HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Secession
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 92 22:49:34 GMT

Wisconsin threatened to secede over the enforcement of the fugitive slave
law in 1858. Or so I recall. Some of the other Northwestern states (or so
they were at the time) would possibly have gone out with Wisconsin.
To test the issue before the Supreme Court, all you do is go to a state
which has seceded, violate a Federal law, and let a Federal Marshal
arrest you. Then you appeal the case on the grounds that the marshal is
out of his jurisdiction. That will force the Supreme Court to decide the
issue, at least to the extent of denying your appeal. (Unless a lower
court denies it first.) This would've been easy enough to arrange, say,
the day after South Carolina seceded, if the governor had been inclined
to do so.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pdunn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Patrick L Dunn)
Subject: Hood was horrible
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 08:13:30 GMT

My $0.02 on J.B. Hood, since his name has came up in some recent posts.

I have a very poor opinion of Hood as a theatre-level commander.  Johnston had
said that he could have held Atlanta forever, behind massive
fortifications.  True, Sherman probalbly could have put the city under an
honest to goodness siege by surrounding it, but he probalby would not have been
inside of it before the '64 elections.  A prolonged and bloody siege a la
Petersburg would almost certainly have swayed the election away from Lincoln.

But what does Hood do?  He attacks a force that greatly outnumbers him, coming
out from behind
those fortifications.  IMHO, Hood put the final nail in the CSA's coffin by
attacking Sherman.

After getting his butt kicked, he goes marching off into Tennessee, where he
manages to wreck what's left of his army at Franklin and Nashville.  This guy
was a lousy strategist, and I think he was worse than McClellan:  sure, he was
the pits as a soldier, but at least
McClellan didn't get his soldiers killed needlessly.

However, he was an excellent division/corps commander,  because of
his boldness.  I think of the cornfield exchange at Sharpsburg; Hood certainly
saved the day.

Query: Stonewall Jackson was also noted for his audacity, and he was never at
the head of a major army (unless you count the Valley campaign of '62, which I
do not).  How would Stonewall have performed as the head of a major southern
army?

Thoughts, folks?

PDunn
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: ----> Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Date: 21 Aug 92 14:37:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena

KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:


>In <bjm1.714273204@Ra.MsState.Edu> bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu writes:

>: trev@hubcap.clemson.edu (Trevor Bauknight) writes:
>: 
>: >>KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>: 
>: >>The United States is a country built on a murderous and exploitative basis.

>I just want to make clear the the quotes which Bobbie Mann has attributed to 
>me by use of ">>" were in fact made by J. M. Murphy in response to a post I
>made. None of my original statements were preserved by Bobbie Mann!

But surely you agree with that sentence, so what's the problem?
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: dzik@access.digex.com (Joseph Dzikiewicz)
Subject: Who wrote Grant's memoirs?
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 11:35:16 GMT

I have heard rumors that Mark Twain ghost-wrote Grant's memoirs.
I know that he editted them, and Grant's memoirs are very much in Twain's
style.  But Twain denies that he did more than edit.

Anyone out there have any light to shine on this subject?

Joe Dzikiewicz
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Longstreet/Bragg and Chickamauga
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 00:01:34 GMT

In article <5503@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello) writes:
>while longstreet was technically the superior officer on the field,
>Bragg had command of the army.

According to "Unit Organizations of the Civil War" by Richard Zimmermann,
Bragg was a full general while Longstreet was only a lieutenant general,
hence Bragg must have ranked him.
-- 
Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

"We have met the enemy and he is us" - Walt Kelly
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Subject: Re: Lee-Longstreet
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 15:41:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.233814.15562@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1992Aug17.215529.3190@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> mancus@norm.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith Mancus) writes:
>>
>> (Deleted)
>> Also, wasn't Lee sick for part of this campaign?
>
>Hill was, I don't recall Lee being sick enough to really make a difference.

Early in 1863, Lee had what I believe was a minor heart attack.  At any rate, 
this was the first obvious symptom of the heart problem that killed him 
several years after the war's end.  How and how much it affected him 
physically and psychologically is anybody's guess.

Paul Hollander    pholland@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: You started it, we finished it (was Re: Confederate Flags)
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 18:43:36 GMT

In article <Bt8p2D.4qC@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> wwarf@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Wayne J. Warf) writes:
> Chuck didn't grasp the difference between that which is binding
>is the Constitution and that which may used or ignored at will. There
>is a VERY great difference between the two.
>-- 

I'm afraid that you failed to grasp my point, which was exactly that 
*there is no difference*.  The Constitution and the Federalist papers
are both just pieces of paper that mean whatever nine justices say 
they mean.  The Constitution itself has been "used or ignored at
will" throughout our country's history, and recently with alarming
frequency.  And this has been widely (though by no means 
universally) accepted by legal scholars since the rise of legal
realism in the 1930's.

Personally, I don't like this.  I probably agree with you in 
thinking that the world would be a better place if judges continued
to regard their role as one of "finding" the law, and regarded the
Constitution as something above and inviolate.  I just don't think
this is the way it works anymore.

I won't discuss this in this venue any further.  Feel free to take 
a final sally.
--Chuck


-- 
Bitnet:                 uclcjt1@uchimvs1
Internet:         cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: Re: Black resistance
Reply-To: rath@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 14:03:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.143946.4003@cco.caltech.edu>, morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal Bello) writes:
>
>>The US did not have a "long and bloody history of
>> slave revolts." almost all were small and insignificant.   in
>
>This is a myth. In 1774, James Madison, that patriot and champion of democracy
>promulgated a policy of suppressing news of slave revolts. In fact, there are
>250 documented slave revolts that I know of. I'm sure the number and severity
>must be much greater, because of the policy from the federal level down of 
>heavy censorship in order to avoid encouraging even more rebellions.
>
Jones, this is interesting--what policy is it of Madison's that you are 
talking about?  Is there any documentation?  The 250 revolts I've heard from
 Apethaker, though I have not had time to read the whole thing yet--where else 
do you get this info from?
Best, 
Rich Rath

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Subject: Re: Secession
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 19:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.201925.16744@NOC.Vitalink.COM> <roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com> (<roy_wells@qm.vitalink.com>) writes:
>A question for those who feel the South had a strong legal basis for its 
>secession:

>Why, rather than taking up arms, did the South not pursue the matter 
>in the Supreme Court?

probably because the radicals in south carolina were spoiling for
a fight.

actually, there's room for a more thoughtful answer to this question.

keep in mind that the south did not secede in a monolithic fashion.
each state had its own procedure; some states were not very enthusiastic
about secession (virginia, north carolina) and only voted to do so after
lincoln called for troops.  alabama probably voted against secession
in the statewide referendum; Allan Nevins has documented extensive
vote fraud in the way that the referendum was tabulated in that state.

the result was that there was no real central organization to the
beginning of the rebellion, and as such, a group of radicals at one
flash point were enough to start things off with a bang, as it were.

richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal Bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: More News of the World
Date: 13 Aug 92 18:50:46 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara

Re:  Statues.


if i remember correctly, Lee's last post was with the 2nd Cav
in Texas before he resigned his commission.

Also, Lee was very popular with the Texas Brigade of the ANV.  Recall 
sometime during the Wilderness campaign, the rebel lines were about to
break when Longstreets troops came up the road - "My Texans" as Lee
called them.  He was going to lead them forward himself, but the Texans
cried "Lee to the rear.  Lee to the rear."  and a soldier took hold of
his horse and led old marse robert away.


oh yeah, Sam Houston was early war gov. of Texas,and pro-union, but could not
stop secession
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: pholland@iastate.edu (Paul J Hollander)
Subject: Re: ------> Re: You started it, we finished it (was Re: Conf
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 21:08:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.223345.28106@bnlux1.bnl.gov> KARLIN@BNLCL6.BNL.GOV (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>In <10AUG199212020065@vxcrna.cern.ch> casper@vxcrna.cern.ch writes:
> (Deleted)
>
>: Taking another tack, if the Constitution is viewed as a treaty between
>: sovereign states, since there is no expiration or exit clause, it must be
>: binding in perpetuity.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>This is a matter of fact in 1992, but it is a direct outcome of the Civil
>War.  Prior to the (violent) resolution of this question, one could point out
>that in law "silence indicates consent". If there was no clause preventing a
>state from seceding, and no prescription of how one could secede, then the
>South argued they could secede anyway they damn well chose to, and they felt
>the 10th Amendment made this implict understanding, explicit.
> 
>(Deleted)

Perpetuity is a long time.  IMHO, the Union could be broken up legally by the 
mechanism used to ammend the Constitution.  I'm no lawyer, but something like
this should work.

"At 12 midnight, EST, of the December 31st following ratification of this 
ammendment, the government of the United States of America shall cease to 
exist.  All powers previously exercised by that government shall be returned 
to the several member states."

However, this would require passage by either a national convention or 
Congress followed by ratification by the states.  I can't see this scenario 
as being likely, but I think it would be legal.  It probably would not result 
in a war to "preserve the Union" because a majority would be against 
preservation.  Comments?

Paul Hollander    pholland@iastate.edu
Behold the tortoise: he makes no progress unless he sticks his neck out.



Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: A fresh start. Negroes need not apply
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 01:59:03 GMT

In article <bjm1.714273204@Ra.MsState.Edu> bjm1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Bobbie J. Mann) writes:
>> [over 60 lines of double and triple inclusions deleted]
>
>Thank you!

Not to flame anyone in particular, but there's been a lot of excessive
inclusion lately and it makes it VERY difficult to follow threads as you
wade through hundreds of lines of stuff you've already seen before, not to
mention wasting bandwidth.
Could we all make an effort to include only that which is necessary to
follow the threads? If you want to say "I agree with X" say so; you don't
need to include inclusions four-deep to do so. You can briefly sum up if
you feel the need, but including 50 or 60 lines is, IMHO opinion,
excessive.
Only a request, not a flame...
thanks!
-- 
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: Mac
Date: 18 Aug 92 21:14:13 GMT
Reply-To: jthoppers@OCTAVO

It might be a mistake to make too much of Lee's observance  of uniform 
regulations. For most of the war he wore a grey frock coat with a turned 
down collar, and 3 stars, ommitting the leaf clusters which were to surround 
thosse stars. He also avoided the use of sleeve braids (chicken guts) to 
indicated rank. Grant was also very casual about his dress, often wearing 
a private's sack coat with shoulder bars sewn on. Dress regulations for 
officers were not strenously observed or enforced, and a 'Victorian' 
gentleman was properly dressed in an open coat under which was worn a vest 
(for an example of this, see the photograph of Lee taken several days after 
the surrender at Appomatox, standing on the front porch of a brick house). 
Custer's self-designed uniform was once described as the clothes of a 
"circus rider gone mad".

In my shirtsleeves,
JTHoppers
From: tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Mac
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:20:28 GMT
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara

more ramblings

the general's name is George Brinton McClellan  (no d)

the way McClellan fought was not to move/attack until "everything" was
absolutely ready.  this strategy means that while he would never really
LOSE a battle, he would never WIN one either.

On Lee:  unbuttoning the top button on his COAT would be a sure sign that
he was sick.  Values at the time meant that a gentleman's coat must be
buttoned at the top at all times (this is in the Army regulations) except
in quarters or while on fatigue.  Note, however, that in general, the 
american soldier, whether officer or private, was a practical man, and
would most likely unbutton when he felt the need and not on duty.  But
Lee was a FFOV - a GENTLEMAN.
From: HADCRJAM@admin.uh.edu (MILLER, JIMMY A.)
Subject: Re: R E Lee
Organization: University of Houston Administrative Computing
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 00:32:07 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

In <0095F143.E7C77880@OCTAVO> jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:

> Marse is a colloquial shortening of the word Master. It may have been first 
used by the servants who accompanied Lee in the war.
> JT Hoppers

  I observed tha Foote spelled it Mars, without the 'e'. (insert Quayle joke
here)  While no scholar of the era, the most immediate thing that leapt to mind
was that it was a reference to Mars, Roman god of War.  This interpretation
requires somewhat more education on the part of whomever called Lee that first.
Coming as it did on the heels of the Seven Days, when he showed a willingness
to fight as opposed to evacuating (his first nickname), this seems not unreas-
onable, but is only a guess on my part.

semper fi,

Jammer Jim Miller 
Texas A&M University '89 and '91
********************************************************************************
* Aggie in Cougarland -- I just work here.				       *
* 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, Mark Levine: Triumph 		               *
********************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: hubcap@hubcap.clemson.edu (System Janitor)
Subject: Re: Black resistance
Organization: Clemson University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 15:08:29 GMT

>>south/central america, yes, but that is because they were worked to
>>DEATH.  The slaves, generally, in the US, were not treated as bad  
>>(remember, not external slave trade). 

Hmmm... I was reading last night about how the rich planters went to
the city (Charleston) or the upstate during the summer to escape 
malaria which hit the rice fields (main crop during the 18th century) each
year. No mention of the slaves. I expect they were left to tend the
rice.

-Mike
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Secession
From: jf@pacnet.wesleyan.edu (JOHN FINN)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:44:25 GMT
Organization: Wesleyan University, Middletown, CT USA

In article <5470@ucsbcsl.ucsb.edu> tecump@ucsb.edu (Dal bello) writes:

>the Late Unpleasentness was full of legal confusion as has lately been
>pointed out on this list.  Some thoughts: 

>Did the south legally secede?  Was it out of the Union?

>if it was out of the Union, then West Virginia could be made a state without
>any question.

>but lincoln contended that the south was not out of the Union, a state could
>not secede.  But he placed a BLOCKADE on southern ports.  You do not
>BLOCKADE your own ports!  You "close" them.   

>When the war is over, and the Rad. Republicans in power, for a state to
>get back "into" the union, it must ratify the so-called slavery amendments.
>But, if they were OUT of the Union, as the Radicals insisted, how could
>they wield powers of a state IN the Union (ratification).  So they, as
>Lincoln contended, were actually IN the Union, but would not be IN IN
>unless they ratified the new amendments.

>these are just some things to think about.

>Now, the southern states for an alliance/treaty which was against the 
>constitution.  thus, is secession illegal?  well, yes, and no, because
>the states seceded separately and then formed an alliance.  maybe.

>the confederacy itself tolerated no secession.  some county in georgia, or
>somewhere (Jones?) declared themselves indept of the CSA, and that 
>"rebellion" was soon put down.

>in either case, the south took over Federal installations and fired 
>upon the flag of the United States - whether rebellion/treason, or flat
>out war between two "countries" it was a bad scene.  :) 

>i'm still confused.  but if we go to Madison, the "Father of the Constitution"
>we find that secession was bad medicine.

>please excuse the many posts i have made,

>your servant,
>dom  Dal Bello

You raise some interesting points, especially about "ratification" of the 
reconstruction amendments. As I recall, some of the southern states tried 
to rescind their "ratification" after they had been "readmitted." And 
perhaps someone can help me here--didn't some of the northern states 
also ratify and then try to undo it?

By the way, I wonder if it might not be useful to 
distinguish, as did Lincoln and later the Supreme Court, between the Union 
and the Constitution. Lincoln's point, at least in the inaugural address, 
was that the Union was perpetual and anterior to the Constitution. It was 
the Union that states could not withdraw from. Were the "rebellious" states 
still states during the war? The Supreme Court thought they were, as 
indicated in the interesting case of Texas v. White. Nevertheless, the fact 
that these states remained in the union was not equivalent to saying that 
they retained the full measure of constitutional protection... or so some 
argued. On the other hand, wouldn't article 4 apply as a source of federal 
authority?

Just wondering aloud,


John E. Finn
Wesleyan University




> 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy)
Subject: Re: Let's get a decent title for the slavery thread
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 23:08:40 GMT

"Joshua M. Sabloff" <jsa5+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>I do believe that the post regarding Lee's attire stemmed from a debate
>over the military tactics of Lee, Longstreet, and Hood.  The specifics
>of the clothing post had to do with Lee's health at Gettysburg.  This
>was a discussion of the military aspect of the war, and in no way should
>be construed as an attempt to avoid the slavery question.  Is a
>newsgroup not allowed to carry multiple threads??? :-)

No, they must all march lockstep to my prescribed subject of the day....:)

>Now on to a (hopefully) rational discussion of the issue of slavery....

Dream on!

>If you can guess from my last name, I am Jewish.  From your arguments as
>well as from my own knowledge, I can see that your comparison of the
>slave trade to the Holocaust, especially that the basis of both was
>racism, is valid.  However, there are several distunguishing features. 
>In spite of the well-known results, the slave trade was not intended as
>a wholesale extermination of a group of people.  This does not make the
>slave trade right; nor does it make it even "less evil."  It is simply a
>distinction that should be noted. 

I already made that point. In spite of the lack of an articulated ideology of
genocide, the death toll of slavery in the US alone was far greater than that
of the holocaust. Your point is well taken, but unnecessary.

> For all of your obvious knowledge and intelligence, it is sad that you
>fall into the same trap that you accuse other of:  stereotyping.  All
>white people are NOT racists, just like not all African-Americans are
>NOT <insert favorite bigoted racial stereotype here>.  Ignoring slavery

Hmm. Would you care to point out the statement "all white people are racists"
anywhere in my posts?

>in the face of the political aspects of the Civil War is to totally
>misunderstand the Civil War.  However, the opposite also applies.

Far less powerfully. The "political aspects" of the civil war were so much 
window-dressing for a war that was simply a defense of slavery. Period.

>Please, let's keep this rational.

Yeah, and someone make me an offer for that bridge I see out of my office window
with a nice view of Brooklyn *and* Manhattan.:)
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