HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 19:54:00 EST
From:         DGPAZ@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The Spanish/American War

On Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:01:00 CST RICHARD JENSEN <CAMPBELLD@APSU.BITNET>
said:

>     Since the days of Walter Millis (1931) a standard
>     leftist view of the war, which is widely accepted by textbooks,
>     airbrushes humanitarianism away and assumes instead that
>     economic "interest" causes diplomatic/political action.

"airbrushes"? "assumes"? "leftist"?
Evidently, to argue that economic
causes operate in determining
foreign policy is, in Richard
Jensen's view, to airbrush,
to assume, and to be leftist.
The first two, to airbrush (i.e.,
to suppress evidence that goes
against one's views) and to
assume (i.e., to prejudge), are
bad history. The last, one's
political views, is irrelevant,
so long as one's history is good.

Denis Paz
Department of History
Clemson University
South Carolina, U.S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Envelope-to: history@umrvmb.BITNET
X-VMS-To: VAXF::IN%"history@umrvmb"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:40:52 -0700
From:         Frederick the Great <J_CAUSEY@CCNODE.COLORADO.EDU>

SET HISTORY NOMAIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: First Amendment (was Re: The Spanish/American War)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:17:08 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.110751.24169@newstand.syr.edu> crdunlea@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Christopher R. Dunlea) writes:
>In article <01GS9MKYTB8Y9UMSTJ@VAX1.UMKC.EDU> "Bring me Joan, dipped in Spam" <TBEAUDOIN@UMKCVAX1.BITNET> writes:
>>        Was the United States the first country to enshrine the principle
>>of separation of church and state? I realize said principle is not
>>enshrined in our constitution, but rather has evolved as a result of
>>the legal application of US constitutional principles.
>>
>>Thomas Beaudoin
>>Univ. of Missouri
>
>You realize incorrectly, sir. The First Amendment to the Constitution
>(the first section of the Bill of Rights) specifically states that
>there shall be no establishment of religion in the government or state.
>THIS IS THE LAW. Everything else is, as you point out, interpretation.

   Thomas Beaudoin is more correct than for what you give him credit,
in fact more correct than you are.  There is in fact no mention of
"separation" of church and state in the Constitution.  The
Constitution prohibits Congress from giving special status to any
religion, as well as from prohibiting religion, which you failed to
mention.  The "separation" part has been purely an interpretation by
many.

   For reference, here is the actual text:

	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
	religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
	abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right
	of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
	Government for a redress of grievances.

   I wonder how the term "Separation of Church and State" came into
being?  People seem to quote it as if it were the word of God, but I
know of no official basis for it.  My point is that people think the
Constitution actually uses these words, so they base their
interpretations on this phrase instead of the actual words of the
Constitution, and thus tend to add meanings that aren't really there.

   I can picture it as somebody was writing a section on the
Constitution in a history book, and needed a heading for the First
Amendment.  "Umm, let's see... 'Congress Neither to Respect
Establishment of nor Prohibit Religion'.  Naw... too long... Oh, how
about, 'Separation of Church and State?'  Hey, it even fits on one
line..."

   By the way, religion is also mentioned in Article VI:

	The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the
	members of the several state legislatures, and all executive
	and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the
	several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to
	support this constitution; but no religious test shall ever be
	required as a qualification to any office or public trust
	under the United States.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: History@ubvm.bitnet
X-VMS-To: @HISTORY
X-VMS-Cc: CDELL
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:56:32 -0600
From:         "VALENTINE M. SMITH" <CDELL@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Warmest greetings ...
Comments: To: History@ubvm.bitnet

that whatever holiday you celebrate be the warmest, and that 1993 be
a happy and constructive year for you! Val
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"HISTORY%RUTVM1.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:51:00 CST
From:         JCFITZHARRIS@STTHOMAS.EDU
Subject:      Sunk ships
Comments: To: HISTORY%RUTVM1.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU

George Welling's latest posting ( Thu, 17 Dec 1992 15:48:01 GMT) ended without
his now usual fleet.  Did Bob strike again?  Or is MS/DOS virus spreading
.bat and .exec contaminants onto the net?  Reboot the universe George!

