Dave!

Thanks for adding the link to the Spanish American War Centennial
Website!

Patrick McSherry

Mike, in the tradition of Benjamin Franklin Cooling’s “Gray Steel and
Blue Water Navy: The Formative Years of America’s Military-Industrial
Complex, 1881-1917” brings up a wonderful subject for discussion. I
wish more people in the know would talk about these subjects.

For example, in an odd bit of synchronicity, I was just looking at the
list of ships authorized by FDR’s executive order after the initial New
Deal legislation (the National Industrial Recovery Act of 16 June 1933).
Unsurprisingly, the two CVs were assigned to Newport News, but the 30
cruisers, gunboats, destroyers, and submarines were cleverly spread
throughout eleven states, presumably to take advantage of both
Senatorial and House votes in Congress. It is interesting how much of
our shipbuilding capacity was on the east coast until the war induced
growth later.

Maine
Bath Iron Works: Drayton (DD-366), Lamson (DD-367)

New Hampshire
Portsmouth Navy Yard: Porpoise (SS-172), Pike (SS-173)

Massachusetts
Bethlehem SB Corp (Quincy, Mass.): Vincennes (CL-44)
Boston Navy Yard: Case (DD-370), Conyngham (DD-371)

Connecticut
Electric Boat: Shark (SS-174), Tarpon (SS-175)

New York
New York SB Corp: Savannah (CL-42), Nashville (CL-43), Porter (DD-356),
Selfridge (DD-357), McDougal (DD-358), Winslow (DD-359)
United Dry Dock: Mahan (DD-364), Cummings (DD-365)
New York Navy Yard: Erie (PG-50)

New Jersey
Federal SB & DD: Flusser (DD-368), Reid (DD-369)

Pennsylvania
Philadelphia Navy Yard: Philadelphia (CL-41), Cassin (DD-372), Shaw
(DD-373)

Virginia
Newport News SB & DD: Yorktown (CV-5), Enterprise (CV-6)
Norfolk Navy Yard: Tucker (DD-374), Downes (DD-375)

South Carolina
Charleston Navy Yard: Charleston (PG-51)

Washington
Puget Sound Navy Yard: Cushing (DD-376), Perkins (DD-377)

California
Mare Island Navy Yard: Smith (DD-378), Preston (DD-379)

—-
Timothy L. Francis
Historian
Naval Historical Center
email address: Francis.Timothy@nhc.navy.mil
voice: (202) 433-6802

The above remarks are my opinions, not those of the U.S. Navy or the
Department of Defense

> ———-
> From: Mike Potter[SMTP:mike.potter@artecon.com]
> Reply To: mahan@microworks.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 1998 4:38 PM
> To: mahan@microworks.net
> Subject: Mahan list
>
>Weapons production requires political support for funding and that
>support certainly can involve politicians’ personal or parochial
>interests (eg, influence on USN surface combatant production from the
>shipbuilders’ locations in the home states of the SecDef and the Senate
>majority leader). There are limitless possible discussions of political
>and military interactions that we all find useful and illuminating and
>to which all can contribute with interesting opinions, facts,
questions,
>predictions, etc.

Mahan-L has had only a single post from a .gov or .mil correspondent
since the White House-related messages began appearing and none at all
today, despite several interesting chains in progress. It would be a
great loss if these members unsubscribed.

I didn’t mean a blanket objection to political discussions – I’m sure
nobody wants such an exclusion. We all know that at the strategic level
the payoff from military operations often is its effect on politics: on
the opponent (disruption, demoralization, etc), on you/your allies
(domestic encouragement), or on neutrals (diplomatic acquiescence).
Weapons production requires political support for funding and that
support certainly can involve politicians’ personal or parochial
interests (eg, influence on USN surface combatant production from the
shipbuilders’ locations in the home states of the SecDef and the Senate
majority leader). There are limitless possible discussions of political
and military interactions that we all find useful and illuminating and
to which all can contribute with interesting opinions, facts, questions,
predictions, etc.

> In general, what I oppose is a blanket statement against political
> discussions for many are certainly relevant to MAHAN, the man, the idea,
> the subject.

>I agree – enough politics, let’s talk about ships and naval history.
>
Might I offer an opposing view, particularly in regard to the name of this
list and its subjects. I agree that current politics might be
inappropriate to the list, but let’s recall the politics of navalism,
imperialism, shipbuilding, armaments, etc., etc. I believe that “politics”
have already intruded historically in anything related to Mahan, to wit,
Mahan’s 1890 volume led directly (sic) to WWI.

In general, what I oppose is a blanket statement against political
discussions for many are certainly relevant to MAHAN, the man, the idea,
the subject.

Cheers

CRR

I like Mahan. It’s informative and mellow. I’ve also enjoyed the lack of a
moderator. However, at present, some of our contributors are illustrating
why so many good lists require one. If Mahan becomes the home of the kind of
obnoxious right-wing hate barrage that pollutes AM radio, you can count
yours truly out, off and gone.

>This evening, I heard about Hillary’s charge that MonicaGate
> is a “Right Wing Conspiracy.”
>
>While Bob Kerrey and the rest of us are all laughing Hillary off
> we might pause long enough to consider that Bill and Hillary are amoral,
> ideological, and ruthless political opportunists who would be entirely
> capable of seizing “emergency national security powers” to suppress
> opposition and keep power. Moreover, the people they have gathered
> around them are weak-minded — e.g., Gore — or also ruthlessly
> opportunistic enough to play along.
Eric Bergerud, 531 Kains Ave, Albany CA 94706, 510-525-0930

I agree – enough politics, let’s talk about ships and naval history.

Art Nicholson

Mahan-L has US Govt members who cannot respond to political discussions
(assuming they even wanted to, which I doubt) and who could be
embarrassed by the appearance of such messages on their systems. It
would be like sending them sexual images. They are required by law to be
nonpartisan.

So I suggest we all post no further messages about current politics and
rumors on Mahan-L. We risk losing some of our best correspondents and it
isn’t the purpose for the list anyway.

—
Michael C. Potter, Mgr, TelCo/Govt Programs mike.potter@artecon.com
Artecon, Inc. | | mail PO Box 9000
6305 El Camino Real -|- _|_ Carlsbad CA
Carlsbad CA 92009 >_|_( |/_< 92018-9000 ph 760-431-4465 >_III_ V|/ _III_ |/|_o fx 760-931-5527
=-| L/_| _|____L_/_|==
___ ________|____-===L|_LL| -==| .___ |
___. __I____|_[_]_______|_____[__||____[_]_|__|_=====_|\__–+====–/
\_____/|_|__| == 963 /
|____________________________________________________________________/~~
~~~~~~~>>>>> http://www.inetworld.net/txo/review1.htm <<<<<~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~>>>>>>>> http://www.artecon.com <<<<<<<<~~~~~~~~~~

I served under Admiral Frederick C. Sherman when he was FLAG on CV 17. Now
I find another Sherman, Admiral Forrest P Sherman. Who was he and what did
he do? Where can I find something on him? Thanks

And continuing in the humor vein, consider the topic of these msgs – a
world without a Spam war. It would certanly make the internet a nicer
place….

The poll that I refered to is ongoing at
One qusetion is ” Is the media being
fair w/Clinton”. Before the speech, it was nearly 100 yes.The other one is;
” Will Clinton’s domestic problems affect decisions over Iraq?, it also was
near 100% yes.