HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: goose@camelot.bradley.edu (Bradley Riley)
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Organization: Bradley University
Distribution: usa
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:28:33 GMT

In <8SEP199223083548@utkvx1.utk.edu> takoosma@utkvx1.utk.edu (Toby Koosman) writes:

>In article <1992Sep4.151849.20159@tss.com>, burke@tss.com (Jim Burke) writes...
>>I would guess that Peyton Burns joing the Confederacy for reasons similar
>>to most others in that day.  Most people fought not for slavery, but for
>>states rights.  The south believed that they were being taken advantage of
>>by the industrialized northern states and were fighting for their right to
>>withdraw from a union they had voluntarily joined.  Slavery was a periferal
>>issue.
>Don't confuse why a war was fought with why a man fought in it.  The motives
>of the Confederate leaders had everything to do with slavery.  What makes
>soldiers fight can be any number of reasons unrelated to the war's objective:
>conscription, propaganda, honor, duty, fear of cowardice, reaction to the
>enemy's misdeeds.  Once the Union army started wrecking homes and farms, no
>more reason was needed.

Not every Confederate leader had everything to do with slavery.  Robert E Lee 
only fought for his state, Virginia.  Before accepting command of the 
confederate forces, General Lee distanced himself from slavery. 
As far as war, what gives.  Why do man kill each other?  Why do men endure
the hells of war.  You made a real good point but you missed the discussion.

BEWARE OF THE FALLACIES!
 
--
and if i should falter
would you open your arms out to me
we can make love not war
and live at peace with our hearts
		A little respect                  Bradley A. Riley
	        Erasure-the innocents	 	  goose@camelot.bradley.edu
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: REFRESHRe: Question concerning the secession of Virginia. '8p!lj
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:24:15 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

In article <1992Sep7.162105.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P. L. Cowan) writes:
> (Deleted)
>
>I have previously bemoaned my inability to read Lincoln's mind during 
>the first half of 1861. Let me appeal again, if anyone knows of a good
>biography or history that treats this period in detail, I would be
>anxious to read it. Authors seem to want to rush through this period
>to get to the "good stuff".

Second the request.  Foote gives the *impression* that Lincoln knew
exactly what he was doing in order to force the Confederates to start the 
shooting.  IMHO, everyone was stumbling in the dark, trying to make sense
of confused signals from the other side, half of which they didn't believe
were seriously meant.

Paul Hollander    pholland@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P. L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: A war by any other name... (was Re: Know any good books?)
Date: 16 Sep 92 04:36:46 GMT
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab

In article <1992Sep15.234300.13343@sequent.com>, debk@sequent.com (Deborah Stewart) writes:

----- discussion of books delteted ------------
> On a completely different note:
> I had a friend in college and also many of my husband's relatives from
> North Carolina who insisted on referring to the war as The War Between
> the States, as opposed to the Civil War.  
-------- more discussion deleted -------------
> 
> Debbie Stewart

I have heard it claimed that the war was known as the "War of the
Rebellion" in New England, as the "Civil War" in NY, NJ, Pa. and the
mid-west, as the "War Between the States" in the border states (Md.
Va. Ky), as the "War for Southern Independence:" in NC & Tenn., and as
the "War of Northern Agression (or Oppression)" in the deep South.
Last time I flew into Atlanta the Delta pilot drawed, "If you look out
your windows you'll see Stone Mountain where the figures of the
heroes of the War of Northern Agression are carved," so there might be
something to it. I'm from Pa. so it has always been the "Civil War"
to me. I assume Lincoln's use of the term "civil war" in his
Gettysburg address and his first inaugural address may have something
to do with making that the default term. 

Any comments? 

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Paul Morphy and the Civil War
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:13:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.143959.3219@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>Does anyone know what Paul Morphy did during the civil war? Morphy was the first
>American to lay claim to the title of World Chess Champion. He was a youngster
>in his teens during the war, from what I remember.

Morphy was born in 1837, so he would have been in his mid-twenties during
the War.  After failing to establish a legal career in New Orleans in 1861,
he left the country.  The Dictionary of American Biography rather primly 
notes that "During the years 1862 to 1864 he visited Havana and Paris,
playing chess privately but, in view of the war, properly avoiding any 
matches or public performances."  