Joe Fitzharris
JCFitzharris@stthomas.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
From: regeorge@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Robert E George)
Subject: Re: Somalia Was Re: The Spanish/American War
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:50:44 GMT

In article <9212181336.AA06572@slc12.INS.CWRU.Edu> "Cheryl P. Lewis" <cpl@po.CW
RU.Edu> writes:
>Dear Mr. George:
>
>I fully realize that there are many Constitutional barriers to dis-
>arming individuals judged to be dangerous to society, and that the poverty
>experienced by many here in the United States cannot and should not be
>compared to the many deprivations that the Somalians have experienced.
>I was just recounting the feelings expressed by some Americans about
>our assistance to the Somalians.

  I didn't wish to imply that Ms. Lewis shared in the views that she
was reporting. I hope nobody got that impression, and I apologize for
any confusion. I realize everybody is aware of the Constitutional barriers
in the U.S., I was trying to point out why policymakers just aren't worried
with such barriers in Somalia.
On a related note:
  All things considered, I am not convinced that the operation in Somalia
is *non* military in a meaningful sense. The troops sent there were *not*
going there primarily to distribute food: rather they were going there to
suppress violent bands of men interfering with the distribution of food.
I fully expected that the forces would eventually have to kill, and indeed
some Somalis have been killed already (mistaken identity).
     Any comments on other historical examples of deadly force being used
for humanitarian ends?

Robert George
(speaking only for myself)

"The very essence of individual freedom is equal justice under a rule of
law, a law to which every man shall be subject and which no executive
can modify."
    Senator Robert Taft , March 11, 1944
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Sat, 12 Dec 1992 11:35:26 CST
From:         Don Mabry <djm1@RA.MSSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Spanish/American War
Comments: To: HISTORY@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

        Harris makes an excellent point about Social Darwinism and its
influence on the thinking of many people in the U.S. in 1898.
        Longer ago than that, however, was the "American Sense of Mission,"
the belief that the U.S. was created to spread its system throughout the
world because said system was the best possible on Earth. Related was
Jefferson's concept of an "Empire for Liberty."
        Of course people in the U.S. were nationalistic and, like other
forms of egotism, tended to see their nation's expansionism as serving
the greater good. (Before you go nuts, Lenny, I will also asert that
other nations are also nationalistic).
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:23:03 EST
From:         A322000 <A322@NMUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Spanish/American War

Sorry for the insult on "reality".  Perhaps some guiding wisdom would
avoid such mistakes on my part.

                                     Keith.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"HISTORY@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 10:55:00 PST
From:         FOXS@AXE.HUMBOLDT.EDU
Subject:      Re: The Spanish/American War
Comments: To: HISTORY@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

I've been eavesdropping, so may be out of the loop (heh, heh), but
couldn't resist.  Does "annexation" include makinbg war and then
by virture of prevailing forcing the losers to "sell" territory?
If so, that would seem to answer the questions about annexation
prior to Span/Am War.

-Steve Fox-
History Department
Humboldt State University
Arcata, CA  95521
(707) 826-4788
Internet:  foxs@axe.humboldt.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: history@PSUVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: @HISTORY
X-VMS-Cc: CAMPBELLD
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:48:00 CST
From:         RICHARD JENSEN <CAMPBELLD@APSU.BITNET>
Subject:      Dewey! Dewey! Dewey!/Is the Hero of the Day/& the Maine has Been

Remebered/In the good old-fashioned way--- (anon 1898)
    Ah, they again ask about Dewey at Manila Bay! Glad to see the
    historiographical worm has turned.
         'Twas a glorious victory--Dewey wasn't much worried. The
    Spanish fleet plus forts equalled his in firepower but had no
    guts to fight.  Admiral Montojo put his fleet in weak position
    so civilians in Manila would not get hurt, thus losing advantage
    of forts.  Dewey swept past Corregidor at dawn before startled
    guards (who never fired). His fleet raked Montojo's one modern &
    7 dilapidated ships for an hour ("You may fire when ready,
    Gridley"), following an elliptical path at 2000 to 5000 yards.
    US gunnery was fair (142 of 5,900 shells hit a Spanish ship)
    Spanish bad (one lucky hit wounded 8 US sailors).
         Dewey retired for breakfast (he was checking a false report
    re low ammunition), then returned to finish the job. No US dead
    (about 450 Spanish killed). Spanish fleet sank (vast majority of
    sailors rescued), but it met defeat in a suitably honorable way
    that the government in Madrid would not fall nor the Crown be
    overthrown by failure of aristocratic Navy to fight.
    --the Germans were negotiating to buy the Spanish possessions in
    the Pacific & in fact did buy some. A German fleet was lurking
    in Manila after the battle, and Admiral von Diederichs hinted
    that he would not acknowledge Dewey's control of the Bay. But he
    did, and there was no real tension involved. Admirals don't
    start wars they follow orders.
    --The German fleet (& Japanese fleet) was there to seize
    Philippines if USA decided not to annex them. (British fleet
    there too, mission unclear. Royal Navy was everywhere.)
    Herman/Japanese threat gave US a moral imperative that caused
    McKinley many prayerful sleepless nights until he figured out
    what to do. (Temporarily annex islands, install some law and
    order and modernization, prepare Filipinos for self government,
    then give them independence.)

    Richard Jensen campbelld@apsu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 12:30:17 EST
From:         Ken Koester <MAINT2@ERS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Spanish/American War
              15 Dec 1992 11:12:52 EST from <crdunlea@RODAN.ACS. SYR.EDU>

On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:12:52 EST Christopher R. Dunlea said:
>In article <HISTORY%92121322512390@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> Lenny <LABBEY@GITVM1.BITNET>
>writes:
>>
>>I can't think of any.  We bought Florida, Louisiana, Alaska, the Gadsden
>>land, California.
>>
>>Lenny
>
>I think Texas and Hawaii qualify. I know we annexxed Texas at somer
>point, and Hawaii was definitely annexed in the late 1890's.
>
>Chris

Isn't anyone going to mention Arizona and New Mexico?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 11:21:00 EST
From:         DGPAZ@CLEMSON.BITNET
Subject:      Re: first amendment

On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:03:48 -0600 CD-MD-RD! <TBEAUDOIN@UMKCVAX1.BITNET>
said:

> if ... the understanding of what it is to establish religion has
> "evolved" ..., would that not be consistent with my
> original assertion that the modern understanding of separation of
> church and state is not (technically) consitutionally set out but
> instead the result of the interpretation of courts over time? ...
> perhaps you still disagree with that assertion.

I still disagree. Surely the 1st Amendment to the US Const. is
relevant to discussions of separation of church & state? If so,
then there is explicit constitutional provision for separation.
The modern understanding of the presidency has evolved over time,
and entire structures unmentioned in the Const. have come into
existence, but we do not therefore say that the office of president
is not therefore constitutionally set out.
But this thread may be heading towards distinctions without
differences.

Denis Paz
Department of History
Clemson University
South Carolina, U.S.A.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
From: akerr@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Austin Kerr)
Subject: Does knowing history make any difference in policy?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:51:21 GMT

I am curious if anyone else on this list had any reaction to the Clinton 
administration's appointment of Robert Reich as Secretary of Labor.  I have 
read all but his last book, The Work of Nations, and noticed at the back of it 
"A Note on Additional Sources." There Reich observes works important to him in 
addition to those he cited in the text of his book.  On the list are, among 
others, the following authors: Fernand Braudel; ERic Hobsbaum; Sidney Pollard; 
Carlton J.H. Hayes; Boyd C. Shafer; Alfred D. Chandler, Jr; Thomas McCraw; 
Morton Horwitz; Louis Galambos; Joseph Pratt; Grant McConnell; Jonathan R.T. 
Hughes; Louis Hartz; James Weinstein; Ellis Hawley; Richard Hofstadter; and 
James Willard Hurst. I am favorably impressed with this list. Has anyone else 
noticed it?  And will it make any difference that a key adviser to the 
President of the United States has read widely in American and European 
history, has understood what he has read, and has allowed his knowledge of 
history to affect profoundly the way he understands the present?

