HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Stonewall at Gettysburg (was Jackson at the Seven Days)
Date: 15 Dec 92 23:46:53 GMT

charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>In article <tecump.724011124@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
>>TRUE.  even if Lee had won in PennsyLvania, losing Vicksburg was 
>>a real fatal blow that could not be countered.  Sometimes too much
>>emphasis is placed on the Eastern Theatre - the 100 or so mile
>>corridor between DC and Richmond.  Not that it was not important.
>>
>>dom
>>
>I think this could be the start of an interesting discussion.  WHY was
>the loss of Vicksburg a fatal blow?  Was it because it cut the Trans-
>Mississippi off from the rest of the Confederacy?  If so, what was the
>significance of the Trans-Mississippi to the overall CSA war effort?
>Or, was it more important that the Mississippi was opened to Union
>navigation (and, if so, why was THAT important)?

>- Gary Charbonneau
>  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu 

the "capture" of the mississippi was a key objective since the beginning
of the war - it was part of Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan (a plan which
not many appreciated but the same idea was used to win the war).
the mississippi was the vital waterway, and it helped to make the west
the West before the war by giving it a trade route.
thus, it was the key link in civil matters as well as military.

the capture of Vicksburg:
1. cut off the Trans-Miss from the rest of the Confederacy, keeping supplies
and men from going either way.
2. enabled the federal navy to navigate up and down.

Importance of both:
1. the first chapter in splitting the confederacy into pieces (see the
Anaconda plan and of course sherman's march.
perhaps the AMOUNT of good`s and men going over the miss for the CSA was
not a whole lot, but symbolically, the Confederacy was being split.
Ark, La, and Texas were cut off militarily and politically (unless there
were a few messangers from Richmond who got thru.  Now, there was some
good Union sentiment in Northern Arkansas and Texas, and cutting off the
miss only lowered rebel morale in those states.  Note however, that
Price invaded Missouri in '64 and the last "battle" was held in Texas,
across the river from Mexican forces.

2. Supplies could now be run up and down the mississippi.  The Union
could not easily move entirely around the confederacy.  opening the
mississippi allowed better campaign support on other possible campaigns
along ajoining rivers.  Rivers and Railroads were key to this war.


just some thoughts


dom
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: European Intervention (was "exit")
Date: 18 Dec 92 07:41:23 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec17.191347.836@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>, agwing@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (Andrew Wing) writes:
> P.L. Cowan (cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu) wrote:
> .. stuff deleted...
> : My question is what form would such intervention
> : likely have taken (Just ambassidors? A naval attempt to force the
> : blockade? Infantry crossing the Niagra?) a
> 
---------- I've deleted most of an excellent reply by Andy Wing ---------
> 	I think Shelby Footes "other northern arm" would have been brought
> out.  Ultimately, the north would have fielded enough men to repel any foreign
> force and still take sections of Canada.  Whether this army could have been
> raised in time to prevent an Anglo-Confederate victory near or in Washington
> is open to debate.  Also open to debate is whether the English working class
> soldiers would have really felt a sense of mission intervening in america.
> 
> 		Thoughts?
> 			Andy Wing
> v2002a@vm.temple.edu     (preferred)

Let me tie two threads together. It seems to me the effect of losing
Washington would have been trivial had the English already become involved.
After all the nation had survived the burning of Washington by the English 
once already.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   "I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic and a rodeo, but
                that's the stupidest thing I ever heard..."_Dr.Strangelove_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: artillery organization
Date: 17 Dec 92 20:09:00 GMT

just an addendum:

when grant went into Va in '64, his batteries were reduced to 4 guns (from
the normal 6) due to the difficulty in manuevring a full battery in
the Wilderness.

d
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Mostly about the War in the East (was: winning the war in the west)
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:54:09 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec11.140025.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu>
I wrote:
 
> A friend of mine recommended a book that was a best seller a few years
> ago, that discussed the careers of four famous generals and what made
> them so effective. The four included Wellington and Grant (possibly
> Eisenhower). Anyway I've forgotten the title and author, and nothing
> has jumped out at me in the book stores. Any help would be
> appreciated.
> 

Thanks to everyone who replied by E-mail. I got about a half dozen messages
so I am summarizing. The unanomous conclusion is that the book my friend 
was thinking of is _Mask_of_Command_.

One (anonymous) respondant wrote:
>>The book your friend was recommending is The Mask of Command, by John Keegan
>>(Viking, ISBN 0670459887). Keegan discusses the leadership styles of Alexander
>>the Great, Wellington, Grant and Hitler. His starting point is the heroic
>>style of Alexander, which contrasts with Wellington's antiheroic style, 
>>Hitler's mock-heroic style, and Grant's (if I remember correctly) unheroic 
>>style. Grant comes off very well in Keegan's overall analysis.

Based on this and the other recommendations, I'm going to put this one near 
the top of my books-to-read list. (In the case of Hitler, I assume I was 
off-base with my "what made them so effective," remark.)

- Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   "I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic and a rodeo, but
                that's the stupidest thing I ever heard..."_Dr.Strangelove_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Arlington Cemetery (was Re: Thomas)
Originator: usenet@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:39:46 GMT
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <tecump.724200145@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
>
>
>
>it was in DC proper.  (Arlington is in DC proper).  Is not the military

Ah No. Arlington in in Virginia. As in the state of Virginia. As in
the other side of the potomac from DC.

>"asylum" where belle boyd was kept for awhile?  (or where the Licoln
> "conspirators
>were hung, or where Jeff Davis was held after the war?)
>
>Arlington was not the only cemetary in/about washington.  it was founded
>as the other cemetaries were becoming too crowded. 
>

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: monsourc@dent.uchicago.edu (Christopher Monsour)
Subject: Re: Arlington Cemetery (was Re: Thomas)
Organization: Dept. of Mathematics, U. of Chicago
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:11:12 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.105802.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>
>I lived near Wasington for 11 years, and I am still confused about the legal 
>status of some areas on the south side of the Potomac. I believe that
>National Airport has a DC (not VA) post office. I'm less sure, but I think the
>same holds for the Pentagon. The juristiction of a cemetery like Arlington, 
>may be even more vague.
>

The airport and the Pentagon are not part of D.C.  This does not prevent them
from having D.C. zip codes.  In fact, a substantial portion of the suburbs
at one time had D.C. zip codes.  Businesses located in those areas liked this
practice because it meant that they could use "Washington, DC" in their
addresses even though they weren't located in DC.  What is even more
interesting is that the city of Washington as a legal entity was not always
all of D.C. but just the part near downtown.  There still evidently are
disputes as to whether old Washington city codes apply to all of DC.

(You can't trust zip codes and area codes to tell you where something
is located, especially if its a government installation.)

                                 Christopher J. Monsour
                                 monsourc@zaphod.uchicago.edu

P.S.  This is a very interesting newsgroup; I enjoy reading it.  Thanks
to all for some very intriguing posts.
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: The offer of command to R.E. Lee
Date: 17 Dec 92 08:35:37 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

One of the most widely known "obscure facts" of the Civil War is the
story that R.E. Lee was offered the command of the Union Army just
prior to his resignation and acceptance of command of the Virginia
Militia. As far as I can tell there is a single source for this story,
namely Postmaster General Blair, at whose home the incident is said to
have occured. This contrasts with other (more obscure) "obscure
facts", such as the negotiations with Garibaldi for command of the
Union Army, for which documentary evidence exists.

Does anyone know if there is any substantiation to Blair's story? 
I don't believe Lee ever confirmed it and I doubt that Lincoln did.
There are some aspects of the story that trouble me. Lee had
frequently stated that he would "draw his sword no more" if a Civil
War came. Also, there was a wide distrust of Southern-born generals
in the war, and it seems unlikely that this attitude was absent
in the turmoil near the time of Fort Sumter. Plus, Lee had only
recently been promoted from Lt. Colonel, and had been inactive for a
couple of years (except for John Brown's Raid) while he "settled his
father's-in-law  estate". Finally, his sons had already resigned
commissions and had taken visible positions on behalf of the CSA. Lee
certainly would have been a good choice in retrospect (assuming his
loyalty had not been an issue), but I wonder if this wasn't some
hindsight and imaginative story telling by Blair. Certainly Blair
himself would be even less known if it were not for this story.

