HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: PAPAI@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (Jonathan Papai)
Subject: Re: Is it time to rm this group?
Organization: The Ohio State University
 <1992Dec20.040929.24509@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 23:21:42 GMT

jfurr@nyx.cs.du.edu (JKF) writes:
>
>I'm here, as of today.  I didn't know about this group until it was
>mentioned in alt.folklore.urban and had to write the author of the post I
>read there asking what the group's name was.

	Gee. That would be me.

>I live in Virginia.  I drive through Appomattox all the time.  I have
>driven over the Monitor-Merrimac Bridge-Tunnel (I-664 to you) across the
>James and seethe every time I do so wondering why the hell it's not called
>the Monitor-Virginia Bridge-Tunnel.  I go around using the phrase "the War of
>Northern Aggression" in front of Yankees.  And I'd have been in this group
>a long time ago if someone'd pointed it out to me, dammit!

	Gee, sorry.  I guess I should have read and applied
	those techniques in sci.mind.reading

>So perhaps some cross-posting or maybe even just some outright ads in
>various groups would bring *more* people in.

	I second that thought.  I don't think anyone would be
	offended when small groups place non-offensive ads
	to attract new readers, an if they are, too bad.

>						  In fact, I'm vaguely
>surprised that there's not already a soc.history.usa.civil-war group.  In
>Virginia, historical recreations of War of Northern Aggression battles
>draw thousands.  You couldn't mention "The War" in any of my undergraduate
>classes at the University of Georgia without totally side-tracking
>discussion of anything else that day. There are *lots* of people who like
>discussing the War.
>I think this is a legitimate example of a group stranded in alt. -- a lot
>of people consider alt. worthless except for widely known groups such as
>alt.folklore.urban, and also, it can be mind-boggling to scan through a
>list of alt. groups searching for something that sounds interesting.

	I have to disagree here.  I find the alt.heirarchy
a lot more interesting than the soc.sewer.heirarchy such as
soc.culture.whatever or soc.history which have extremely low
s/n ratios, and too much acrimony.  If it aint broke don't fix it.

	The most recent attempt to rmgroup an alt. to soc.
lost 729-151, and caused normally easy going groups to have alot
of bad feelings.  This group should build a consensus first.

By the way, Joel, the South doesn't have all the history.
My hometown has a museum at the home of the "Fighting McCooks."

-J
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov (Cybernetic Samurai)
Subject: online info
Reply-To: walker@superboy.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 20:26:57 GMT

ny one know where I can get online info on teh Civil War, The first
battle of bull run (aka, Manassas).

-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
From: turrell@violet.berkeley.edu (David Turrell)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Confederate Flag in 1861
Date: 13 Dec 1992 06:58:32 GMT
Organization: Cobol Pacific University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: violet.berkeley.edu

In article <12DEC199216391716@rigel.tamu.edu>
jdh9308@rigel.tamu.edu (HOOD, JONATHAN DAVIS) writes:

>	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

A confederate soldier defecting in 1862 wrote Jeff Davis a letter
explaining his action. In it he said he was glad to be gazing for
the last time upon "our holy flag - that symbol and sign of an
adored trinity - cotton, niggers, and chivalry."

I suspect from that that the 3 bars represent the holy trinity.

-David
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Three Generals of the "Old Army" (was Re: Grant in the East)
Date: 15 Dec 92 12:00:24 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <tecump.724370535@sulu>, tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:

--------------------- Bulk of message deleted -------------------
> There were only 3 generals in the Fed army prior to the War.
> dom
> : 

I never heard this before. Obviously one was Lt.Gen. (Brevet) Scott and 
another was the Quartermaster General, Brig. Gen. Joe Johnston. Was the other
one Sumner?

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: The offer of command to R.E. Lee
Date: 17 Dec 1992 20:17:30 GMT
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: uhad2.admin.uh.edu
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <1992Dec17.083537.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu writes:

> 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 remember a line in the first part of Ken Burn's _The Civil War_, supposedly
uttered by Gen. (Scott? -- suddenly my memory fails me big time -- but he was
the ranking general in charge of the Army) that went something like "I know of
one man best suited to save the Union, and let it be Robert E. Lee."

  Burn's history has occasionally taken a bit of a pounding in this group, so I
guess this is suspect, but since we're just throwing logs on the fire for the
moment...


semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Speak for my employers?  They don't even know I exist!		       *
*"Become one with the Student Billing System. *BE* the Student Billing System."*
* "Power finds its way to those who take a stand.  Stand up, Ordinary Man."    *
*      ---Rik Emmet, Gil Moore, Mike Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Stonewall at Gettysburg (was Jackson at the Seven Days)
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:24:25 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1992Dec13.165044.2763@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>The loss of Vicks burg was fatal to the CSA because:
>
>1.  The CSA was cut in half, and supplies such as food and horses from
>Texas etc. were now eliminated (ok drasticly reduced).
>
>2.  An outlet for trade through Mexico was cut off.  Especially
>important as the blockade tightened.
>
>3.  The use of the Mississippi was denied to the south and given to
>the north.  Which included shipping goods from the midwest to the
>world (I do not have access to numbers but only have read this as a
>reason).
>
>There are other reasons I'm sure, but these are the ones I remember.

What percentage of Cis-Mississippi food and horses came from the Trans-
Mississippi?  What percentage of CSA trade moved in and out via
Mexico?

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@silver.indiana.edu
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: The offer of command to R.E. Lee (also Ken Burns)
Date: 18 Dec 92 08:40:06 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1gqn8qINNjpm@menudo.uh.edu>, HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.) writes:
> In <1992Dec17.083537.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu writes:
> 
>> 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 remember a line in the first part of Ken Burn's _The Civil War_, supposedly
> uttered by Gen. (Scott? -- suddenly my memory fails me big time -- but he was
> the ranking general in charge of the Army) that went something like "I know of
> one man best suited to save the Union, and let it be Robert E. Lee."
> 
>   Burn's history has occasionally taken a bit of a pounding in this group, so I
> guess this is suspect, but since we're just throwing logs on the fire for the
> moment...
> 
> Jammer Jim Miller 

It is a good point that in addition to Lincoln, Lee and Blair, the other 
principles involved must have included Scott and Cameron. Still, Scott 
did not survive the war, and I wonder if Burns was quoting Blair's quotation
of Scott. Maybe I'm being overly skeptical. I wonder if Cameron ever said
anything on the subject.

As for Burns-bashing, the principle criticism that I would level against him
was that 16 hours was too short 8^). I read that at one point he had the series
"edited down" to over 100 hours, and continued editing from there to get down
to 16 (which was still more than PBS intended). I'd love to get my hands on the 
100+ hour version.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Arlington Cemetery (was Re: Thomas)
Date: 12 Dec 92 22:42:25 GMT

cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:

>This brings to mind a question I have. The roster of my ggg-uncle's 
>(who died during the Penninsula Campaign) company (Co.I, 62nd Pa.Vol.Inf.)
>says that he is buried in the "Military Asylum, Washington DC". Does anyone
>know if this is what we now call Arlington Cemetery, or is there another 
>military cemetery in DC with that name? If nobody knows, maybe I should 
>post this to soc.roots.

>- Paul



it was in DC proper.  (Arlington is in DC proper).  Is not the military
"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. 

hmmmmmm.


dom

 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Washington captured, not
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:09:52 GMT

I've been giving a lot of thought to the ongoing and very interesting
discussion about the possible capture of Washington, D.C.  It seems to
me that those of us (clearly a minority) who don't think that the 
capitol could have been taken are being asked to prove a negative.  I
am not saying that there is no sequence of events which could ever
have resulted in Washington's fall, only that there is an extremely
minute probability that this could have happened.

If we are going to talk about what *might* have happened, it would be
more interesting if the hypotheses proceeded from some grounding in 
reality, instead of the "Lincoln-with-a-sabre" argument.  This is
similar to the notion that the loss of Culp's Hill on July 1, 1863, would
have resulted in the fall of Washington, Philadelphia, and Baltimore
within a couple of weeks.  We might as well ask what would have happened
if the Confederacy had developed nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, I recognize that my own reasoning is inherently
suspect because I tend to think of these events as having the 
inevitability of a Greek tragedy, which, as someone else has commented
in another context, is an interesting point of view, but not exactly
historical.

I'm beginning to ramble, so let me get to my point, which is a request
for information.  I've seen a lot of references to Grant 'stripping' the 
defenses of Washington.  Just how many men were left to hold the forts 
around D.C.?  The discussion has proceeded as if Early could simply have
waltzed on by the earthworks without a pause, in the absence of the 
divisions sent from Petersburg.  I'm willing to admit that these divisions
were required to *hold* the forts, but it seems to me that, given the
quality of the fortifications, a bunch of postal and patent clerks could
still have given Early a hell of a battle.
--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: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Is it time to rm this group?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 22:49:08 GMT


Readership and posting seems to be increasing in a.w.c.u., so should this group
be moved into a mainstream hierarchy?  What does everyone think?

PDunn
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Subject: Re: European Intervention (was "exit")
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:19:43 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:

>One point which hasn't been raised yet in this discussion is the fact that
>England's textile industry was suffering badly due to the inability to get
>cotton from the South.

Yes. *But* the textile workers were rabidly anti-slavery. The
Manchester wool and cotton workers organized a number of massive
pro-Union demonstrations. Our ambassador wrote several letters of
appreciation and (if I recall correctly) addressed one of the
demonstrations. This has always amazed and touched me.

Intervention in favor of the rebels would have been very unpopular
among the liberals (comprising most of the commercial and
entrepreneurial classes) and the working-men. After we apologized for
the Trent affair, there was never much chance that England would aid
the rebels.  And France was too wound up trying to exploit our
troubles in other ways, and in worrying about Germany.

My reading of the English sources is that military intervention was
never a serious possibility. The Brits might have engaged in a little
battleship diplomacy over the Trent affair, but they'd never have
mobilized. The real issue in Britain was whether to give financial
support to the rebels and to permit them to raise money and construct
vessels in England.

Remember that Britain abolished slavery and the slave trade -- over
the objections of powerful political and economic interests -- long
before. The British Navy had been active in suppressing the slave
trade.

dhs    spencer@panix.com
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: exit
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 18:54:20 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.074917.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>The recent threads concerning what was needed for either side to win
>the War have made frequent allusion to European (i.e. English and
>French) intervention on behalf of the CSA. There is strong evidence
>that the English came very close to doing this after 2nd Manassas
>(before the E.P.). My question is what form would such intervention
>likely have taken (Just ambassidors? A naval attempt to force the
>blockade? Infantry crossing the Niagra?) and what would the likely
>consequences have been?

  The first and most important intervention would have been that the Royal
Navy would have broken the Union blockade. While the monitors were ironclad
and pretty nifty, in 1862 there were about four of them, hardly enough to
blockade the entire Confederate coast. The British wooden navy in 1862 was
much more than a match for the Union Navy.
  After the blockade is broken, Southern cotton starts being exported again,
which solves the Confederacy's financial problems and makes it possible for
them to import rifles, artillery, and raiload equipment.
  It's quite possible that a British, French, and Russian peacekeeping force
arrives to try to end the fighting. The Russians were proposing this very
seriously, I'm not sure how the British and French felt about it. It's also
not clear what this force does if it arrives, but I think the probability
is that end ends up on the Confederate side de facto, which would about do
it for the Union.
>
>I think the timing of such intervention must also be considered. In
>the summer/early-fall of 1862, the Union and CSA armies were still
>pretty evenly matched, and most Union ironclads were (at best) on the
>drafting table.

Actually, the armies were not that evenly matched in the West. I don't
think this alters the main point, though.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: stocker@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (ERICH FRANZ STOCKER)
Subject: Re: Capture of Washington: "Conventional Wisdom"
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 12:16:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.134924.21028@panix.com>, spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes...
>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.
> 

I have to agree!.  Whatever, Early accomplished with his raid and it was an
example of Southern pluck, he would not have taken Washington. It was not in
the cards. I truly doubt that a long-term holding of the distrinct was ever
in the cards for the South. I believe that Lee knew this. He used raids 
against the capital to take off heat from union actions against his armies
elsewhere.  A really effective strategy that took advantage of northern
panic and southern manpower problems.

Erich
>dhs   spencer@panix.com
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE)
Subject: Re: BATTLE IN VERMONT?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:32:00 GMT

In article <17DEC92.02222243@vax.clarku.edu>, earon@vax.clarku.edu writes...
> 
>  I'm taking a really nifty class on the Civil War, and I heard that there
>  was some sort of battle in St.Alban's Vermont.  Anybody know anything about
>  that?

I think it was not a military battle but rather a bank robbery by Confederate
agents who infiltrated from Canada.

I vaguely recall that this bizarre episode led to a train chase with the
rebels hijacking a train and being chased by another train with Union agents.
Am I remembering correctly, or putting two separate incidents together?

I believe this was discussed in McPherson's _Battle_Cry_Of_Freedom_.


Dave

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: European Intervention (was "exit")
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 22:19:32 GMT

One point which hasn't been raised yet in this discussion is the fact that
England's textile industry was suffering badly due to the inability to get
cotton from the South. At this time textiles was still a major part of the
British economy. Breaking the blockade would have gotten the textile factories
running again in England which would have justified some degree of risk or
expenditure in so doing, in my opinion a fairly considerably degree. Just
wanted to point out that there were some domestic reasons for Britain to
want to get involved, not just international relations.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu
I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist
indoctrination, Communist subversion, and the international Communist
conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids!
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Andrew's Raid (Re: BATTLE IN VERMONT?)
Date: 17 Dec 92 10:39:19 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <17DEC199215322139@vxcrna.cern.ch>, casper@vxcrna.cern.ch (CASPER,DAVI./PPE) writes:
> In article <17DEC92.02222243@vax.clarku.edu>, earon@vax.clarku.edu writes...
>> 
>>  I'm taking a really nifty class on the Civil War, and I heard that there
>>  was some sort of battle in St.Alban's Vermont.  Anybody know anything about
>>  that?
> 
> I think it was not a military battle but rather a bank robbery by Confederate
> agents who infiltrated from Canada.
> 
> I vaguely recall that this bizarre episode led to a train chase with the
> rebels hijacking a train and being chased by another train with Union agents.
> Am I remembering correctly, or putting two separate incidents together?
> 
> Dave

I believe you are confusing two separte cases. The train chase sounds
like  Andrew's Raid in Georgia (imortallized in Buster Keaton's movie
_The_General_,  after the locomotive involved). Andrews was sent (by
Rosecranz?) in disguise to destroy the railroad (burn bridges etc)
between Atlanta and Chatanooga as part of an aborted plan to "relieve"
East Tennessee early in the war. Andrews stole the famous locomotive
as transportation for his task. The  _General's_ engineer (played by
Keaton in the movie) chased Andrews and his men (initiallaly on foot,
later by side car, then with a commandeered locomotive of his own) 
and eventually caught them before they did significant damage.
Andrews and several of his men were hanged as spies (a few escaped), 
but they were also the first recipients of the CMoH.

- 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