Surely some of the persons on this list who are not U.S. citizens, or who are 
expert in the history of public policy in other nations, might have interesting
observations about the role, if any, that a scholarly understanding of history 
has played in the shaping of current policies.

Austin Kerr
Ohio State University
kerr.6@osu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
X-Envelope-to: HISTORY@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU
X-VMS-To: VAXF::IN%"HISTORY@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:16:45 -0700
From:         Frederick the Great <J_CAUSEY@CCNODE.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: MILHIST-L
Comments: To: HISTORY@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU

        Hi there, Tom.  Haven't heard from you in a while.  I had that
problem, until I realised that the list's name is MILHST-L, not MILHIST-L.
I think they did that to test our dedication ;).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--                                                                          --
--      Jim Causey                      "I find your lack of faith...       --
--      j_causey@ccnode.colorado.edu     disturbing." -- Darth Vader        --
--                                                                          --
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Sun, 13 Dec 1992 02:28:47 EST
From:         Lenny <LABBEY@GITVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: The Spanish/American War
              11 Dec 1992 07:37:04 CST from <djm1@RA.MSSTATE.EDU>

Don, which territories which did not belong to us did the US annex prior
to the Spanish-American War?

I can't think of any.  We bought Florida, Louisiana, Alaska, the Gadsden
land, California.

Lenny
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-VMS-To: @historylist
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 20:11:00 EST
From:         BMENK@CCR2.BBN.COM
Comments: To: HISTORY%FINHUTC.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu,
          Multiple Recipients of <HISTORY@FINHUTC.BITNET>

//
Database Search DD=Rules
//Rules DD      *
Search (job or posting or vacancy or vacancies or positions or position) -
 and (french or or france or literature or history or historical) since 01/92 -
 in HISTORY
Index
/*
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: HISTORY@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU
X-VMS-To: VAXF::IN%"HISTORY@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:25:40 -0700
From:         Frederick the Great <J_CAUSEY@CCNODE.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: MILHIST-L
Comments: To: HISTORY@UMRVMB.UMR.EDU

        Actually, Tom, I'll have a good Block 5.  And you're welcome.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
From: cc-guest@cc309.ncku.edu.tw (Default Trumpet User)
Subject: Re: Books about the Perons
Organization: National Cheng-Kung University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:29:41 GMT

In article <HISTORY%92120501033694@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> Lenny <LABBEY@GTRI01.BITNET> writes:
>Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
>Path: dec8.ncku.edu.tw!nchud5.nchu.edu.tw!news!news.edu.tw!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!GTRI01.BITNET!LABBEY
>Message-ID: <HISTORY%92120501033694@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
>Date:         Sat, 5 Dec 1992 01:01:25 EST
>Sender:       History <HISTORY@PSUVM.BITNET>
>From:         Lenny <LABBEY@GTRI01.BITNET>
>Subject:      Re: Books about the Perons
>In-Reply-To:  Message of Fri, 4 Dec 1992 05:09:28 CST from <jcoryell@NWU.EDU>
>I am still here.
>
>Think of my present condition as a sort of intellectual and moral pregnancy.
>
>Lenny
>
>
>         Quincy is
>
>           -, /|
>            O.O
>          =(___)=
>             U
>
>         Here too!
I am Taiwanese.
















