HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Confederate Carbines & Musketoons/Sam Watkins
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:24:00 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

I've had a couple of requests for the specifics about the Carbine book...

The standard edition of this book is $45 plus $3.50 P&H and
6% sales tax if you live in CA - 

Send it to:

Dr. John M. Murphy
1135 La Jolla Rancho Rd. 
La Jolla CA 92037

There is also a signed limited edition with leather binding 
for $125. 

To refresh everyone's memory, this is a picture book of
Confederate-manufactured short rifles, with detailed 
history of each brand and type. 

=======

In other news, I've been reading more of Sam Watkins' 
account of the war, and I have to revise my previous
statements. The man is extraordinarily bitter. At first
I thought it was just black humor, but certain segments
have changed my mind.....for example:

"...after a big battle, (Shiloh in this case -JZ) which always
disorganizes an army, what wonder is it that some men had to be
shot, merely for discipline's sake? And what wonder that General
Bragg's name became a terror to deserters and evil doers? Men were
shot by scores, and no wonder the army had to be reorganized. Soldiers
had enlisted for twelve months only, and had faithfully complied with
their volunteer obligations; the terms for which they had enlisted had
expired, and they naturally looked upon it that they had a right to go
home....From this time on till the end of the war, a soldier was simply a
machine, a conscript. It was mighty rough on rebels. We cursed the war,
we cursed Bragg, we cursed the Southern Confederacy. All our pride
and valor had gone, and we were sick of war and the Southern Confederacy."

He goes on like this for pages, railing about how officers could always
resign and go home, but enlisted men were shot for stopping on the 
battlefield to aid the wounded. He has nothing positive to say at all
about Bragg, though he once met R.E. Lee and says he fell immediately
in love with him. He accords a grudging respect to Jackson, who he 
followed in the early Shenandoah campaign. 

He also goes on for a while about how all the men who went on to 
greatness were the generals, colonels, majors and captains, and how
the histories say "General So and So fought a battle" when
he maintains that few of them ever fired a shot for their country. 

He's really quite bitter, and I think it's only his way of turning
it into black humor that allowed him to write about it at all. He's
quite sarcastic and clearly still filled with bile about it 20 years
after the fact. 

I still recommend it as a fine read. 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Subject: Re: Flag Officers
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:02:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.162050.22935@cabot.balltown.cma.COM> welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct13.043749.23384@cabot.balltown.cma.COM> welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty) writes:

>roughly (i couldn't find the reference, but i partially reconstructed
>the hierarchy from other sources):

>old                       modern

>Captain                   Captain
>Master Commandant         Commander
>  or Commandant
>Lieutenant Commandant     Lieutenant Commander
>Lieutenant                Lieutenant
>??                        Lieutenant J.G.

 I think they used the British system here:

By seniority the Lt.s were numbered in descending order, i.e,

1st Lt.,
2nd Lt.,
3rd Lt.,
etc (dependent of the number on board) with each one being assigned duties
commensurate with their senority. Thus the 1st Lt. would be Executive Officer
on most ships.

>Ensign                    Ensign
>Midshipman                Midshipman/only at naval academy
>                              (possibly NROTC as well)

>richard
-- 
>richard welty                            518-393-7228
>welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
>  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
>    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck

Larry J

-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: what happened in a charge?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:05:05 GMT

In reference to the charging Confederates, which I didn't feel the need
to include :)

Looks to me like when unit U gives way a gap about 300 yards wide has
opened in the Union line. This should cause very bad things to happen to
the Union player unless he does something about it. The question that I
find myself wondering is, what did the units Q do when unit U vanished?
If they are firefighting with other Confederate units, then they can't
really do much about the gap, and I would think that unless a reserve
unit appeared in quick order the Union position would collapse. If, on the 
other hand, they are unengaged, they should be able to do something about
the problem.
As far as the advance of unit Z goes, I would think it likely that they
would be able to advance as far as they wanted, although if I was the
colonel I would take the 15 minutes to straighten my lines _before_
advancing 500 yards. Still, there is Lookout Mountain as an example that
things like this can happen. Probably what should happen to unit Z is that
it should be able to advance the 500 yards, get itself surrounded by the
Union reserves, and get itself cut to pieces in short order, with the
reinforcements restoring the original position. There's plenty of examples
of battles where things like that happened. I don't think the regimental
colonel is really going to be aware of where the Union reserve forces are.