- Paul - 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   "I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic and a rodeo, but
                that's the stupidest thing I ever heard..."_Dr.Strangelove_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: re: Is it time to rm this group?
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:44:42 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

I second Mr Schmidt's comments, and suggest against moving. There is 
simply not enough consistent activity; this group moves in fits and 
starts (not unlike a southern locomotive).
JTHoppers@OCTAVO.ucdavis.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Subject: Re: Capture of Washington: "Conventional Wisdom"
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:49:24 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:

>"One elderly veteran of the 25th New York Cavalry thought as late as
>1915: 'If Gen. Early had the proper pluck, he could have gotten into
>Washington....our skirmish line was thrown out n a single file over a
>large front.'  Lieutenant Frank Wilkeson, assigned to Battery A, 4th
...
>down the rifle pits on either side.  'The line once broken, the work
>done, and the city would be in their possession,' declared Lieutenant
>Edgar S. Dudley, 2d U.S. Artillery...."

A couple of artillery lieutenants from a garrison force? I'm quite
sure they were qualified observers... of their platoon front. I
repeat: Neither Early nor anyone else was ever going to take
Washington.

dhs   spencer@panix.com
From: cwa@sgfb.ssd.ray.com (Carlton W. Andrews)
Subject: Original Union Generals
Organization: Raytheon Company
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 21:51:56 GMT




                      USA Generals  1/1/1861

          Winfield Scott          M.G. 6/25/1841
          John E. Wool            B.G. 6/25/1841
          David E. Twiggs         B.G. 6/30/1846
                [Twiggs was dismissed 3/1/1861 for handing/surrendering all
                 men and equipment in Texas to the state of Texas]
          William S. Harney       B.G. 6/14/1858
                [Harney went to Europe rather than fight for either side]
          Joseph E. Johnston   QM-B.G. 6/28/1860     [staff appt.]


     Notes: Albert Sidney Johnston was Colonel of the Second Cavalry and
            brevet Brig. General. I believe he was promoted to B.G. (but
            will have to check) to replace Twiggs. Edwin V. Sumner was
            Colonel of the First Cavalry. He was promoted B.G. US Volunteers
            with a commission date of 3/16/61.


                                                Carlton Andrews
From: jdh9308@rigel.tamu.edu (HOOD, JONATHAN DAVIS)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Confederate Flag in 1861
Date: 12 Dec 1992 16:39 CST
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rigel.tamu.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

	The Confederate Flag in 1861 had 7 stars in a circle on a blue
background.  It also had 3 stripes red-white-red.  I know what the stars ment,
but I do not know what the three stripes mean?

	I would be gratefull for any assistance anyone can give me.

			      -Jon
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Arlington Cemetery (was Re: Thomas)
Date: 16 Dec 92 10:58:02 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1992Dec16.152420.10422@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink) writes:
> In article <BzBFyB.1q3@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> 
> robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay) writes:
>>In article <tecump.724200145@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu 
>>(Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
>>>it was in DC proper.  (Arlington is in DC proper).  Is not the military
>>
>>Ah No. Arlington in in Virginia. As in the state of Virginia. As in
>>the other side of the potomac from DC.
> 
> But it is worth noting that what is now Arlington County was once a part of
> the District of Columbia, and was returned to Virginia in 1846.
> --Chuck

I lived near Wasington for 11 years, and I am still confused about the legal 
status of some areas on the south side of the Potomac. I believe that
National Airport has a DC (not VA) post office. I'm less sure, but I think the
same holds for the Pentagon. The juristiction of a cemetery like Arlington, 
may be even more vague.

To get back to the original point (my ggg-uncle's grave in the "Military 
Asylum, Washington, DC") a reply from my post on soc.roots indicated that
Lee's Arlingtion estate did not become a cemetery until 1863 (roughly a year
after my ggg-uncle's death during the Peninsula Campaign). I haven't confirmed
this, but I'll have to do some more research to locate the "Military Asylum".
I now suspect it was a hospital. My post on soc.roots drew some good
recomendations for references, which I will summarize and post if there is
interest here.

- Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   "I've been to one World's Fair, a picnic and a rodeo, but
                that's the stupidest thing I ever heard..."_Dr.Strangelove_
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Arlington Cemetery (was Re: Thomas)
Originator: usenet@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:31:07 GMT
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <1992Dec16.105802.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.152420.10422@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
>cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink) writes:
>> In article <BzBFyB.1q3@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> 
>> robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay) writes:
>>>In article <tecump.724200145@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu 
>>>(Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
>>>>it was in DC proper.  (Arlington is in DC proper).  Is not the military
>>>
>>>Ah No. Arlington in in Virginia. As in the state of Virginia. As in
>>>the other side of the potomac from DC.
>> 
>> But it is worth noting that what is now Arlington County was once a part of
>> the District of Columbia, and was returned to Virginia in 1846.
>> --Chuck
>
>I lived near Wasington for 11 years, and I am still confused about the legal 
>status of some areas on the south side of the Potomac. I believe that
>National Airport has a DC (not VA) post office. I'm less sure, but I think the
>same holds for the Pentagon. The juristiction of a cemetery like Arlington, 
>may be even more vague.
>
Not to start a 'I Lived in DC longer than you did' thread, but for a long
time you could (and probably still can) send mail to my parent's house in
MD with eith a MD or a DC state address. If fact I think I was told long 
ago that the mail got there faster with a DC address.

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Winning the war in the West
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:53:53 GMT

In article <Bz94tI.Jrs@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>conventional wisdom is that Early's boys would have succeeded
>in parading down Pennsylvania Avenue but for Lew Wallace's sacrifice
>at Monocacy and the arrival, in the nick of time, of two veteran
>divisions from Grant's army.

One of the faults I find with conventional wisdom is that it seems to
enjoy melodrama entirely too much.  I guess it does make a better story
to say that there, but for the grace of God, went the Republic.  But this
seems to be the punch line to virtually every writer's work.  I side with
the original post on this one; there was no way Washington was ever going 
to be taken.  And if it were, the North would, in Shelby Foote's phrase,
have taken the other arm out from behind its back.  (Forgive me, I have a 
weakness for pleading in the alternative :-)
--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: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: Winning the war in the West
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:44:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.142021.29224@panix.com> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:

>Let's settle this nonsense once and for all. No rebel army was going
>to take Washington. Ever. Even if Lee had completely destroyed Meade
>at Gettysburg (which he could not have done.)
>
>It took *Grant* almost a year to take Petersburg, with the ability to
>call on all the resources of the Union, and with secure lines of
>communication. Washington had a better system of defenses than any
>place in the Western Hemisphere, and had an enormous garrison. Even
>*Lincoln* could go out to the forts to watch when Early came on his
>silly raid. Some rebel army, 100 miles -- across wilderness -- from
>the nearest rebel railhead is going to take it by coup de main? by
>seige?  *Nonsense*

If, however, the defenses were not adequately manned, the city
could certainly have fallen.  In 1864, Grant did indeed strip the
city defenses in order to provide more troops for his own advance
on Richmond.  The result was Early's "Raid on Washington".  The
conventional wisdom is that Early's boys would have succeeded
in parading down Pennsylvania Avenue but for Lew Wallace's sacrifice
at Monocacy and the arrival, in the nick of time, of two veteran
divisions from Grant's army.

>>This is what makes the
>>Confederate invasions of the North in 1862 and 1863 particularly
>>audacious -- they were willing to risk uncovering Richmond in
>>order to seize the initiative.
>
>Audacious, yes. Also strategically silly, as I've pointed out before.

I think I tend to agree that Confederate invasions of the North
were rather risky and ill-advised.  As, however, Lee's 1862 and 1863
advances were grand foraging expeditions for an army that was barely
able to keep itself fed, they were certainly not pointless.

>>I don't think that you can say that the war in the West had been
>>won until after Atlanta had been taken and the Army of Tennessee
>>has been crippled.
>
>I didn't say it was over, I said it was won. Sherman proved (without
>much effort) that he could whip the AofT all the way to Atlanta, even
>with Joe Johnston commanding.

Which still didn't mean that the war in the West was won.

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Battle of Bladensburg ad the potential razing of DC
Date: 19 Dec 92 16:53:57 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

I have never seen this discussed, but surely the disaster at the
Battle of Bladensburg in the War of 1812 (and the subsequent burning
of Washington by the British) must have figured strongly in the
thinking on both sides regarding the defensibility of the Capital.
Certainly the routs of the Union Army at 1st and 2nd Manassas must
have had Lincoln worried that history would repeat itself.

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------