MZ











































MZ












































Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:02:41 EST
From:         Tom Powers <TPOWERS@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      MILHIST-L

     I've tried to sign on to the new military history list at UKANVM.
Each time I try, I get a notice saying there is no list at that address.
Does anyone know what's  happening, and why I'm having trouble subscribing?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:15:08 CST
From:         "John Coryell." <jcoryell@NWU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The Spanish/American War

>On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:12:52 EST Christopher R. Dunlea said:
>>In article <HISTORY%92121322512390@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> Lenny <LABBEY@GITVM1.BITNET
>>writes:
>>>
>>>I can't think of any.  We bought Florida, Louisiana, Alaska, the Gadsden
>>>land, California.
>>>
>>>Lenny
>>
>>I think Texas and Hawaii qualify. I know we annexxed Texas at somer
>>point, and Hawaii was definitely annexed in the late 1890's.
>>
>>Chris
>
>Isn't anyone going to mention Arizona and New Mexico?

Sure.  Gadsden.  Complete control of the Colorado, for what it's been
worth.  How about the Marshall Protectorate?  What is the criteria
here exactly?

John Coryell.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 20:07:43 EST
From: <RFM@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Subject: Malcolm X (Was Re: Remember the Ostend Manifesto!)

In article <HISTORY%92120713491145@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>, DGPAZ@CLEMSON.BITNET says:
>
>Not every American agreed. Let me quote from an editorial in
>the _Mission Monitor_, the newspaper of a black Episcopal parish
>in Omaha, Nebraska (how's that for obscurity?), on the Spanish-
>American War. That war
>"brings a pertinent question to the Afro-American: It is
>this: Should he take up arms in defense of a country which
>hates him with such an intense hatred as does this land of
>his involuntary adoption? or, Is there any ground whatever
>for patriotism upon his part.
>  "Viewed from the standpoint of his treatment yesterday and
>to-day there can be but one honest answer to the question and
>that answer is _No_."
>* * *
>"The United States has made a total failure in her treatment of
>subjugated races . . . within her own present territory. What
>need, therefore, has she, of a vaster domain in both territory
>and subject people in which to repeat her governmental
>experiments?"

I've been meaning to reread Malcolm X (but haven't yet), but one
episode (from MX's early life in Nebraska) struck me while watching
the movie & came to mind agiin while reading the quote from the Omaha
newspaper quoted above. Afro-American political alienation (Can one
blame them?)  It's bee eons since I read MX, bt I'm wondering if
much is made of this in his autobiography?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Fri, 11 Dec 1992 16:36:42 -0500
From:         james schmidt <jschmidt@ACS.BU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Situationism
Comments: To: HISTORY@PSUVM.PSU.EDU

On Situationism, see Greil Marcus' recent "Lipstick Traces"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:14:27 CST
From:         Don Mabry <djm1@RA.MSSTATE.EDU>
Subject:      RE: The Spanish/American War
Comments: To: HISTORY@UBVM.cc.buffalo.edu

        The U.S. seized parts of West Florida; it then intimidated Spain
to achieve the Adams-Onis Treaty (which was not a purchase of East
Florida); and it invaded and occupied northern Mexico prior to the
outbreak of the Mexican-American War.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:22:42 EST
From:         A322000 <A322@NMUMUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Please enter me into your lists. Thank you.

Keith Malkowski A322@NMUMUS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Mon, 14 Dec 1992 17:16:27 EST
From:         Tom Powers <TPOWERS@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: MILHIST-L
              14 Dec 1992 13:16:45 -0700 from <J_CAUSEY@CCNODE.COLORADO.EDU>

GRRRRR!!
I HATE it when that happens!
Thanks for opening my lazy eyes. I'll try the new address!
Have a good Spring semester. Unless you're on the quarter system. In
which case, have a good Winter quarter.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 08:41:40 EST
From:         Andrew Rowden x2252 <arowden@AUSTIN.ONU.EDU>
Subject:      RE:H-Net guide to lists; additions, comments, drops??
Comments: To: HISTORY%RUTVM1.BitNet@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
              16, 92 6:24 pm

One suggestion would be the Early Modern Europe list --
emhist-1@rutvm1

Andrew Rowden
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU