditions 
were designed to restore a republican form of govt.

John E. Finn
Wesleyan University
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
Subject: Re: Chinese Carrier Sunk
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:49:29 GMT

In article <1992Aug13.060620.23213@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY) writes:
>In article <92Aug11.111345edt.147@orasis.vis.toronto.edu> liuyh@vis.toronto.edu (Yuanhui Liu) writes:
>>In article <NIGEL.92Aug11101611@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov> nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug11.111702.12094@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> buckley@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (BUCKLEY  CHARLES RAY) writes:
>>>
>>Firstable, I really doubt the US will sit idol while China goes shopping
>>in the ex-USSR, some muscle twisting against the "republics"  will stop
>>the carrier deal dead in the track.
>>
>Hard currency speaks volumes. Unless the US is willing to match China's
>offer or better it, the CIS will make the deal. We actually have very little muscle that we are willing to use against any of the republics.
>>

I agree with C.R.B.  Minor point here, but I think the deal is solely between
the Ukraine and China.  The CIS probably has no say in the matter - another 
reason for the sale going through.  Anycase, China does not pose a threat to
the US, the carrier will be a regional thing, where the US now has little 
interest.  I don't think the US is going to be losing any sleep over this one. 
    Besides, there's another reason for the Ukraine to
sell the Varyag (sp?).  They do not want to go to the expense of building 
it, and then have Russia take it over, as may happen once the deal about
the Black Sea fleet and associated matters is finalized.  This way, they'll
get cold hard cash (quite a lot, I imagine, and most needed), and not have
to worry about it's future.  


Gerald 
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler)
Subject: List of All Ongoing Conflicts
Organization: M.I.T. Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 04:28:35 GMT


Is there a list available of all of the ongoing armed conflicts in the world
today and their current status?

Allan Adler
ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
From: kermits@ikaros.cc.uch.gr (Aggelos Keromyths)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Info on books
Date: 15 Aug 92 14:42:12 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Crete HELLAS
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

I've been looking for Clausevich (sorry if i mispelled-just woke up anyway)
 book(s) but can't find any,so i was wondering if anyone out there can tell me
  the publisher/editor of the book.Any other good books on the same theme (
  war theory) ?
Thanks,
	Aggelos
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Who, me?(was Re: NAFTA (was Re: Bush's position on Bosnia))
Date: 13 Aug 92 22:25:23 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <BsxytD.3np@ecf.toronto.edu> manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan) writes:
>(P.S.  Alt.war readers :  I hope that 'charter' is coming along.
>Can't remember who promised to set it up (Larry Jewell?), but 
>please, oh please hurry! )

Wasn't me!    

>Gerald 
>(Oh well, just another line in my kill file)

I can post the procedure for killfiles if anyone needs it.  I kill everything in
this group that's crossposted to *.politics (I wouldn't have seen this posting
except that I was looking to see how well my file was working.)

Larry J


-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN) 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: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: China Buying Aircraft Carrier - can project force ...
Date: 12 Aug 92 11:04:22 GMT
Organization: DB and ES Subdivision, TU Vienna

From article <NIGEL.92Aug7140451@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov>, by nigel@rs733.GSFC.NASA.Gov:
> In article <1992Aug6.043130.12812@nuscc.nus.sg> ccchen@durian.iss.nus.sg (chen chung chih) writes:
> Considering that the Chinese have even less of a naval tradition than
> the former Soviet Union it will be fairly difficult for them to get
> the right mindset...

All of this is a question of time and the will to learn, as has been
shown countless times throughout history.  Whether they will make it
is an open question (I doubt it), but "they can't because it's hard to
do" is a non-argument.

>>    the USN. But in next century it will be a powerful one if China is
>>    determined to do it.
 
> It'll take decades...