You may also be interested to hear that the DAB describes his paternal
grandfather as "a native of Spain, possibly a descendant of an Irish
emigre named Murphy."
--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: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P. L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Causes of the ACW, again (was civil war connections)
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:52:54 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab

In article <1992Sep10.204921.23560@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1992Sep10.195853.12055@odin.corp.sgi.com> zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:
> 
>>In article <goose.716148355@camelot>, Bradley Riley writes:
>>>This is very true.  The succsession of the states of the south was not based
>>>soley on slavery. At the time, there was still massive fighting( non-physical) about the 
[stuff deleted]
>>But go one level deeper, and you find that the power of the Fed vs. power of the states
>>battles were based on slavery. If it were not so, then why were all the compromises
>>based on keeping the balance of slave and free states equal in the Senate? 
>>
>>JZ
>>  
> That was one issue, but it was not the only issue. Another, equally important
> issue between the states was tariff policy. The Northern states economy
[stuff deleted]
> -- 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

Another issue was internal improvements. The western states wanted the Federal 
government to build roads and canals so they could get their crops to markets.
The South was so opposed to this that one of the few differences between 
the USA and CSA Constitutions was the prohibition of such spending in the CSA.
The western states were willing to go along with tariffs if the revenue
went to improvements

My (rather simplistic, perhaps) view is that the crisis in the 1850's was 
not the division between North (ie. New England, New York, NJ, Penna.) and
the South. That tension had existed from the beginning. Instead the 
critical change was that the West (i.e. Ohio, Ind. Ill. Mich. etc, and 
to some extent Ky, Tenn and Mo.) switched their alliance from the South 
to the North. The tariff-improvments linkeage was one reason for this switch. 

Still, one must go back to slavery as the main problem. The westerners 
had mostly migrated to the west to establish new farms on "free soil". 
The fear that they or their children would lose this option due to the
incursion of large plantations based on black slavery into the Lousiania
Territory was the biggest issue.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: a750288@pan.mc.ti.com (John E. Brennan)
Subject: Re: Nathan Bedford Forrest:Any books?
Organization: Texas Instruments Materials and Controls Group
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:47:09 GMT

In article <1LXVqB1w165w@bluemoon.rn.com> haley@bluemoon.rn.com (Michael J. Kirschenba) writes:
>  I was wondering if any one out there knows of any literature regarding
>Nathan Bedford Forrest. I only know of one work: "The First with the
>Most" published in the 40's (I know Forrest never made the quote used
>as the book's title) but I am looking for any other works describing
>the life of Old Bedford. It would seem to me that with the volumes of
>literature in existance regarding Lee's various Lieutenants, and other
>Confederate luminaries, that there would be more work on Forrest.
>Any information/assistance will be greatly appreciated! Thanks.
>                                              Regards
>                                           M. Kirschenbaum
>(aka:nop2293@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil)


>** Michael J. Kirschenbaum --- haley@bluemoon.uucp  **

> "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the rights
> of the people by the gradual & silent encroachments of those in power
> than by violent & sudden usurpations." James Madison, Virginia Conv. 1788.



There's a new biography out titled "A Battle From the Start".  I'm slowly
working my way through it.  Can't think of the author's name right now,
unfortunately.

Take Care,
 
John 



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            
John Brennan 

a750288@pan.mc.ti.com 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Know any good books?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 01:24:02 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.221013.1205@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> whijv2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (WHITAKER JASON) writes:
>I was wondering if any novels have been based on the Civil War?
>
>Could anyone mail me or post to this group.
>
I'm cooking dinner so this list is going to be far from exhaustive as I
don't have much time to throw at it...

If you like literature the best book is _The_Red_Badge_Of_Courage by
Stephen Crane. It was significantly altered for publication but you can
now get the original version if you look hard. It's about the experience
of about five soldiers at the battle of Chancellorsville (although it
doesn't explicitly say so) but the battle is as much allegory for the
author's literary expression as it is about the battle. A very good,
extremely deep book. Not unlike Catcher_in_the_Rye, if you've read that.

For novels, there are thousands I guess. The best one that's come out
lately is _The_Killer_Angels_ by Michael Shaara, which is easy to find
and is being made into a (major? minor? lousy?) motion picture. If you
like movies you can also see Glory which is a true story (so is Killer
Angels for that matter) but is a good movie to watch.

The books of Bruce Catton are not novels, but are easy to read for
serious history books. Pick any of them if you don't mind reading
books without dialogue.

Many more books exist, but I haven't read too many novels, more of the
historical documents and memoirs. I'm sure others can add to this list,
and hope they will do...
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 18:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.203911.14966@sctc.com> smith@sctc.com (Rick Smith) writes:
>Most of my ancestors were sober Quaker-descended farmers who didn't
>take part in the fight. 
>
A friend of mine who used to be a reenactor, who is also a very strong
peace activist and attender at Quaker meetings, mentioned a great
anecdote, which sounds too good to be true.

   In NC there was as fairly strong Quaker community, and when the CSA
instituted universal male conscription (white males, over 18 under 55,
who owned less than 20 slaves), some Quaker men were forced to join up.
They protested, and tried to escape several times, but each time they
were captured and brought back. Finally, since they refused to have
anything to do with soldiering, the powers that be decided to tie their
arms behind their backs, tie their rifles to their bodies and march them
into battle anyway. The theory appearantly being that if they wouldn't
fight, they might at least draw fire away from a man who would fight.
   They were allegedly forced into a charge at Gettysburg (?) where they
charged ahead of their captors and into the Union lines. The US troops,
seeing that they were prisoners let them through and presumably freed
them. I do not know their fate after that, but it's a great story. It
would be even better if it was true, but I have my doubts. It sounds to
much like one of those "bayonetting babies" atrocity stories that are
mostly propaganda.

>The really peculiar thing for me was that I was brought up in
>Virginia, learning about the War from state-approved history books.
>Four chapters on Geo. Washington and the Revolution, four chapters on
>the War and R.E. Lee, two chapters on Jamestown, and a chapter or two
>to fill in any remaining gaps. It was weird to reconcile the biases of
>education with my own family's history.
>
>Rick.
>
My gmother spent several years of her childhood living on an island in
Charleston harbor (her father was a doctor with the US Public Health
service in the 1890s to 1920s). She tells a story of her mother (my
g-grandmother) being so peeved with the pro-Southern distortion and bias
in my gmother's history text, that she threw the book into the fire! (My
ggrandmother was from Illinois, her father was a unionist and a friend
of her father was one of the sponsors of the first Lincoln-Douglas
debate. Last name Nash, as I remember.)

Have fun,

Tom
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Civil War Daily or Bi-Daily quizes!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 16:07:20 GMT

In article <BuGxLw.LE8@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> trwagner@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Ted Wagner) writes:
>
>	QUESTION:
>
>	When did the issues concerning states' rights and the issue
>of slavery *FIRST* cause constitutional concerns and questions?
>
Um, I'd be tempted to answer "While they were writing it." That's how
they got that strange clause banning slave trading, but not until after
1808.
So, to give a date, 1788.
-- 
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: Re: War's Beginning and End (Re: Secession Crisis Lit)
Date: 14 Sep 1992 14:04:21 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

In article <191lk1INN4mp@agate.berkeley.edu> turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell) writes:
>The post-Appomattox struggle
>beyond the Mississippi contrasts with that part of the Confederacy's
>refusal to send help when it mattered, such as at Vicksburg.

The Trans-Miss. sent SCADS of troops east of the Miss. in 1861 and 1862.
Regiments from Texas fought in every theatre of the war, from Gettysburg
to Glorietta, NM.  Approximately half of all the cavalry and infantry
regiments raised in Texas during 1861 (the ones that were most likely to
have a full complement of men) were sent to the Cis-Miss.  I'm sure that
LA has a similar record, and AR and MO also had several regts. east of the
Miss.

It is true that no great movement of troops across the river occurred to
relieve Vicksburg.  The T-M troops did make some attempts to cut Grant's
supply line on the West of the river (which he had already abandoned), as
well as to attack the garrison at Helena, AR up river from Vicksburg.  

Had T-M troops crossed the Miss., it probably would have been not more than
5,000 (which would have left no credible force to oppose Banks in LA)
and then they could have either been captured with Pemberton or watched
Pemberton surrender from the safety of Johnston's army.

Banks in LA was certainly active in the spring of '63 pushing hard toward
Texas.  His activities were enough to convince Kirby Smith that he could
not afford to send troops east.
--
Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
Kansas State Univ.
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Know any good books?
Date: 9 Sep 92 19:07:29 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA

In article <1992Sep8.221013.1205@sserve.cc.adfa.oz.au> whijv2@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (WHITAKER JASON) writes:
>I was wondering if any novels have been based on the Civil War?

Hundreds (thousands???).

>Could anyone mail me or post to this group.

Well, McKinley Kantor did _If the South Had Won the Civil War_, more
of an alternate history than a novel.

F. van Wyck Mason did several set in the CW, as did Bruce Lancaster.  Sorry,
I can't remember titles as it's been several years since I read them.

Andre Norton did one called _Rebel Spurs_, I believe.

Actually, I've been having too much fun reading Shelby Foote, Catton, and
_Lee's Lieutenants_ to really dip heavily into fiction (so far), though as
others have said, Shaara's _Killer Angels_ is excellent.

Paul Hollander    pholland@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
From: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Reply-To: burke@tss.com (Jim Burke)
Organization: Teknekron Software Systems. Inc.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:52:57 GMT

In article <2925476759.5.p00098@mail.psi.net>, p00098@mail.psi.net (Jones M Murphy Jr) writes:

|> Accept it, as unpalatable as it may seem. Slavery was *by far and away* 
|> the dominant issue here.


I don't mean to start a huge discussion on the civil war or anything, but
I do feel compelled to say that the view expressed above is not one that is
held by the historians whose books I have read (Canton, Burns, and others 
I don't recall off the top of my head), and I don't believe it is
a view held by most civil war historians in general.

-- 

	Jim Burke	"Life is uncertain - eat dessert first!"
	Teknekron Software Systems		... burke@tss.com
  	phone:(415) 617-2432			... uunet!tekbspa!burke
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: 1st Shot (was Re: Followup to discussion of flags, and...)
Date: 8 Sep 92 15:14:33 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Distribution: na

Quite literally, Ruffin did fire the last shot of the war for his 
own person: when the collapse of the confederacy was apparent, he 
wrapped himself in a CSA flag (no, I don't know which one), and 
shot himself.
JTHoppers
From: russw@cs.utexas.edu (Russ Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Reenactment
Date: 14 Sep 1992 17:40:44 -0500
Organization: Great Northern Hotel
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

In article <2925477496.6.p00098@mail.psi.net> p00098@mail.psi.net (Jones M Murphy Jr) writes:
>Perhaps some Africans will be whipped and lynched, to add realism? A mock
>slave auction, perhaps, where young children will be ripped from their 
>mother's breasts to be sold to the highest bidder? This kind of "living 
>history" sickens me, with it's lopsided focus on one set of battles and 
>one tiny facet of the Great American Race War.

I have observed that you enjoy giving withering angry replies, but this time
I think you're not making sense.  You seem to suggest that it is wrong
of the reenactors to (in your view) hide the fact that lynchings and
slave auctions occurred, yet at the same time you would be outraged if
they actually reenacted these things.  What do you want them to do?
It seems they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I begin
to suspect that you think there should be no historical reenactment
in the first place.  Is that the case?  If not, what would be a good
reenactment in your view?

Puzzled,
R
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: REFRESHRe: Question concerning the secession of Virginia. '8p!lj
Date: 9 Sep 1992 18:37:53 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bose.phys.ksu.edu

In article <1992Sep9.172624.12439@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> hall@sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov (Philip Hall 283-4031) writes:
   [I had written]
>: I think the key to the decision of the upper south states was that they
>: agreed that a right to secede existed.  
>: Lincoln's call represented coercion of the lower south states,
>: and the upper south wanted no part of that.
>: 
>
>Does anyone know what legal grounds, if any, were used by the
>Union leaders to justify the use of force to re-assimilate the seceding
>states into the Union??

Lincoln's call for troops gave two purposes that the troops were being
called out for-- to protect U.S. property and enforce U.S. laws.  He
said that the militia was necessary because "combinations of persons" in
the seceding states were too strong for the U.S. Marshals and the ordinary
operation of the courts.
--
Justin M. Sanders    "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance"
Dept. of Physics        --last words of Gen. John Sedgwick
Kansas State Univ.