One battle you might want to look at is the first day of Gettysburg where
one brigade of Rodes' division let a similarly-sized gap appear in its
lines and the brigade was nearly destroyed.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
From: jsanders@phys.ksu.edu (Justin M. Sanders)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Another Artillery Question
Date: 9 Oct 1992 05:24:19 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: bohr.phys.ksu.edu

Here's another question for our artillery re-enactors.  What is the
recoil distance for a typical field gun?

One of the things that I always look for in a movie showing cannon fire
is the recoil of the guns (it's the physicist in me).  I don't think 
I've ever seen a movie do it yet-- you would think that a director 
trying for realism would do something to produce a proper recoil somehow.

From CW photos of siege guns, I estimate that they must have had a recoil
of 4 or 5 feet (on a sliding carriage), but I have never seen a field
gun fired with an actual projectile, so I don't know exactly how far
they recoiled.

--
Justin M. Sanders    "The science of mathematics has no more 
Dept. of Physics       bowels of mercy than has a cast-iron dog." 
Kansas State Univ.      --Rep. John A. Anderson of Kansas, 1882
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Subject: Re: Flag Officers
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:20:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.043749.23384@cabot.balltown.cma.COM> welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.155101.19156@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
>>While I'm on the subject, does anyone know the list of CW Naval ranks?
>>I seem to remember that what is now a "Lt.J.G" was then known as "Master".

>arrgghh.  i can't find the reference that i know has this; my library
>is in some disarray.

roughly (i couldn't find the reference, but i partially reconstructed
the hierarchy from other sources):

old                       modern

Captain                   Captain
Master Commandant         Commander
  or Commandant
Lieutenant Commandant     Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant                Lieutenant
??                        Lieutenant J.G.
Ensign                    Ensign
Midshipman                Midshipman/only at naval academy
                              (possibly NROTC as well)

richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: USA Rank Limitation (was Re: Flag Officers)
Date: 16 Oct 92 14:35:22 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct15.221937.6519@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
>Ken Burns was correct and the photo was also. Winfield Scott held the rank
>of Lt. Gen by brevet, i.e. his promotion was not authorized by Congress
>(presumably in deference to Washington) but he exercised authority as if he
>held the rank (and perhaps his pay was increased?) He was also entitled to wear
>3 stars.

I'm not sure about this, but it has been my understanding that one of the
reasons that brevet ranks were so freely granted during the war is that
they did not carry any raise in pay.  Free, or cheap, honor, as it were.
This is at least partially confirmed by the OED, which defines a brevet as
"conferring nominal rank on an officer, but with no right to extra pay.
--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: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Cool Book
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:28:53 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA



I have to gloat a bit. My dad just brought me this really neat 
picture book of Confederate Manufactured carbines and musketoons. 

This guy in San Diego (where Dad lives) has the world's best collection
of Civil War carbines and musketoons, and wrote this book. The book
only deals with those pieces that were actually manufactured in the
Confederacy, and as you might expect, the focus is very narrow. 

On top of that, this book is only sold by mail order, and I can
provide the address if anyone is interested. 

The gloating bit is this...my dad is friends with the guy who 
photographed this collection, and got to go on a shoot with 
him, and they got to talking with this old fellow (the collector) 
and the collector has been to NCWA re-enactments, and has extended
an invitation for me to view his collection when I'm next in San 
Diego! I am, as they say, stoked. 

His next project is a similar book on Confederate long rifles. 


In other news, I got my copy of "Co. H" by Sam Watkins, and 
I'm discovering that they left many of the funniest lines out
of the book. Sam is something of a cut-up, with a very dry and
morbid sense of humor. I recommend it. 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Artillery Question
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:28:44 GMT
Reply-To: roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells)
Organization: What organization?


 dmcclory@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu (Daniel McClory)
> The vast majority
>of rounds fired were solid shot, with grape used at close quarters.

Sorry to pick the nit, but "grape shot" was never used in the field.  "Grape shot" is naval 
ordnance.  What you are probably thinking of is cannister.



