Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Grant's Canal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list

Grant's Canal

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Grant's Canal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Grant's Canal/archive1

A bit of a different topic for me - failed military engineering. One of several attempts the Union made to bypass Vicksburg, construction of this canal failed twice - once due to too little water, and the second time because of too much. In great irony, a similar path formed naturally 13 years later. This one was very much written in chunks over several months and I'm not use to writing about canals, so this one may be less polished than normal.

As a preliminary note: I am aware of the existence of a relevant journal article titled Grant's Canals in Northeastern Louisiana by Terry Jones, but I can find no evidence of this source having ever been digitized and a request at WP:RSX came up empty, so I was unable to incorporate this source as it is for practical purposes unavailable. Hog Farm _Talk 05:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass I'm confident that the images used are freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 10:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe: - I've added another map per request below. I've cropped it and I think corrected a licensing tag mistake, but it probably could use another look. Hog Farm _Talk 04:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
    • 👍 (t · c) buidhe 07:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

• Another map of the area would be useful
  • Added one that shows the Confederate lines of fire
• "(also known as Williams's Canal)" Would prefer if this was in the body of the article too.
  • Added
• Would prefer "United States Navy" to "Union Navy"
  • Switched, as both Union Navy and United States Navy are used, so it's probably okay to drop the Union here
• "but were unable to do so with army support" Presumably it would have worked if they hadn't had Army support.
  • I think this is explained enough in the second paragraph of the background section. They couldn't bombard the city into submission, so it would take army troops to capture it
• "Farragurt" should be "Farragut"
  • Fixed
• "Flag Officer Charles Davis" Haven't heard of this rank before.
  • when the US Navy first formed, it was thought to be too "royal" sounding to have ranks such as commodore and admiral. Eventually (1850s I think) it became essentially necessary to have a rank above captain, so they created the rank of flag officer, which lasted until the middle of the ACW, when they finally gave in and created the rank of admiral.
• "the Union high command" Who is this? The War Department?
  • Clarified. Henry Halleck, general-in-chief, known as either "Old Brains" or "Old Wooden Head" depending on who you were talking to
• "The geology of the ground where the canal was dug was though to consist" "thought to consist"
  • Fixed
• "A major part of this plan was controlling the Mississippi River." I'm a bit foggy about this. The idea was to open a supply route between Memphis and the Gulf of Mexico? And this was blocked by batteries at Vicksburg? It seems that they had control of both sides, so why couldn't Vicksburg be starved into submission?
  • A supply route, but even more to cut the Confederacy in two. The Confederates still held the area inland from Vicksburg, so it couldn't be starved out until Union soldiers got around behind it (which is what Grant eventually did). I've clarified the former, do you think I need to add more to clarify the latter
• " Williams actually only intended of freeing them if the canal was completed successfully" Suggest "to free them"
  • Done
• "The Union soldiers even deeper" I think a word is missing
  • Word added
• "onboard" should be "on board"
  • Corrected
• "but these dimensions were not enough to allow navigation" How deep did it need to be? I can take a container ship through if you give me 8.3 metres.

  That's 27 feet in the old measurements. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  Clarified - the ditch was that deep, but the river had fallen below that point

• "the Confederates built new artillery batteries" They manufactured new artillery pieces? Or brought them in.
  • Rephrased to indicate that they built more emplacements - "artillery battery" in this war referred to both batteries of guns and fixed artillery positions
• "By March 19, Confederate fire had become accurate enough that the dredges could operate under the cover of night." Suggest "only operate"
  • Added
• Oxbow lake (I would have called it a billabong) and Memphis are doubly linked.
  • Removed
• How far from the canal is the current course of the river?
  • Attempting to find this. I've added the distance between the 1876 cut and the canal, but the sources I'm finding aren't making this comparison. I have found one that says the distance between the canal and the river has barely changed, and another saying that it has moved by a mile. Working. Hog Farm _Talk 02:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• • @Hawkeye7: - I think these should all be addressed except for the last one about distance to the current course of the river, which I haven't found the answer to yet. Hog Farm _Talk 04:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

It's good to see this article here. I have the following comments:

• " to the city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, which was considered to be strategically valuable" - I'd suggest saying why
  • Added
• The material on Williams' force in the Background section is a bit confusing. I'd suggest noting their presence in the material on the first attack, which will allow you to simplify the material on the second attack
  • Done
• " as well as 1,200 local plantation slaves who believed they would be freed for their work" - how did the Union forces obtain the services of these workers, and are you sure that they were still "slaves" at the time?
  • Clarified. A mixture of impressment and volunteering because they were told they'd be freed. They were still enslaved at the time they joined (this predates the Emancipation Proclamation, which required Union soldiers to put it into effect anyway). Williams also treated them horribly (which I've added a mention of) and he was known for allowing slave owners to take runaways from his camps at an earlier assignment. As mentioned later in the article, he also just abandoned a lot of these workers after he left, as well.
• "1,200 to 1,500 African Americans worked on the project" - were these the same as the 1,200 people noted above? If so, who were the other 300 workers?
  • It's the same 1,200 as before. I've dropped this clause to avoid the repetition (the 1,500 figure was found in one of the first sources I used for this, but 1,200 is by far the most common figure for this).
• "The Union soldiers dug even deeper" - were the African Americans still present at this time?
  • Yes. I've replaced "Union soldiers" with workers
• "his force had been reduced to 700[21] or 800 healthy men by disease, and Williams ordered his men from De Soto Point" - were the 700-800 just the African American workers, or also the Union soldiers?
  • This is just the soldiers. Clarified
• Some introduction is needed for Grant's involvement in the Vicksburg campaign, as well the campaigning under his command in early 1863 and the dilemmas that faced him (e.g. that the city was well defended and any attack on it would be difficult and bloody, with early attempts to advance on the city from the north being unsuccessful)
  • I've added some material about Grant's failed 1862 overland attempt, Sherman's repulse at Chickasaw Bayou, and why a direct attack was not feasible. Is this sufficient, or do I need to add some more?
• Who worked on the canal during Grant's attempt? The roles of soldiers and civilian labourers and their relative importance is unclear.
  • It's unclear how the work was divided, but I've added some clearer total numbers so that the proportion of civilian laborers to soldiers is more clear
• "Grant decided to land troops on the Mississippi side of the river below Vicksburg in April.[48] By mid-May, Grant's men had fought their way to Vicksburg, and placed it under siege" - this is a rather undramatic account of a remarkable campaign! You could note that Grant had transport ships run past Vicksburg and then carry his men across, and that they then defeated the Confederate forces in the region in very impressive campaign. The whole enterprise is regarded as being one of Grant's masterstrokes.
  • I've fleshed this out a bit more - landing south of Vicksburg, winning a couple battles, swinging east to Jackson, then defeating the defenders of Vicksburg outside the city, failing to capture it in two frontal assualts, and then the siege
• The article should discuss the historiography on this topic. From memory, some sources regard the canal as a total waste of time, while others give it as an example of Grant's flexibility and desire to avoid unnecessary casualties. Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I've dredged what I can out of the sources I have available right now (Ballard and Carter are at my dad's house, so I can't access them right now).

@Nick-D: - I've tried to address these as best as I can with the sources I have available now. Hog Farm _Talk 05:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by AustralianRupert

