HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 07:54:15 GMT

morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

>bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann) writes:

>>morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

>>Call it dumb if you like.  Violence followed King wherever he went...

>Wait. Are you saying that King was violent? This is interesting indeed. No
>doubt the Bull Connors of the South were simply trying to maintain law and
>order.

Not that King was violent, certainly he "preached" non-violence, but violence
followed him.
>>>Your reading comprehension did not allow to to get as far as grasping:

>>?????

>See what I mean?

>>>Yeah, I don't doubt you'd fight for the right to put the niggers back in their
>>>place for one second. Well dream on, fool.

>>Well, "fool," I don't exactly know what "place" you want the black..er excuse
>>me "niggers," by your words.  They've acheived much, but still have a long
>>way to go.  That has nothing to do with the reason I'd fight (or my ancestors
>>fought).  I feel (wrong though you may think I am) that too many decisions are
>>made about *MY* life in Washington, by people with big houses, fancy cars,
>>views of fancy bridges, etc., etc.  They know nothing (or seem to not understand anyway) about the way I, and most of the people around me live.
>>If YOU want to fight over someone's skin color, go right ahead...

>Not interested. I'll fight in my own way for unity. But unity cannot be built on
>de facto apartheid.

>>>It's pathetic how you keep spouting all this stuff about "right to make his
>>>own decisions"! That collective "right" mean the suppression of the rights of
>>>millions of people in a complete and dehumanizing way. What about the rights of
>>>Africans in the South to make their own decisions?? That was in far greater
>>>jeopardy.

>I notice you didn't have anything to say in response.
>Jones

I don't honestly think that most whites (as in the case of my ancestors) even
considered blacks...or Africans in their decision making.  Then, as today, more people are concerned more of themselves than their neighbor...or their neighbor's slave.

Roland

>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: daggs@l42bb.jsc.nasa.gov (Clark)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Date: 4 Sep 1992 17:30:45 GMT
Organization: Houston Civil War Roundtable

In article <Bu0vzI.4Gy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
(thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:

>   I would also be interested in specific info about where the 100th Oh.
>was during the battles around Atlanta. The Atlas to Accompany the
>Official Records only has listings by Divisions in its map for the
>Peachtree Creek battlefield. Can anybody help?
>
>   Thanks in advance,
>
> 
>   Tom
>

	Your local public library should have US Army Adjudant General's
Records. In Houston (for example) there is a separate building where
all geneological infomation is kept. In your area it may just be a 
separate wing. These are usually kept an microfilm, but they contain
fairly detailed accounts of the doings of each regiment. The typical
record contains a paragraph on each soldier written by the regiment's
adjudant.

Clark J. Daggs
1864 El Mar Ln.
Seabrook, Texas 77586
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 15:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.223457.23529@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>>   I would also be interested in specific info about where the 100th Oh.
>>was during the battles around Atlanta. The Atlas to Accompany the
>>Official Records only has listings by Divisions in its map for the
>>Peachtree Creek battlefield. Can anybody help?
>>
>Well, I thought I could, but I all I can find is that the 100th Ohio was
>not engaged as Chickamauga. Guess you don't need to visit there :)
>The book Regimental Losses in the American Civil War by William Fox, reprinted
>1985, (yes 1985 not 1895!) will tell you at least what brigade/division/corps
>the 100th belonged to, and if it made the "Top 300 Regiments" it'll have a
>fairly detailed history of the regiment.
>-- 
>Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
>

I have looked in a book that gave the regimental rosters, commanders,
and battle history of each regiment raised in Ohio. It believe it was
called something like "The unit histories of Ohio Regiments, it was
published around the turn of the century (+/-20 years) and was very
interesting. It gave the muster date of each man listed with a regiment,
the location where he joined up, and some word as to his final fate.
The impression I got was that the 100th took about average casualties in
combat (about 30%) and disease. Its major battles were Chatanooga,
Resaca, Atlanta and the Invasion of Tennessee (Franklin, Nashville,
etc.) Of course, since gg granddad was wounded around Atlanta he wasn't
in these last ones. It served in the army of the Tennessee, under
Thomas. Of course, I forgot regimental, brigade and division commanders,
I'll have to go look them up. My overall impression of the regiment was
that it was very average. It fought in no really famous battles, didn't
take horrifyingly heavy casualties and produced no notable leaders. I
guess it just did its job, but was no 20th Maine, probably like a whole
lot of other outfits. 

Thanks, 

 Tom

and some word as to his final fate ompany,

regimental ancalled alled something like "The regimental histories
of Ohio 

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: djredick@bluemoon.rn.com (Darrin J. Redick)
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 09:20:58 EDT

"Thomas J. Joyce" <tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

> 
> I'm glad I found this newsgroup. However, I wouldn't mind seeing it
> split into two groups:
> 
>     alt.war.civil.usa.mil   (purely military & battle topics)
>     alt.war.civil.usa.soc   (social, political and diplomatic topics)
> 
> I like reading both groups, but wouldn't mind just reading about one and
> not the other. Safe to say that my main interest in the war is in the
> battles. This doesn't mean that I don't have any interest in the 
> non-military facets of the war.
> 
> Opinions?
> 
> Tom j.
> 

Here, here!  I second that notion!  I don't enjoy seeing the current 
'battle' on here between Jones and everyone else.  I enjoy seeing stuff
on what really counts (for me, anyway): the actual CW battles.  Perhaps
a CFV, or RFD is in order here.


  _______________________________________________________________________
 |                                                                       |
 | Internet: djredick@bluemoon.rn.com                                    |
 |_______________________________________________________________________|
 |                                                                       |
 | FutureNet : #129@#02 #021@#03  #041@#05  #011@#08  #032@#09  #001#@10 |
 |             #041@#14 #067@#15  #131@#16  #043@#19  #126@#22  #247@#25 |
 |_______________________________________________________________________|
 |                                                                       |
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Date: 3 Sep 92 19:27:48 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley Community College

In article <009600F3.F14CE600@OCTAVO>, jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:
> I vote for one group, indivisible...you know the rest.

I agree.  The Civil War encompasses the social, political, and
military aspects of pre-1865 America.  They were not separate entities
then, nor need they be now.  Everybody has the freedom to choose which
item(s) they want to read or ignore.

Marc D. Jerome
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Organization: Utah Valley Community College
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 17:18:10 GMT

In article <Bu0vzI.4Gy@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
> 
>    I would also be interested in specific info about where the 100th Oh.
> was during the battles around Atlanta. The Atlas to Accompany the
> Official Records only has listings by Divisions in its map for the
> Peachtree Creek battlefield. Can anybody help?
> 
>    Thanks in advance,
> 
>  
>    Tom

If you can get ahold of Frederick Dyer's _Compendium_of_the_Union_Army_ it will
list virtually all of the information that you want concerning the 100th Ohio,
including the number of killed/died of wounds and died of disease, brigades
attached to, all battles and engagements, places of encampments.  It's quite
accurate.  Most good libraries will have a copy of it in their history
reference section.  I've used it often, enough to want a copy of my own from
"Morningside Book Shop" out of Dayton, Ohio.

Next time I go to the library, I will try and look up your ancestor's unit.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa,alt.appalachian
From: gmclucki@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gemma McLuckie)
Subject: Re: civil war connections
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 14:30:55 GMT

Are these Boykins related to the family much-mentioned by Mary Chestnut in her 
diaries?

Also, what do the asteriks in your post indicate?

I'll have to check with my cousin who's the family geneaologist and see if we 
have any other relations who fought.

Thanks,
Gemma
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: What the FAQ?
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 22:59:55 GMT

zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeffrey B. Zurschmeide) writes:

>Jones, I think you'll agree with me when I say that there is enough guilt to go around 
>to all three nations who had slaves working under their flags.   

You can say that again.

>>And, once again, I say "FAQ that shit, but near the end". There's a lot more
>>core information about the white Civil War than flag colours. Or else we could
>>start the FAQ out with R.E. Lee's favourite underwear brands, or something as 
>>important as that.

>I can get behind the idea of the first entry of the FAQ being a general statement 
>about the nature of this war, and the fact that it ended legally sanctioned slavery 
>in North America. The next entry could be about the people who died, on all sides,
>in this war. In FAQ, I would go so far as to suggest that we appoint several different
>people to write short entries for the first question, because of our varying perspectives.
>I nominate Jones to write one entry from his African-American perspective. Will
>someone volunteer to write an entry from the CSA perspective? (If no one else will,
>I'll give it a try.)  And an entry from a Unionist perspective would complete the set. 
>(Unless we want to really run with it and get a Native American perspective, a
>northern abolitionist perspective, a southern loyalist perspective, etc etc etc.) 

Yeah, that might be fun, actually. My entry might start, "Robert E Lee, you
ignorant slut...."

>This is true. Why is it (do we suppose) that the KKK/Aryan Nation/misc.hate.group
>type of people always come from the lowest socio-economic/least-educated class
>of whites?  Because no one likes to be at the bottom of the pile. If, no matter how
>poor or ill-educated or despised you are, you can claim arbitrary superiority based
>on race, you're still ahead....at least in your own mind. I have no doubt that this
>motivated many in the armies of the CSA.  I also believe that there was more to it
>than that. 

It's amazing how tenaciously people fight for psychological comfort when it 
in the face of the facts. It is very clear to me that the desire to remain 
a privileged class so possessed white Southerners that they would rationalize 
any contorted defense of the status quo. Powerful elites have done that again
and again. I do not doubt that Southerners, in addition to their explicitly 
stated intention to remain a racial aristocracy, came up with additional
rationalizations for fighting.

>Not more important, just not the charter of this group. Change the name to:
>alt.a.bunch.of.white.guys.discussing.historical.trivia.of.1861.to.1865 
>if you like. It's at least as accurate a title as AWCUSA. 

Nah, alt.white.bozos.trying.hard.to.ignore.the.niggers is more like it.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Social perquisites of non-slaveholding whites
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 19:10:57 GMT

bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann) writes:

>My question would be why do you continue to say "Africans" rather than black
>Americans.  Are blacks no longer considered American?

My question would be why do you continue to say "Irish" rather than white
Americans. Are whites no longer considered American?
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: Jes Grew Carriers -- Metaphysical Bunko Squad 
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:12:17 GMT

morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:

>>What more do you want?

>Cash, lots of it, to compensate me for the sufferings of my ancestors. You 

Why do you deserve compensation for the sufferings of anyone else?  I 
haven't had any, and I'm not whining...

>either be blind or stupid if you've missed the many defenses of the social 
>order in the antebellum South. Such gems as "white people treated their 
>slaves like human beings", etc.

Maybe you don't remember that I fully realized that saying that was a 
paradox, and I said it within the context that some (you conveniently left 
that word out of your "quote"...) of them treated their slaves as human
beings, IN SPITE OF THE FACT that they had been enculturated to believe 
that their slaves were NOT human beings.  And stop trying to suggest 
that I was defending the social order in the antebellum South.  It isn't
true.

>How on earth can you divorce the political aspects of the war from slavery? 
>Slavery was the fundamental political aspect of the war!

Yes.  But not the only aspect.  You almost seem to be admitting that the
South was not fighting solely for slavery...I'm glad to see that you're
beginning to concede the one point I was trying to make.  :-)

>AFricans is to badly distort the facts. I simply will not let you do that. 
>Jones

Why won't you let us concede your point once and for all instead of 
conceding it over and over again in response to every conceivable
discussion in this group?  Do you really think we disagree that 
slavery was a horrible institution, should never have been conceived
and was the primary cause of the War?  I hope you can find it in 
yourself to supply the necessary African perspective without insisting
that we all apologize to you and compensate you every time a new subject 
arises.
 
Trevor Bauknight         trev@hubcap.clemson.edu    ...gatech!hubcap!trev
 
                                                     +-----------+
                                                     | _> ###    |
                  fish on                            |     |     |
                                                     +-----------+
From: cld1@ra.msstate.edu (Charles L. Dunn)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Social perquisites of non-slaveholding whites
Date: 25 Aug 92 17:08:20 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University

One thing that is being missed in this discussion, is that the majority of
large plantation owners opposed secession at least in Mississippi and Texas.
Also many who very vocally opposed secession either served the Confederacy
(Throckmorton of Texas) or sent their sons to serve it (Sam Houston).

The mythical Southern hero was one who opposed both slavery and secession, 
had freed his slaves, but served his State because of duty and honor. To
many in the South the Confederate flag symbolizes this ambivalent and per-
haps fictious heritage.
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: smoothbores, foriegn soldiers and enlistments
Date: 3 Sep 92 16:18:51 GMT
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <BtxHDu.E1H@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>
>Women - There was a woman (whose name I can't remember, of course) who
>served as a surgeon with the AotP. She was one of the few women doctors
>around at the time, and I guess that doctors were scarce enough that the
>powers that be didn't turn her away because she was a woman. She was
>never commissioned, but designed a military style woman's uniform for
>herself that was practical in the field. After the war she was awarded
>the Congressional Medal of Honor for heroism in tending the wounded
>under fire. She is the only woman so honored in U.S. history.

Her name deserves to be remembered:  Mary Walker, M.D., a graduate of
Syracuse Medical School.  She was the only female official army surgeon
during the war, thanks to George Thomas, who gave her a place after the
army had turned her down.  She received a Medal of Honor when they were 
being handed out pretty freely at the end of the War, which was revoked
in 1919, just a few days before her death; she refused to surrender it,
and the Medal was eventually restored in 1977.