----
"If you can't reach (age) 70 by a comfortable road, don't go."  --Mark Twain
From: jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Larry Jewell)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Naval Ranks (was Re: Flag Officers)
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:35:32 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <1992Oct15.223539.8349@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
:In <Bw5w3v.IrA@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> jewell@mace.cc.purdue.edu writes:
:
::  
::   I think they used the British system here:
::  
::  By seniority the Lt.s were numbered in descending order, i.e,
::  
::  1st Lt.,
::  2nd Lt.,
::  3rd Lt.,
::  etc (dependent of the number on board) with each one being assigned duties
::  commensurate with their senority. Thus the 1st Lt. would be Executive Officer
::  on most ships.
::  
::  Larry J
::  
:
:I'm on thin ice, but I think these are positions on a ship, rather than ranks.
:Thus Lt. William Bliegh was the "Captain" of the HMS Bounty and Fletcher
:Christian (rank unknown) was his "First Lieutenant" etc. 
:
:I believe the postion of "First Lieutenant" still exists on ships in the US
:Navy for the third ranking officer (after Captain and Executive Officer). 
:I think Fred McMurray played the "First Lieutenant" in "The Cane Mutany"
:(with Humphry Bogart as the Captain, Lt.Cdr. Crieg, and Van Johnson as the XO).
:Of course depending on the size of the ship the postion of "First Lieutenant"
:might be held by an officer with the *rank* of Commander (or Ensign).

  Correct on current usage. What I was implying the was the equivalent
rank of Lt.jg. in earlier times. 

  The "junior grade" could be applied to most of the Lt.'s on a ship of the
line.  2nd Lt, 3rd Lt, etc were as sure a sign of rank as anything else,
only it applied to rank *within* the ship.  A more senior LT could arrive
and bump any Lt down a number, yet 1st Lt was next in line for command of the
ship if the Capt. "bit the big one."  This is still the case, the chain
of command is clear, but in times when the crew was largely iliterate a
clear ranking was needed to show whom to look to for leadership when the 
solid shot was hitting the hull.

:
:
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: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_
:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
:
Larry J

-- 
#L.W. Jewell Moderator at the Veterans Information Site (veteran@cc.purdue.edu)#
#& WWII-L Listowner: "Sunday's horoscope is note worthy because of its strange,#
#sudden and wholly unpredictable and inexplicable occurrences, affecting all   #
#phases of life." "Your Horoscope" L.A. Evening Herald Express, Sat, 12/06/41  #
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pan2765@seas.gwu.edu (Crazyman Pan)
Subject: USA Rank Limitation (was Re: Flag Officers)
Organization: I have none...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:42:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.155101.19156@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:

>Also, was there a cap at the rank of Rear Adm. (or the equivalent) in the 
>same way that the Congress limted the Union Army to Maj. Gen.?
>
>-Paul

I was not aware of the limitation by Congress upon the Union Army that the
highest rank be Major General.  It seems peculiar, since Ulysses S. Grant
was promoted to Lieutenant General (the next higher rank than MG), the previous
Lt.Gen having been George Washington.

						--  Crazyman Pan


("I'd rather be playing guitar...")
"When a man lies, he murders some part of the world.
 These are the pale deaths which men miscall their lives.
 All this I cannot bear to witness any longer..."  -- MetallicA, AJFA, TLITD.



Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Subject: Re: Cool Book
Reply-To: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide)
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.202853.3544@odin.corp.sgi.com>, Mr. Sanka writes:
>In other news, I got my copy of "Co. H" by Sam Watkins, and 
>I'm discovering that they left many of the funniest lines out
>of the book. Sam is something of a cut-up, with a very dry and
>morbid sense of humor. I recommend it.

Sorry, that should have been "they left the best lines from the book out of the
TV show." 

JZ
From: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Flag Officers
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:37:49 GMT
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies

In article <1992Oct12.155101.19156@morrow.stanford.edu> COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan) writes:
>I have another military-related trivia question. Various CW Naval officers
>are refered to as Flag Officer So-and-so. I am somewhat familiar with the term
>"flag officer" as a generic term refering to Admirals and Commodores (and 
>Captains?) during WW II, but the useage during the CW suggests it was 
>an official title of a particular rank. From the context I have assumed 
>it was roughly what later became known as Commodore.

until the civil war, the us did not have admiral as a rank; most
commonly, senior captains in charge of squadrons of ships were given
the courtesy rank of commodore (commodore preble of the mediterranean
squadron, commodore perry who went to japan, and so forth.)  the term
flag officer seems to have appeared early in the civil war, and they
finally broke down early in the conflict and started granting admiral's
ranks to distinguished officers like Farragut, DuPont and Porter.

the navy has had a love/hate relationship with commodore ever since; they
do not have a traditional name for the one star rank, and recenlty have 
called it `commodore', but now call it `rear admiral (lower half)', the
two star rank now being called `rear admiral (upper half)'

>While I'm on the subject, does anyone know the list of CW Naval ranks?
>I seem to remember that what is now a "Lt.J.G" was then known as "Master".
>Also, was there a cap at the rank of Rear Adm. (or the equivalent) in the 
>same way that the Congress limted the Union Army to Maj. Gen.?

arrgghh.  i can't find the reference that i know has this; my library
is in some disarray.

generally, the congress at the time was fearful of high military rank,
regarding it as somewhat royalist and aristocratic in nature.  as late
as the entry of the us into wwii, the only 4 star rank in the US army
was for the chief of staff, and that was only temporary, the outgoing chief
of staff reverting to 2 star rank if he did not retire.

richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: COWAN@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (Paul L. Cowan)
Subject: McClellan's Penisula Campaign: Good idea?
Organization: Pacific-Plate Residents (Motto: 54-40 or Bust!)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:58:18 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.24

I am curious what the group's readers think about McClellan's overall strategy
of advancing on Richmond via the Penisula. Keep in mind the difficulties
experienced by McDowell, Pope, Burnside, Hooker, Meade and even Grant in
taking the direct route.

My feeling is that it was a good idea, but that McClellan had no appreciation
for the importance of speed when attempting to out maneuver one's opponent
(except in retreat).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Artillery Question
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:20:57 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Oct13.152844.26177@NOC.Vitalink.COM> roy_wells@qm.vitalink.COM (Roy H. Wells) writes:
>. . . "grape shot" was never used in the field.  "Grape shot" is naval 
>ordnance.

Zachary Taylor, at the Battle of Buena Vista, is said to have addressed
Braxton Bragg with the dry remark "A little more grape, Captain Bragg."
Guess I should have known that was too picturesque to be true.
--Chuck

-- 
D'Angelo Law Library         "The dogmas of the quiet past are
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu      inadequate to the stormy present. . .
uclcjt1@uchimvs1              We must disenthrall ourselves. . ."
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: dmcclory@Chaos.mcs.kent.edu (Daniel McClory)
Subject: Re: Artillery Question
Organization: Kent State University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:48:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.123041.28819@panix.com> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>
>>Just saw "Last of the Mohicans" and there's a scene where the French artillery
>>is shelling a British fort. Both sides are using exploding shell, both from
>>field pieces and from siege mortars. The movie is set in 1757. Isn't this
>>about 50 or 100 years too early for them to have exploding shell? Or is my
>>memory about the introduction of shrapnel wrong?
>

The treatment of muzzle-loading field artillery in Hollywood films has always
appalled me.  Every film I have ever see has tended to treat them like modern
recoiless rifles, with the shot having no recoil, and the round producing a
dramatic down range explosion.  From all of my informal reading on Napoleanic
and Civil War era artillery, it appears to me that that, while exploding
shot was available, it was used sparingly, and appeared to be of little effect.
It seems to have mostly be shot from mortars during seiges.  The vast majority
of rounds fired were solid shot, with grape used at close quarters.

Perhaps it would be impossible to simulate these kinds of terrifying cannon 
shots on film, but I would think it would vastly change peoples perceptions of
what war was like during these times.  One of the most memorable descriptions
I recall reading of Gettysburg included a description of solid shot cannon
balls bouncing (yes, bouncing) across an open field where men were advancing
in rank and file.  The results were, to say the least, devestating.  Imagine
being struck by a hurtling, red-hot iron bowling ball.  Combine this with
the injuries produced by grape shot and .50 calibre low-velocity musket rounds,
and Civil War battlefields become a grusome image. 

Not quite the neat and tidy "man blown into the air" Hollywood image of 
a cannon shot.

These opinions are, of course, those of an amateur, with a background in
computer science, not history.  




-- 
          Daniel McClory               
	  Kent State University        
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa