HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Hooker revisionism
Date: 12 Jan 93 20:23:50 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan11.190409.6173@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <C0p5Lv.G2z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>>It seems to me that Hooker gets something of a raw deal in history
>>books. His strategic plan and tactical positioning before
>>Chancellorsville was pretty good. He managed to get on Lee's flank with
>>the bulk of the AoP pretty much undetected and had Lee seriously worried
>>on the first day of Chancellorsville.

>>He only lost on the second day due
>>to two factors:
>>
>>	1) The incredible daring and skill of Lee and Jackson. 
>>	2) Incredible bad luck. He never got or never acted on reports
------------ Bulk of original post and reply deleted --------
> Neve acted on. That's not bad luck, that's bad generalship. Equally bad
> generalship on the part of O.O Howard, who also heard and ignored reports,
> also contributed. Catton's _Glory_Road_ gives detail on what reports were
> coming into Howard's and Hooker's headquarters and how they were laughed
> off. Virtually every officer in XI Corps with a rank of colonel or lower
> knew what was going on to some degree, but HQ didn't want to hear it.
> 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

It seems to me that this is not substantially different than Grant at Shiloh.
The difference of course came latter, when Hooker pulled out, whereas Grant
stuck in there long enough to have his butt saved by Buell's men. 

I have said before that the difference between Gettysburg and the previous 
battles fought by the AotP is that they were somehow able to recover from 
stupid mistakes, whereas previously every mistake seemed to be compounded.
In the case of Chancellorsville, Hooker made some bad mistakes early, but 
he had also maneuvered his army well to get it as far a Chancellorsville
(actually beyond for a brief time) with hardly a shot being fired. Hooker's
stupidest mistakes came later, after he was stunned, but I don't think that 
excuses him.

This is speculation, but if Hooker knew he was unable to continue in command
I wouldn't put it past him to pull the army back, rather than permit a 
subordinate (like Couch) to gain the glory of a victory.

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau)
Subject: Re: the "peter principle"
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 21:47:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.210639.21558@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan12.183849.1698@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> agwing@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (Andrew Wing) writes:
>
>>	And how about Hood in the CSA?  He was the spearhead of the Texans
>>during the seven days, breaking the Union left.  He was a competent corps
>>commander under Joe Johnston, but when he got command of the AoT, well we
>>all know what happened at Spring Hill/Franklin/Nashville...
>>
>I always thought that Hood got kind of a bum rap on that. He could list on
>more finger than he had left the number of times Lee had attacked a Union
>Army that outnumbered him and succeeded. Plus, he missed out on Pickett's
>charge at Gettysburg, didn't witness what should have been the best warning
>against aggressive behavior.
>Also, he was in a position of "damned if you do and damned if you don't."
>His army was collapsing, he was short of provisions, and Sherman was slowly
>pushing him back. If he took the offensive, he'd probably lose but he might
>reverse the trend of the war. If he stayed on the defensive, he'd have been
>slowly strangled just as Lee's army was in Virginia. So why not attack?
>The usual answer to that is that the fall of Atlanta ruined hopes that
>Lincoln would be defeated for re-election, but 1) I question that Hood could
>have really know that: in fact, we don't know if Lincoln would have
>been defeated had Hood stayed quiet and 2) this is no grounds for criticizing
>the Nashville campaign as Atlanta had already fallen. 

It is also important to note that Joe Johnston was replaced by Hood for
failing to be more aggressive in halting Sherman's advance.  I would
say that under the circumstances he had a mandate from Davis to attack.

On the other hand, is it not the case that Hood was known as "Old
Woodenhead" to his troops even before Atlanta?

- Gary Charbonneau
  charbonn@indiana.edu






Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: White Resistance in the North
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 15:34:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan10.194857.5880@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1ipbtsINN5ro@gap.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>>into the Union. I'm curious about similar episodes in the North, which 
>>naturally would have been suppressed by the propaganda machine most white
>>Americans call "history".
>

In addition to Mr. Schmidt's suggestions, look for references to the
"Copperhead" movement. It was not uncommon in Southern Indiana, Illinois
and Ohio. You might also look into draft-dodging and desertion in West
Virginia and Western North and South Carolina, and in East Tennessee.

	The copperhead movement was a pro"States Rights" movement in the
Midwest. (They took their name from the "copper head" of the Liberty
one cent piece, which they cut out as a watch fob, rather than the snake
according to a ACW reenactor I talked with.) In 1863 there was a
political stink due to the imprisonment of a copperhead politician
(either in Illinois or Ohio. Name was Vallangham or something similar.)
essentially Lincoln pushed his Presidential war powers a bit too far and
many people objected.

	The resistance to the Union (and for that matter to the
Confederacy) in the Appalachians is more subtle. Essentially, I get the
impression that the inhabitants just wanted to be left alone. I don't no
if any active resistance to the Union or Confederacy existed, but I get
the impression that it was a frustrating place to recruit and to capture
conscripts and deserters from.

Good Luck,

Tom.
 
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: White Resistance in the North
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 19:48:57 GMT

In article <1ipbtsINN5ro@gap.caltech.edu> morphy@cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes:
>into the Union. I'm curious about similar episodes in the North, which 
>naturally would have been suppressed by the propaganda machine most white
>Americans call "history".

Three episodes you might want to look into:
1. Anti-draft rioting in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, which seems to have
been motivated in part by tension between Irish Catholics and English
Protestants, in the summer of 1863.
2. Concealment of deserters, and the sending of Federal troops to dig them
out, in Williamson County, Illinois in the spring of 1863, which seems to
have been motivated by opposition to emancipation.
3. Anti-draft rioting in Port Washington, Wisconsin, also in summer 1863,
which appears to have just been anti-draft rioting.

Some books which might be interesting:

Abraham Lincoln and the Fifth Column, George Fort Milton. New York, 1942.
Abraham Lincoln and Men of War Times, Alexander McClure. Philadelphia,
1892. McClure was in charge of enforcing the Pennsylvania draft.
The Hidden Civil War, the Story of the Copperheads, Wood Gray. New York, 1942.
Labor Disturbances in Pennsylvania, 1850-1880, J Walter Coleman. Washington
DC 1936.
The Molly Maguires, Anthony Bimba. New York, 1932.
Old-Time Notes of Pennsylvania, Alexander McClure. Philadelphia, 1905. Same
McClure as above.
A True History of the Reign of Terror in Southern Illinois, James D. Fox.
Aurora Illinois, 1884. (No way!  Way!)

All this information came from my copy of Glory Road and its bibliography,
so I'm not sure on what grounds we would claim that this has been "supressed"
by a "propoganda machine". None of these books are either difficult to learn
about, or hard to find if you have access to a decent library.
-- 
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:  ()
Subject: British Intervention
Followup-To: alt.war.civil.usa
Organization: Trinity College, Hartford, CT.
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:15:11 GMT

Check out the new publication, Union in Peril. Forget the author's name,
but a really fine work.
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: An answer, maybe (was: hooker)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:37:53 GMT

I believe that the usage of "hooker" to refer to a prostitute comes from
the reference to the "Red Hook" of New York, which was a seedy
neighborhood where hookers were likely to be found. Hence, the location
lent it's name to the profession. Other possible derivations doubtless
exist.

Tom.


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: cjt1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Charles Ten Brink)
Subject: Re: Sherman and LSU
Reply-To: cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:53:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.071627.1@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu> cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan) writes:
>In Sherman's Memoirs he claims that the Lousiana State University is 
>a reincarnation of the military institute of which he was first president
>(and I suppose one could say, one of the founders). My questions is whether
>this is accepted generally, and more specifically whether this is 
>acknowledged at LSU?

I don't have access to their catalog, but the LSU entry in the World of 
Learning gives a founding date of 1860, which is when the military institute
was created.  So I'd say they acknowledge it.  (Schools are always trying
to make themselves appear older and more venerable.  The date of the founding
of the University of Michigan is given as 1817, but the predecessor school
that was created in that year was actually a high school.)
--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: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: Grant's Memoirs
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 07:44:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.210313.2552@sequent.com> dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>Now what to read next, Sherman's memoirs or Longstreet's.  I think
>Longstreet's to get a balanced perspective.

Hee hee. Obviously you haven't read them yet....   ;)

  Longstreet's memoirs are very interesting and I recommend them highly, but
balanced is the _last_ word to describe them, or their effect as a complement
to Grant's memoirs. They weren't written until 1893, by which time Longstreet
was a pariah trying to salvage his tattered reputation, and they suffer from
excessive hindsight and convenient memory. Be sure to read between the lines
as you read this one; it's rather different from Grant's book. (Or so I'm
told, anyway; haven't read Grant's.)
  For fairly obvious reasons, most of the Southern memoirs are shaded towards
defending the reputation of the author. You can get a good balance to Grant's
memoirs from reading Lee's Lieutenants by D.S. Freeman, at least for the
Eastern Theater. Anyone know of a similar book for the Western theater?
-- 
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: tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes)
Subject: Re: Hooker revisionism
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:53:05 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.192353.7115@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.162335.4459@midway.uchicago.edu> cjt1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <C0p5Lv.G2z@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> tbarnes@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (thomas wrentmore barnes) writes:
>I don't know if anyone suggested that he do so, but certainly many people
>expected him to do so. From _Glory_Road_, by Bruce Catton:
>
>  Hooker was taken to a tent half a mile behind the crossroads, and he sent
>for General Couch. Other officers took heart when this happened. Couch was
>a desperate fighter, and if Hooker turned command over to him he would
>unquestionably call some of the unemployed troops into action and turn the
>tables. But Hooker did not do that. He instructed Couch to take temporary
>command, but only for the purposes of withdrawing the men back to a new
>defensive line back behind the crossroads, covering the road to Unites
>States Ford. Couch came out of the tent, disappointment visible on his face.
>Meade, who had been standing by hopeful that Couch would tell him to lead
>his corps forward, turned away dejected.
>

Though there is no way that we can know Hooker's psychology on the day
of the battle, it could be the fact that he WAS injured and shaken up by
having been nearly killed that made him so conservative and timid with
his order to Couch. I make no bones of the fact that he was a lousy
commander after he got hit. I would maintain that either a head wound,
or a complete "loss of nerve" because of his unexpected brush with death
(he was behind the lines after all!) made him so ineffective because it
clouded his judgement.

Tom.

Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: exit
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 07:59:02 GMT

In article <tecump.725665849@sulu> tecump@sulu.ucsb.edu (Dominic J. Dal bello) writes:
>ah, but the Crimea was of importance to Europe.  It was "closer"

True in a distance sense, but I think that the Civil War had at least
equally strong implications for the balance of power in Europe. Consult
"The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy for some discussion
on this point.

>if the British had broken the Federal blockade, as being "illegal," how could
>it justify its use of its own navy in such a matter, perhaps in the future.
>the PRESENT is not the only thing that must be considered, but the future as
>well.

Hm. I find it hard to believe that this hypocrisy would really deter Great
Britain from pursuing its national interests....? Maybe I'm excessively
cynical but I can't see Great Britain looking up in 1914 and deciding not
to blockade Germany on the grounds that they'd broken the US blockade 50
years earlier. I find that nations get real clever in rationalizing the
actions they want to take, and I think that GB would have found _some_ trivial
difference between the Civil War case and any prospective blockade they wanted
to impost to use as an excuse to justify their actions.
-- 
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: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Subject: Re: hooker
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 93 01:22:55 GMT

In article <009664DC.E0A6AA00@OCTAVO> jthoppers@OCTAVO writes:
>This is all in the nature of hearsay...
>The women of dubious virtue who frequented Hooker's headquarters were 
>originally referred to as "Hooker's girls". Also, at least on of the 
>streets of Washington, D.C. was referred to as "Hooker's Division" 
>(a play on the word, diversion?), due to the number of houses of 
>ill fame. I have absolutely no documentation for this, but it does 
>make for unique rumor.

And later, Joe Kusmierczak, whose email address got mucked up, wrote:
>You guys are really reaching here. I really really doubt that the term is
>derived from Fighting Joe's last name.

Well, this is either the truth or one of the most widespread rumors in
history. It's hard to find a Civil War literate person who has NOT heard
it, and (I think I posted this earlier) you can find it repeated in
Catton's books, which makes me think there must be some truth to it.
The joke about "Hooker's division" is probably related to at least two
factoids: first, the fact that the division which Hooker commanded on
the Peninsula continued to call itself Hooker's division long after Hooker
had left its command, and was well known by that name throughout the war.
(Irrelevant question: I know that III Corps was composed of Hooker's division
and Kearny's division. Anyone know if 1st Div = Hookers and 2nd = Kearny's
or is it the other way around?)
Second, probably a play on the term "subdivision" for a group of houses.
I'm not sure if this term was in use in the 1860s but if it was I would
guess most people would recognize the reference. 
-- 
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!
Organization: Administrative Computing & Info Services, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.war
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 11:44:44 -0500 
From: "Thomas J. Joyce" <tj06+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Roman Army sizes

Does anyone have any good references for establishing how large ancient
army (particularly Roman) troop sizes were? Along the lines of cohort, etc.

thanks
Tom Joyce

Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Revenge of The Women In Combat thing....
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:34:22 GMT

From article <16B4FA337.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>, by SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane):
> In article <1993Jan7.021039.6855@msc.cornell.edu>
> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>  
>>About a month ago I watched some Iron Man
>>Triathlon (x miles swimming, 112 biking and then a full marathon), the top men
>>finished in 8 hours, the top women 10% later.  So when is this greater
>>endurance supposed to take effect?
>  
> Apples and oranges. You're saying that the men finished 10% faster than the
> women, but speed was not the issue. The women remained in competition 10%
> longer than the men. That sounds like more endurance to me.
>  
> Diane

Speed was certainly the issue, the race was a certain distance.  The point 
is that if the women have better endurance you would expect the gap to close 
from what it is in the sprints, and perhaps even reverse.  Someone mentioned
that the gap should start closing at 18 miles and that the marathon is too 
close to this distance.  Well, the marathon takes about 2hrs for the best 
runners, and the triathlon I mentioned took 8hrs; so I'm doubtful.

SEH
Xref: sparky alt.war:2346 soc.women:22275 alt.war.vietnam:717
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Why Do you think they call them DogFaces????
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:50:01 GMT

jarthur@bnr.ca (John Thompson) writes:
] 
] I don't want to seem anti-feminist or anything, but it seems to me that the
] Iditarod winner is usually praised for their ability to train a winning team
] of dogs.  Perhaps it would be more informative if we knew the gender of the
] dogs!
 
So...

Do we complement an NCO/Ossifer on the basis of their
'personal effort' or on their basis to form a team,
and leand them through a gruelling endeavor????

] As to who should be allowed in combat, I think anyone who thinks there's
] glory to be won and really wants to fight should be allowed to give it a
] try!  My experience was that about 99.9% of the male participants would
] gladly have let a woman take their place at one time or another.

Amen, and Preach it....


ciao
drieux



-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter 
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????
Xref: sparky alt.war:2368 soc.women:22393 alt.war.vietnam:738
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: alt.war,soc.women,alt.war.vietnam
Subject: Re: Revenge of The Women In Combat thing....
Date: 9 Jan 1993 06:41:23 GMT
Organization: Sun
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <1993Jan7.200931.15296@octel.com> cathy@octel.com (Cathy Kearns) writes:
>
>As I remember, there was a few years where women won the Ididiron (sp?). 
>(Isn't that a rather long and strenuous dog sled race across an artic 
>region of Canada.)

The Iditarod, across Alaska (Iditarod is the name of a small town about
halfway along the route.)  A long time ago, during an epidemic, emergency
supplies had to be moved by dogsled.  Now, to commemerate that feat,
the Iditarod race is held every year along the same route.  It's considered
to be one of the most, if not *the* most, grueling sporting event in
the world.

Susan Butcher won it three times in a row, came in second or third the
next year, and won it again the year after that.

As the sports reporter on my favorite radio station said, after describing
in detail what a grueling event it is: "It's a sport for real men, and
a woman has won it four of the last five years."

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
Newsgroups: alt.war
From: hvaisane@cs.joensuu.fi (H. Vaisanen)
Subject: Russian-Finnish Military Imbalance
Organization: University of Joensuu
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 09:14:04 GMT


Thursday, 7 Jan, Finnish TV showed a program on Russian troops
stationed near to the Russian-Finnish border (St. Petersburg military
district, Kola Peninsula and Russian Karelia). Here are the numbers
quoted. I have put the Finnish numbers for comparision.


                        Russia  Finland
Men................... 300,000   40,000
Tanks  ................... 600      100+ *
Artillery ................ 400        ?
Fighter aircraft ......... 670**     60
Helicopter gunships ...... 100        0
Surface to surface missiles 48        0
Submarines ................ 85        0
Surface ships [1] .........  ?       44 Small (read patrol boats).

* Last autumn, Finnish newspapers said that Finnish Army bought
  approx. 100 tanks from Germany (from the East German Army Sell Out :-).
  They were not the first tanks Finland has got, so the number of
  tanks must be greater than 100 nowdays.

** Some reports have said 1800.

[1] Sorry, i didn't catch this. The number of Finnish ships is
    from a Finnish encyclopedia published in 1970.