Support Comments: at the risk of introducing an Antipodean bias, I also had a read through this. To be honest, I struggled a bit with reading this one as my ear stumbled over some of the US English variation; apologies if any of my comments are ignorant of these vagaries. Regards: AustralianRupert (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• "was an attempted military-use canal" -- this seems awkwardly worded to me. Perhaps, "was an incomplete military effort to construct a canal through De Soto Point..."
  • Done
• "The navy force" --> "The naval force"?
  • Done
• "before Farragut decided to fall back to New Orleans": why, was he under fire?
  • Added a brief bit. Essentially, he was sick, his ships were running out of coal, and the river was falling and threatening to strand them there
• "Confederate artillery batteries": what were they doing at this time?
  • I've clarified that the Confederates were attempting ineffective return fire, although I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.
• "Both Farragut and the commander of the ironclads, Flag Officer Charles Davis agreed": it feels like a conjunction is missing here, potentially "Nevertheless,"
  • I was actually missing a comma after Davis to fully set off the appositive phrase as well. Corrected both
• "that the needed number of infantrymen" --> this seems awkwardly worded
  • Replaced with "enough", is this an improvement?
• "However, Williams actually to free them": this is missing something, I think
  • I've added the two missing words
• "above and 3.5 miles (5.6 km) below Vicksburg" --> perhaps upstream/downstream rather than above and below?
  • Done
• "The temperature in the area sometimes reached as much as" --> "The temperature in the area sometimes reached as high as"?
  • Done
• "supplies of the medicine quinine ran out" --> "supplies of the medicine quinine ran out"
  • Done
• "This rise did not manifest itself downstream where the canal project was": do we know why?
  • Source (Bastian 1995) doesn't say
• "they found 600 graves and 500 abandoned African Americans": do we know what happened to these people?
  • I've been able to clarify what happened to the others (sent home either directly or told to go walk there themselves), but not what happened to the 500. Miller p. 163 states And what of the African American canal workers Williams had left behind? Neither Bacon [a Union captain who later wrote a book] nor anyone else in the Baton Rouge brigade [Williams's people] thought to tell their story - then or later. Unfortunately, I can't check the main inline source for this (Ballard) because I just got put into quarantine awaiting COVID test results
• "In late November" --> 1862 or 1863? I assume 1862 but the header could cause some confusion
  • Done
• "taken over by Grant on late January" --> "taken over by Grant in late January". I also suggest adding the year here
  • Done
• "The steamboat Catahoula was sent to the area to scout the remains of the canal cut": by whom and when?
  • This is still up in the air. Sourced to Carter, which I don't have a physical copy of. As I'm currently quarantined, I'll have to see if a friend can borrow a copy from a library somewhere for me.
• "Colonel Josiah W. Bissell": a Union Colonel?
  • Yes, added.
• "All of the previously-excavated had been": this is missing something, also it is best to avoid hyphenating ly-adverbs
  • Corrected both problems
• "the newly-widen points" --> "the newly widened points"?
  • Done
• "upstream that allowed for a stronger" --> "upstream to allow for a stronger"
  • Done
• "However, the historical consensus has treated the project as not practical" --> "However, historical consensus has treated the project as impractical"?
  • Done
• Battle of Chickasaw Bayou is potentially overlinked
  • It is. Dropped the second link
• New York, New York v. simply New York (probably the later, IMO)
  • Went with just New York
• this seems a little off, grammatically: "Also at the site is commemoration for the Union African American soldiers"
  • Rephrased
• " failed will significant losses" --> " failed with significant losses"?
  • Done
• "|last1=Winschel |last2=Terry" --> " |last=Winschel |first=Terry"?
  • Fixed
• "Vicksburg Post" --> italics?
  • Corrected. I needed to use |work= instead of |publisher=

• @AustralianRupert: - I think I've got everything but the Catahoula bit addressed now. The Catahoula one's gonna be dependent on either me finding a library a friend can access me getting ahold of a copy at some point once I learn if I have the COVID or not. Hog Farm _Talk 05:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @AustralianRupert: - I've got a copy of Carter through Interlibrary Loan (I can have it for a couple months; probably because it looks like nobody's checked the book out in a couple decades). Carter just says that Catahoula was sent on a run in January under a Lieutenant Wilson. Hog Farm _Talk 20:38, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    • No worries, thanks for checking on this. I have added my support above. I hope you are well. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks! Test was negative so all is fine. Hog Farm _Talk 17:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

All the sources are reliable and the short and full citations are properly and consistently formatted. I wasn't sure about Targeted News Service, but the article is actually by Terry Winschel, who is published on the ACW, so I think it is fine. GTG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 03:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.