Well, that's what he wrote...
-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.war
Subject: Re: Alt.war charter (a non-starter)
Date: 14 Aug 92 22:29:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.56878
Organization: Purdue University

In article <BsztvB.2I2@ecf.toronto.edu> manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan) writes:
>I agree completely.  'No cross-posting' would be an excellent addition to the
>charter.  Although, now that I'm writing, I can think of a couple of groups 
>from which I'm sure no-one will mind cross-posts.  Sci.aeronautics, 
>sci.military come to mind.  So maybe the thing would be to compile a list 
>of 'allowed' cross-post groups or something like that (or I guess if that's
>a hassle we could always just have a blanket no - most of us read those 
>groups anyways).  Any ideas, suggestions, etc. etc. ? 

Well, sci.military is moderated, and Bill Thacker, the permanent moderator
(currently on vacation while he moves to Chicago) is rather strict about the
charter in that group.  However, I'll ask him to keep this group in mind 
when suggesting a place for off-sci.mil-charter posters to send articles.
(Before you worry about "dumping", the charter in sci.mil doesn't allow 
discussions of political ramifications of battles, grand strategy, etc.,
so an article which fits the larger scope of this group might not fit there.
Bill is a very sensible person, so I don't worry about what he sends where.)

Another group which may or may not fit into a discussion is soc.veterans.
When I helped form that group, it's only charter was "for matters related
to veterans and friends of veterans" and an overlap between that group
and this is inevitiable.

So:

I feel that the charter should include a "no INAPPROPRIATE cross-posting"
item, without elaboration, so that it can be interpreted to fit whatever
situation causes its invocation.
 
>Gerald 

Larry J

-- 
#Larry W. Jewell (ex-USN)     WWII-L Listowner    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.   #
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: dan@cubmol.bio.columbia.edu (Daniel Zabetakis)
Subject: Alt.war charter (a non-starter)
Organization: Columbia University, Dept. of Biological Sciences.
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 23:14:40 GMT

In article <BsxytD.3np@ecf.toronto.edu> manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan) writes:
>How did NAFTA get into alt.war????  People, please check the
>
>(P.S.  Alt.war readers :  I hope that 'charter' is coming along.
>Can't remember who promised to set it up (Larry Jewell?), but 
>please, oh please hurry! )
>
    I am the one who mentioned making a charter. Specifically I meant to
add a 'no crossposts' line to the charter. Alt.war already has a charter, 
and while NAFTA doesn't really fit, most of the other flame war can't
be specifically excluded.
    I still think that we should put 'no crossposts' into the charter. It'S
not that I think it would stop the crossposts, but would give us real
alt.war'ers some basis to complain.
   When I asked for support, I got a grand total of 2 (two) replies saying
"Yeah, it's a good idea. Fine." And I noticed that some of the people who
post to alt.war were also posting in the flame wars. For these reasons,
I did not pursue the idea.

   I'm willing to try again. If you think 'no crossposts' would be a
good addition to the charter, drop me a line. Or post here. If you object,
post as well. Let's talk it over.
    If there was a concesus to avoid crossposting, then we could bitch and
complain to the groups that are included. It won't stop anything, but it
will deter the more rational folks.

DanZ

-- 
This article is for entertainment purposes only. Any facts, opinions,
narratives or ideas contained herein are not necessarily true, and do
not necessarily represent the views of any particular person.  

Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
From: runderwo@ruacad.ac.runet.edu (Robert T. Underwood)
Subject: Testing the waters
Organization: Radford University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 18:17:43 GMT

Just testing the water folks.  I apologize for any inconvience.
From: lotto@laura.harvard.edu (Jerry Lotto)
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
Subject: Re: Reality Check: Someone broke away from HD?
Date: 19 Aug 92 12:56:01 GMT
	<1992Aug18.211715.20987@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Chemistry Dept., Harvard University
In-reply-to: karen@gargoyle.uchicago.edu's message of 18 Aug 92 21:17:15 GMT

>>>>> On 18 Aug 92 21:17:15 GMT, karen@gargoyle.uchicago.edu (Karen Spragle) said:
Karen> His name is Buelle.  His bikes are called "Buelle"s.  He started out

Almoste

--
Jerry Lotto <lotto@lhasa.harvard.edu>      "Have you hugged the curves today?"
Chemistry Dept., Harvard Univ.              MSFCI, HOGSSC, BCSO, AMA, DoD #18
From: cascella-suzanne@cs.yale.edu (Suzanne Cascella)
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
Subject: Re: Sportster availability.
Date: 18 Aug 1992 11:51:12 -0400
Organization: Yale University, Department of Computer Science
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: scorpio.cf.cs.yale.edu


In article <92230.192710BJH@psuvm.psu.edu>, <BJH@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> I stopped in at the local Harley dealer this past weekend to ponder the
|> purchase of either a Sportster 883 or 1200 and was told there'd be at least a
|> two month wait.  Is this common across the country or is this a local thing?
|> 
|> And while I'm at it, would anyone like to give their opinions on which of the
|> two to buy?
|> 
|> Thanks,
|> Brian

I'd say the wait is common all around.  I was trying to decide whether to get
an 883 or a 1200, too.  I was on my way to one dealer to look at an 883 and 
stopped on the way to check out whether another dealer had gotten anything in.
(I had been calling 4 different dealers in the state for about a month)  Lo
and behold, they had just taken in a '90 1200 Sportster on trade and I fell in
love with it.  Only 2400 miles, mint condition!  I bought it and haven't been
sorry at all.  I was afraid at first that it might be too quick, but from as
far as I can tell, the only difference is on the highway.  Much more pep for
passing, etc.  
-- 
Suzanne Cascella, Systems Programmer	cascella-suzanne@cs.yale.edu
Yale University CS Department		cascella-suzanne@yalecs.bitnet
New Haven, CT  06520			cascella-suzanne@yale.arpa
(203)432-6427				FAX: (203)432-0593
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
From: mtrost@convex.com (Matthew Trost)
Subject: Re: Women riders - what do you think?
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx., USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:35:02 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Aug18.233231.8505@news.eng.convex.com> caban@convex.com (Jane Caban) writes:

>In article <23795@oasys.dt.navy.mil> jbrown@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jennifer Brown) writes:
>>
>>My husband bought a Sporter 1200 last April, 92.  Fortunately for us,
>>we just walked in and bought one.  = )  But now he's talking about getting
>>a bigger bike and wants me to learn how to ride so I can have his 1200.
>>
>>I make a great passenger, but I'm a little leary of actually learning
>>how to ride.  Heck I won't ride my bicycle on the streets. = )  Any
>>advice from male or female riders?  Pro's or Con's welcomed.  I do know
>>about the Motorocyle safety drivers course.

>I've been riding about a year and half now. I started out by taking the MSF
>course - I strongly recommend it. My first bike was real small - a Honda
>Rebel 250. After putting 2K miles on that I was ready for something bigger.
>I now ride a Honda Shadow 600, which will have to do until I can afford the
>HD of my dreams. :-)

(and she looks good on it too!)

>I personally would not want to have started as a new rider with a heavier
>bike - especially a new HD - because until you get use to the way the bike
>feels, you may drop it. I never dropped the Rebel, but I did drop the 600
>in my driveway after I first got it - stupid mistake (no damage though).
>Now I've got about 5K on it with no mishaps since.

>My point is you may want to get a lighter bike (like a 500) to learn on,
>and sell it after a few months when you're ready for the 1200. 

When are we going for that cruise, Jane?
Newsgroups: alt.motorcycles.harley
From: plward@ll.mit.edu (paula l ward)
Subject: WANTED: Harlet Ultra Classic (ne)
Reply-To: plward@ll.mit.edu (paula l ward)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 21:18:07 GMT
Newsgroups: ll.test
Distribution: world
Followup-To: 
From: plw@bart.ll.mit.edu (paula l ward)
Reply-To: plw@bart.ll.mit.edu (paula l ward)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Subject: NEW TEST
Keywords: 


This is another test....