HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:55:08 GMT

doak@dazixco.ingr.com (Doak Heyser) writes:

>   Gag!  I don't read this newsgroup to be reminded that slavery was a
>terrible thing.  I read it because I'm interested in the military and
>political aspects of The Civil War.  I think the subject of slavery is
>well treated here.  Everyone, including the "southern apologist", denounce
>it.  What more do you want?

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

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

>   Frankly, if all you can do is argue about how terrible the CSA is for
>supporting slavery I think you'll soon wind up in everyone's kill file.  

Kill me if you want. You can't kill the truth, I'm afraid. As Bob Marley put it,
the truth is an offense, but not a sin.

>In short: Slavery was and is a terrible thing and the CSA deserved to lose
>the war because of it.  We all know that!  We now want to discuss other
>things.  

Yes, I'm sure. But to discuss the war without focusing on the hitherto ignored
AFricans is to badly distort the facts. I simply will not let you do that. 
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
From: jthoppers@OCTAVO
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Women soldiers.
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:38:10 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

I did not find book listings for the very specific subject of your 
inquiry. A search on the subject "women--civil war, 1861-1865" on 
the University of Calif. online catalog gave (among others) the 
following works:
"Trials and Triumphs: Women of the American Civil War", by Marilyn 
Mayer Culpepper (1991)
"A Woman Doctor's Civil War: Esther Hill Hawks' Diary" edited by 
Gerald Schwartz (1984)
"Michigan Women in the Civil War" by the Michigan Civil War Centennial 
Observance Commission (1963?)
"Dear Ones at Home; Letters from Contraband Camps" edited by Henry L. 
Swint (1966).
Most of the works indicated either women on the "home front" or working 
as nurses, which is why I did not include them. A periodical index may 
give you more references; I've seen articles on the combat service of 
women in several magazines of Civil War interest.
JTHoppers
Organization: Information Networking Institute, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 14:55:43 -0400 
From: "Joshua M. Sabloff" <jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Let's get a decent title for the slavery thread

Excerpts from netnews.alt.war.civil.usa: 21-Aug-92 Re: Let's get a
decent titl.. by Jones Maxime Murphy@cco. 
> How does that translate into "All whites are racists?". And Western European
> wealth was in large measure built on colonial rampages and enslavement, as
> was the wealth of the US. In any case, I was responding to someone who 
> identified the *Confederate flag* as their "heritage & culture". Surely you
> do not want to identify all "white" culture with the Confederate flag. Or
> do you?

Ach, I should've known better than to get into this :-).  The statement
that white culture etc. was built on the labor of non-white peoples
implies that whites think that those who are not white are inferior and
therefore exploitable.  Racism is a cultural phenomenon that manifests
itself in many ways, both cultural, political, and economic.  (Did I 
just get myself in trouble by making this statement?  Probably.  Perhaps
I can explain it a little better:  racism can be thought of as the idea
that another person or persons is inforior on the basis of their race. 
Therefore, the racist will act on this belief -- a belief brought on by
his own twisted mind or by his cultural inheritance -- in many forms:
economic, political etc.)

I beleive that you know that white culture extends a little further back
than the age of colonialsm.  Therfore, I assert that your statement that
white *culture* is built on the exploitation of other races is false. 
However, I don't have as much of an arguement with your statement that
the *wealth* of western Europe and the US from colonial times on was
built on the exploitation of other races.  A significant portion of it
was.  As significaant portion was 
also built on the domestic *white* working class.  

The person who called the Stars and Bars the foudation of his cultural
heritage is also patently wrong.  Perhaps it was a contrributing factor
-- at a leter date.

Gee, this topic has strrrayed a bit from the Civil War, has it not?

> PS I'm looking down at the Brooklyn Bridge right now.:)

Oh, nuts.  That means that you know how bad it is.  Now I'll have to
repair the potholes before I try to sell it to you. :)


-Josh Sabloff (jsa5@andrew.cmu.edu)
"Now go away before I taunt you a second time-a!"
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Date: Thu,  3 Sep 1992 11:40:05 -0400 
From: John Thorpe <jt3p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Splitting this news group to military and social
	<1992Sep3.124052.5966@cco.caltech.edu>

Newsgroup apartheid? That may be the case. It could also be considered
newsgroup secession. Let's get this on the floor of the Newsgroup
congress immediately!
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Industrialization
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 15:13:24 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.123137.1998@cco.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>
>By all means. I will dig up my copy of Walter Rodney's "How Europe
>Underdeveloped AFrica". It's a book I strongly recommend.

Please do, I would look forward to seeing excerpts. I'll hunt for it in
the loca bookstores.

>The absence of AFrican History courses in your University is not surprising,
>although Africans are the largest ethnic group in the US. It is a continuation
>of the great American race war on the intellectual front.

Africans are by no means the largest ethnic group in the United States.
Larger ones are Germans, English, Irish, and Hispanic. You can't even claim
this to be racist, since the history of white aggression is at least as bad on
the Hispanics as on the Africans.
Also, Asians will catch and pass Africans sometime in the next 10 years or so.

Further, there are African history courses at the University, there is a
program in African history and a department in African-American Studies.
(I'm at Stanford.) There just isn't a course in African economic history.
This isn't racist because there isn't one in European economic history
either.
It is nonetheless unfortunate that there isn't one.
>
>That's neither here nor there, as far as this discussion is concerned. Between
>1625 and 1775, England vastly expanded it's colonizing and enslaving, stealing
>a vast amount of wealth and labor from other nations. That was key in securing
>the explosive growth of industry in England.

Again I find this view excessively narrow. It was a key, but it was not the
only one.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann)
Subject: Re: Mac
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 07:03:08 GMT

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

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

>>>..And neither am I. This is a demand, not a whine. Otherwhise I'll make the LA
>>>riots look like a Sunday picnic.

>>Ahh, a student of M.L. King.  Threaten with violence...

>You must be even dumber than you sound, taking a statement like that seriously.

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

>Your reading comprehension did not allow to to get as far as grasping:

?????

>>>I'll start off by giving myself, oh, $10 mil or so. After all, I have more
>>>slavemaster blood than most white Americans.



>>>>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.  :-)

>>>I never said that the South was fighting solely for slavery. They were fighting
>>>for murder, robbery, and humiliation, the crimes they were able to commit
>>>against AFricans with impunity. They were fighting for racial aristocracy.


>>Well, I know why *my* ancestors fought in the CSA army.  It was not to preserve
>>slavery or any of the other outrageous reasons you've mentioned.  My ancestor
>>lived in an all-white county in AR., had no slaves, and and only ocassionally 
>>ever seen a black person.  He was a poor farmer as were those around him.  He
>>fought for the right to make his own decisions, and not have them made by
>>someone in Washington...which then was the equivalent (or something similar,
>>anyway) of someone in London making the decisions on how I live.  I'd fight
>>for that right today.

>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...

Roland


>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.
>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: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: Aiming at flagbearers.
Summary: What was the military significance of flags etc?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: Flags, flagbearers
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 08:55:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.170223.28740@bnlux1.bnl.gov>, COWAN@ANL.GOV writes...
>I want to thank everybody for all of the informative postings to my question
>regarding the accuracy of ACW riflemen. It's good to see that at least a subset
>of the newsgroup is still interested in swapping facts rather than insults 8^).

Your mother wears army boots (just kidding).

>It was pointed out that often one body was hit many times. I have read various
>accounts to this effect, a soldier or officer would draw attention to himself
>in some way and get blasted. It seems to indicate they could aim pretty well
>sometimes 8^).

Or it could be that they just did something unwise and/or brave like stand up
or rush out into a hail of rifle fire.  Just being hit multiple times doesn't
mean anyone was aiming at you.  I probably just means you exposed yourself to
a large volume of unaimed fire.

>This brings me to another military-related question. Often it was the
>flagbearer that drew a disproportionate share of the enemy fire. Also, I have
>often read references to the number of flags a given unit captured, or that a
>given unit had never lost "a gun or a flag". It almost sounds like a game 
>was being played. Was there really enough military significace to a regimental
>flags (i.e. "Ralley 'round the flag, boys!") to warrant all the attention they
>were apparently given? Or was it simply a "morale thing"?

I think the same argument as above might apply.  The flagbearer was supposed to
do hazardous things like stand up on the battlefield while carrying an unwieldy
banner and standard.  Since he was supposed to lead, he was also the first to
leave cover.  While I can believe people might aim for the flag-bearer, I'd
bet a lot were killed incidentally while doing the stuff flag-bearers are
supposed to do.

The fixation with unit regalia goes back to the Roman legions if not farther.
I believe three legions lost their "eagles" once to a German attack
(Teutoburger Wald?) and the following year a counterattack was mounted, one of
whose objectives was to recover them.  (Two were retaken, if memory serves).


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Subject: Errata
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:29:46 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In the recent heated discussions I posted an erroneous statistic. I stated that 
2000 plantation owners held the majority of all slaves in the South. This is
incorrect. It is true that there were only about 2300 plantations that held 100
or more slaves, but while that is alot of slaves, the total number involved on
these large holdings was much less than a majority of the 3-4 million slaves.

The total number of slave holders in 1860 was roughly 350,000. This figure 
is approximatley 5-6% of the total white population in the South. However this
can be misleading since many farms were run by extended families with only the
head of the family holding the slaves. (For this reason it is often claimed
that R. E. Lee held no slaves, when in fact they were held by his
father-in-law.) A more resonable accounting is that 25% of Southern families
held one or more slaves. (Roughly 20% of slave holders held only one slave.)

I still believe the inference I drew from my (incorrect) statistic is valid,
namely that a very few large plantation owners exerted inordinate influence on
the governments of the Southern states, and that this minority was highly 
motivated to protect the institution of slavery. However, I may have
tended to underestimate the importance of the influence of owners of 
medium-sized holdings. 

Another recent factual error that has annoyed me is that, in discussing the
Lee-Longstreet controversy, I typed that on July 1, Longstreet's Corps marched
over the mountain from Cashtown, when in fact he was coming from Chambersburg 
(Cashtown is of course on the same side of the mountain as Gettysburg, but the
pass in the mountain is called Cashtown Gap). This may seem minor, but since I
lived near that area, it bugged the heck out of me when I read my posting and
saw the mistake.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan	Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV 	(I'm posting this from a friend's account)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Aiming.
Keywords: Aimed shots casualties
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 20:21:47 GMT

pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn) writes:

>Soldiers in the war used to guess that it too a man's weight in lead to kill 
>him.  An "expert" estimated that it took 240 lbs. of powder and 900 lbs. of
>lead for a Confederate to be hit in a battle.


This is pretty poor. What was the percentage of professional soldiers, draftees
and volunteers in the armies?
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
From: zursch@whizkid.wpd.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Jones Murphy and the charter of this group
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:01:09 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

Folks, 

   I've been reading the posts from Jones M. Murphy with some interest, as
I'm sure the rest of you have been, too. Some of you have even had your
blood pressure raised by his posts and have put him in a kill file. 

I think Jones raises many good points about the nature of the Civil War
and the nature of our nation's history. I don't see why it gets 
people so hot under the collar. 

You don't have to agree with every point he makes or every word he says
to see the truths he is trying to get at.  Read his words to understand
the truth as he sees it. His point of view is shared by millions of people
in this country, and deserves serious consideration. 

In particular, his point about the deaths due to slavery far outpacing
those between 1861 and 1865 is very well taken. 

I think Jones has made excellent points and has served as a conscience
for this group. A voice that will not let us forget or "back-burner" 
the millions of slaves and free blacks who were involved in the Civil
War and the events that led up to it. Those people need a voice in any
discussion of this war, and Jones is our voice. I wouldn't expect that voice
to always speak in pleasant tones. 

JZ
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Social perquisites of non-slaveholding whites
Reply-To: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 15:54:38 GMT

In article <bjm1.714726426@Ra.MsState.Edu>, bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann) writes:
>morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>
>>casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
>
:
:
>My question would be why do you continue to say "Africans" rather than black
>Americans.  Are blacks no longer considered American?
>
>Roland 
Slaves were not citizens, so not "Americans" (in the narrow sense of
US citizen), so slaves were Africans, but were not black Americans, 
or African-Americans.  I know the question was not directed towrd me,
so I cannot answer for someone else, but that is how I have been reading the 
usage.
--Rich Rath



>>-- 
>>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: 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 21:42:44 GMT

This isn't precise information either, but I'd guess at the start of the
war it'd be something like 5 percent regulars and 95 percent volunteers.
(No conscripts at start). By the end of the war, still about 5 percent
regulars, maybe 20 percent volunteers, 50 percent conscripts, and 25
percent USCT (who are volunteers in Federal service, but are kept
seperate from the Regulars, so I'll list them seperately and you can
put them wherever you think appropriate.)
Of course, many who volunteered in 1864 and later did so because they
might be drafted anyway and you could collect a bounty if you volunteered,
so the distinction between late-war volunteers and conscripts is a little
hazy.
As far as smoothbores go, they were certainly in both sides inventories
throughout the war, but not necessarily in the Eastern Theater. The Army
of the Potomac was close to entirely rifles by mid-1862 I think. However,
look at the Western armies, or the armies in Missouri and Texas, or the
irregulars like Mosby's Rangers and the smoothbores are there all the way
through.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: jeromema@cc.uvcc.edu
Subject: Re: Jones M. Murphy and the charter of this group
Organization: Utah Valley Community College
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 20:09:48 GMT
From: KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Aiming at flagbearers.
Summary: What was the military significance of flags etc?
Keywords: Flags, flagbearers
Date: 1 Sep 92 17:02:23 GMT
Reply-To: COWAN@ANL.GOV
Organization: BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

I want to thank everybody for all of the informative postings to my question
regarding the accuracy of ACW riflemen. It's good to see that at least a subset
of the newsgroup is still interested in swapping facts rather than insults 8^).

It was pointed out that often one body was hit many times. I have read various
accounts to this effect, a soldier or officer would draw attention to himself
in some way and get blasted. It seems to indicate they could aim pretty well
sometimes 8^).

This brings me to another military-related question. Often it was the
flagbearer that drew a disproportionate share of the enemy fire. Also, I have
often read references to the number of flags a given unit captured, or that a
given unit had never lost "a gun or a flag". It almost sounds like a game 
was being played. Was there really enough military significace to a regimental
flags (i.e. "Ralley 'round the flag, boys!") to warrant all the attention they
were apparently given? Or was it simply a "morale thing"?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. L. Cowan     Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to 
COWAN@ANL.GOV   (I'm posting this from a friend's account)

     "I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall 
adopt new views so fast as they appear to be true views." 
  -  A. Lincoln, Letter to the Editor, New York Tribune, August 22, 1862

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa