Talk:Battle of Franklin (1864)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alabama (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Tennessee (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Battle of Franklin (1864) is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Project Articles][Project Page][Project Talk][Assessment][Template Usage]
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Victorious side?[edit]

Not sure it's fair to put this in Category:Union victories of the American Civil War, as the Confederates did succeed in their aims -- at a horrible price.

dino 22:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I would classify this as a Confederate phyrric victory.

Khan_singh 21:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, actually, no. The Confederate objective was to prevent Schofield from joining Thomas, not capture Franklin, and it failed twice--the second time at a horrible price. --Buckboard 00:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Georgia?[edit]

The battle of Franklin occurred in Franklin Tennessee but for some reason it is under wikiproject Georgia. Unless someone gives me a good reason for this I will change it to Tennessee tomorrow. SMBriscoe 16:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It had a direct affect upon Sherman's Georgia campaing. However, this isn't really relavant, because under that it it could be said that it saved the northern states from invasion, and so fits under, say, Ohio. Randaly 13:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Randaly

Victory[edit]

To the anonymous user who keeps reverting the battle box results field: There is a rule in Wikipedia that you are not allowed to revert more than three times in a single day. For users who choose to identify themselves, violation of this rule can result in temporary suspension of editing privileges. For anonymous users, it means I just get to keep undoing your reversions until you get sick of it.

With very few exceptions, we adhere to the National Park Service battle descriptions when it comes to names of battles, naming the victor, locations, dates, etc. The results of the battle are footnoted in this article. If you disagree with this result, you need to provide citations from secondary sources that can balance the NPS result. This is obviously better as part of the text of the article, not the one-phrase result in the battle box.

In the Battle of Franklin, Hood was attempting to prevent Schofield's army from joining with Thomas's in Nashville. After Hood suffered devastating losses, Schofield continued his movement toward Nashville. There is no way that you can claim this battle was a Confederate victory, Pyrrhic or not. Hal Jespersen 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

word.--Buckboard 00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckboard (talkcontribs)

There is a way you can justify calling this a Confederate victory, because Hood's army did ultimately end up in possession of the field. But you have to use common sense. Outside of Hood's official dispatch to Richmond, no Confederate tried to claim Franklin as a victory. Only the destruction of Schofield's army would have justified the casualties sustained. It would be like arguing that the Confderates won at Malvern Hill, or that the Union won at Cold Harbor, just because the other side left the place. Jsc1973 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Casualties[edit]

In correcting the reported Confederate losses in officers, I corrected the information, repeated in many places, about the "65 field grade officers". It was actually much more catastrophic, even with the generals included, than previously reported, because the losses were all commanders. The source is Gen. Cox's monograph on the battle, which used Official Records as its sources. the pertinent passage: But this was only a part of the response to his order immediately after the battle, that "Corps commanders will send in at once a list of the division, brigade, and regimental commanders by name and rank, who were killed or wounded so as to be unfit for service, in the engagement of yesterday evening." The complete return is a roll of honor which fills nearly three pages of the published official records, and of which the summary is five general officers killed, six wounded, and one captured; six colonels killed, fifteen wounded, and two missing; two lieutenant colonels killed and nine wounded; three majors killed, five wounded, and two missing; two captains killed, three wounded, and four missing: a total of sixty-five. Remember that none of these were exercising a less command than that of a regiment. --Buckboard 11:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

edits of March 12, 2009[edit]

I have corrected some of the edits on 3/12. The refs to this article refer to Schofield's command as the Army of the Ohio, which he commanded for much of 1864 and 1865. The notion of Hood wanting to 'punish' his men would need a reliable citation to include. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

edits of December 9, 2009[edit]

As I indicated in the edit summary of November 30, I was in the process of expanding this article. Since no one had done any significant editing for many months, I assume that I could do off-line edits and post them later without interference. Now I see that another editor has started to work on the article, so I would ask those who would like to make improvements to this article to state their intentions about their proposed schedules, allowing us to avoid stepping on each other's toes. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, having heard nothing for a few days, I will assume the other edits were a transitory thing and go back to the expansion I mentioned on November 30. If anyone has alternative plans, please communicate with me so we avoid collisions. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Hal: I believe it's just me who's also been working at improving this article too; mainly through some copy-editing and explaining a few interesting points. I like all of the revisions you've made and I have faith in your plans, so don't worry about making the changes you've suggested. Also I think making this the main Battle of Franklin is a good idea. Only question I have is about why you removed the "decisive" in the "Union victory" - I would consider this a crippling defeat of the Confederates. But I assume you view "decisive" as "deciding the campaign" and would save that for the Battle of Nashville which ended it. I've got no problem with that interpretation, just curious what you define it as. Anyway, good luck and I probably won't be editing this further now that I see you're actively working on it, at least for a month or two. Wilytilt (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I am planning to do some significant work in the Battle section of the article over the next two weeks (work schedule permitting). As to the decisive issue, this is one that has been argued at length in the talk page for Battle of Gettysburg and I can resume it here if you like, but the short answer is in two parts: (1) we attempt to use the NPS-cited result wherever possible to avoid arguments of this type, and (2) see User:Hlj/Why#Adjectives for my boilerplate description on the subject. In this campaign, Nashville is obviously the most likely candidate to be called decisive. That article is one of the rare exceptions in which I lost the editing battle about using that adjective. However, I have a footnote that indicates the ambiguity of that word, which remains distasteful because having even footnoted ambiguity in the summary box is a bad thing. Franklin shows all of the problem of this adjective: Schofield decisively avoided destruction (no one disagrees with that assessment, so authors sometimes use "decisive" with that meaning--big, unambiguous victory--as they sometimes do with Gettysburg), but Hood was not decisively defeated here in his campaign (because Nashville was the place that happened, although you could argue that he was half decisively defeated at Franklin and the other half at Nashville), and even when he was decisively defeated in his campaign, I cannot think of one historian who describes this campaign as the decisive factor in ending the Civil War. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I have done some significant updating, but more work remains--better citations and additional maps are coming pretty soon. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

article name[edit]

I propose that we rename this article to be Battle of Franklin because it is by far the better known name for this engagement. The current article Battle of Franklin is a disambiguation page and that can be renamed Battle of Franklin (disambiguation); pointers to that article can appear in each of the other battle articles. The article First Battle of Franklin can be renamed Battle of Franklin (1863). Since renaming articles can cause some commotion and are difficult to revert, I wanted to see if anyone objected before I undertake this change. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, please figure out where you want to move it before listing it! —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 07:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)



Second Battle of FranklinBattle of Franklin — See the preceding talk section, which has received no objections after a few weeks of posting. I have already moved the article previously titled Battle of Franklin to Battle of Franklin (disambiguation) in preparation for this request. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment it is the second battle... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply: Technically true, but according to WP:COMMONNAME we should use "the most common English-language name of the subject of the article" and there is no common usage outside of Wikipedia and its derivatives for anything other than the Battle of Franklin. Furthermore, sources do not agree that the 1863 engagement was actually a "battle." The NPS website on which our original classification is based uses the terms 'engagement' and 'incident', but not 'battle'. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current arrangement of redirecting Battle of FranklinSecond Battle of Franklin currently seems like the most appropriate option. There is after all still an article called First Battle of Franklin. I would likely support the move if there was concurrent consensus to rename First Battle of Franklin. You can't have a Battle of Franklin and a First Battle of Franklin, it just doesn't work.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply: As explained in the talk section immediately above ("article name"), I have proposed renaming First Battle of Franklin to Battle of Franklin (1863). I do not require admin assistance for that move, so didn't asked for help with that. (I just completed that move.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I would now suggest renaming Second Battle of FranklinBattle of Franklin (1864). I though you might go with something like, and these are just ideas, 1863 skirmish of Franklin or 1863 engagement at Franklin for First Battle of Franklin. With the renaming of First Battle of Franklin to Battle of Franklin (1863), in my opinion, you need a way to distinguish between the battles that goes beyond one with disambiguation brackets and one without.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It would have been preferable to have this discussion when the topic was originally raised rather than halfway through the move process. I am not overly concerned about the consistency of naming between articles that have dramatically different levels of importance or reader interest. I think you can probably find many examples in Wikipedia of articles with commonly recognized names that have no parenthetical disambiguation, whereas less common variants have them. Stonewall Jackson is an example that immediately comes to mind--the famous Civil War general is named simply that, whereas a less famous guy is named Stonewall Jackson (musician), and the article Stonewall Jackson (disambiguation) handles the other cases, a situation exactly parallel to what I have proposed here. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, things have not exactly gone as expected. It is true that you can commonly find recognized names that have no parenthetical disambiguation. However that is when the individuals or topics are in seperate fields or subject area. The current sitaution involves two batles in the same war, one in 1863 and 1864. See Battle of Arras an an example of how this has been delt with. To help here are some ideas that I could support.
But not:
Thoughts? --Labattblueboy (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, either of the first two would be acceptable (engagement is better than skirmish), although those are not typical name formats that we use for ACW articles. The third choice is also better than nothing, as long as the redirect of Battle of Franklin goes to the 1864 battle, not the disambiguation page. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Brig. Gen. Cox[edit]

I have reverted a change of Cox from brigadier general to major general. Cox was promoted to MG on October 6, 1862, but this appointment expired on March 4, 1863, and he was a BG until he was promoted again to MG on December 7, 1864. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)