Perhaps a note is in order that the revocation was not necessarily due
to misogyny.  When the grounds for being awarded a MoH were tightened
in WWI, some 911 medals were revoked, most of them Civil War vintage. 
--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: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:19:01 GMT

rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu writes:

[good stuff..]

>I have also written a fairly long critique of economic issues of southern 
>US development, and the northern role of capital in regards to the 
>bondage (antebellum) and oppression (postbellum) of African-Americans
>in the southern US.  If there is an interest, I will post it in a few
> shorter parts which pertain to the time period of this group.

Please do.
Jones
-- 
Jones M Murphy Jr                                        (212) 602-4375
NatWest Investment Bancorp, National Westminster Bank PLC
100 Wall Street, New York, NY10005                   FAX (212) 269-0113
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Chantilly/Ox Hill
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 19:31:06 GMT

Just a reminder that today, September 1, is the 130th anniversary of
the Battle of Chantilly.  Remember Kearny.
--Chuck
-- 
D'Angelo Law Library       "And lo! the shadow of a mighty presence
cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu    shall wrap them in its bosom, and the 
uclcjt1@uchimvs1            power of the vision pass into their souls."
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: afallen@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (E_ALLEN ARRINGTON)
Subject: Re: Sickles (Was: Re: Lee-Longstreet)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 31 Aug 1992 16:00 EST  

In article <Uebfsdu00WBNM76lIg@andrew.cmu.edu>, "Thomas J. Joyce" <tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
> 
>As much flak that Sickles takes, I'd like to invite those who condemn
>him to actually go to Gettysburg and survey the area [specifically
>where his troops were engaged]. Look at the lay of the land. He
>really had no choice.
> 
>Tom Joyce
>Carnegie-Mellon University Administrative Systems
>(usual disclaimer et al)
I'm currently reading one of the Eyewitness to the Civil War series, this 
one on Gettysburg.  It is actually two accounts, the first by Col. Oates of 
the 15th Alabama and the second by Lt. Haskell of Gen. Gibbons staff.  Both 
describe the position of 3rd Corps and the resutling effect on the 2nd day 
at Gburg.  But both draw totally different conclusions from the position of 
Sickles men.  Col Oates described how the location of these men in an 
unexpected place disrupted the planned attack of Longstreets Corp up the 
Emmittsburg Pike (Oates stated that since Longstreet knew these men were in 
the path of the attack now where when the attack was concieved, Sickles was 
not in this position, that Longstreet should have tried to have Lee change 
the attack to the Union flank).  Lt. Haskell comdemmed Sickles at the 
positioning of his men and viewed this as a military blunder that cost the 
Union army many good men for no good reason.  Two views from different 
sides of the fence.

E. Allen Arrington  
        Trooper, 1st Kentucky Cavalry, Co. C 
        Mounted Memorial Unit                 
and Mason (a darn good horse)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: coronell@athena.mit.edu (Dan Coronell)
Subject: Disease Stats (Was Re: Aiming.)
Keywords: Disease
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 00:11:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.053808.12422@quick.com> srg@quick.com (Spencer Garrett) writes:
>per casualty.  On the other hand, I think something like 80% of the
>dead during the civil war fell to disease, not bullets.  We've
>certainly improved things there.
Foote quotes a number of 255,000 Union troops to have lost their lives 
from disease and other noncombat activity (drownings,execution,suicide,etc.) 
while 162,000 Rebs fell in noncombat related incidences. Comparing these 
numbers to the roughly 110,000 and 94,000 combat deaths for the Union and 
Confederacy, respectively, it is seen that for every soldier slain in battle 
two more fell to disease.
					Dan Coronell
					coronell@athena.mit.edu
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Aiming.
Keywords: Aimed shots casualties
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 21:35:22 GMT

If you go back and read the official reports on battles you can get a good
estimate for how many rounds were issued and how many casualties were
inflicted. I haven't done this for more than a few battles but you usually
get something like 1 casualty per 1000 to 5000 rounds.
Another factor not mentioned in the excellent reply to this question (I
forget the author's name) is that after 1862 most troops had learned to
duck behind rocks or trees.
Another thing to remember is that many of the wounded and dead were hit
more than once. There's an anecdote about a man who was shot and fell
across a stone wall who had been hit 57 times by battle's end. So the
armies are inflicting more hits than casualties, perhaps twice as many.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:30:23 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

I vote for one group, indivisible...you know the rest.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa