User talk:Hlj: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:47, 8 May 2008

Please click Here to leave me a new message. or Here to send me an email

archive01 – Messages from January 2005 to January 2006
archive2006 – Messages from January 2006 through December 2006
archive2007 – Messages from January 2007 through December 2007

Please explain

Please explain why you would find a need to dictate that a link I added to the Edward Ord site would be irrelevant. The item demonstrates an interesting piece of the Ord family history. All of my items are very well researched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomyarbro (talk • contribs) 01:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicksburg

Greetings - This paragraph describing the siege of Vicksburg:

In the twenty days since the river crossing at Bruinsburg, Mississippi, Grant had marched his troops 180 miles, inflicting 7,200 casualties at a cost of 4,300 of his own, winning five of five battles—Port Gibson, Raymond, Jackson, Champion Hill, and Big Black River Bridge—and not losing a single gun or stand of colors.

Is remarkably similar to Foote's description in his second book on the Civil War, page 381 in which Foote writes:

"In the twenty days since they crossed the Mississippi, they had marched 180 miles to fight and win five battles -- Port Gibson, Raymond, Jackson, Champion Hill, Big Black River --occupy a deep south capital, inflict over 7000 casualties at a cost of less than 4300 of their own. . .they had not lost a gun or a stand of colors."

This is too close for comfort. I'd like to see this paragraph changed or at least attributed to the venerable Foote. Thanks.

Joe Williams williamsjm@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.216.235 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Article Icons

I've received a few responses where the authors say they actually likes the additions. Should be on my talk page. Foofighter20x (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. BusterD (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the message left on my talk page: Agreed. If you'll notice, I've done almost all of 1861, 1863, and 1865. I've corrected some where another has ran with my idea but used the wrong flag. I'll keep an eye on this. One more question, however. Where it lists combatants, do you think it's a good idea to go in and change them all from "United States of America" to "United States" (which then links to "Union (American Civil War)")? Foofighter20x (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, same question with "Confederate State os America"... Shorten that to Confederate States or Confederacy?? Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon Editors on Atlanta Campaign

In response to your question about leaving warning messages (WP:UTM) on anon IP talk pages, it does seem to be effective. It's also good to identify the IP address as a public one (such as {{SharedIPEDU}} as that helps admins track it's usage. Either the anon vandal reads the message and stops, or if they persist from the same IP, then you can report them on WP:AIV. Just make sure you have progressed through the warnings sufficiently and have reach level 3 or 4 within a few hours before reporting. It's also good to tag the IP talk page for apparrent vandalism so that people can identify trouble IPs that always seem to be misbehaving. Just make sure you read and understand Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism before trying to get the IP blocked. If you don't follow the rules, the admins will not block the IPs.

In the case the Atlanta Campaign, the anon edits seem to be coming from different IPs on a daily basis though so it might reduce the effectiveness of this approach, but there's not really a plan "B" as far as I know. Hope this helps! --Roswell native (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot a couple of important items. You want enlist a few other editors interested in the article to avoid breaking the three-revert rule 3RR as that could also weakened your case when requesting a block. Especially in this case when an administrator not familiar with the topic might think that the anon IP edits have some credibility (i.e they'll think it's an edit war instead of vandalism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roswell native (talk • contribs) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, didn't see your message on my talk page until just now. Looks like the anon editing has quieted down on this a bit. I'm not an admin, but I've had similar issues with other articles I have edited. When I saw similar things happening on that article, I thought I could help. Take care, --Roswell native (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits and comments

Hi. I want to salute you as a true American and a person of valuable dedication to important topics in this overall project. your consistent and high-quality editing of articles and concepts which are important to the history of our nation is truly encouraging to observe. thanks for all your efforts. hope all goes well. i look forward to watching more of your efforts and work in this regard. thanks very much. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Custer Lead Paragraph

Hello HLJ -

I reverted some of the new lead you included in the Custer article and explained why on the Talk page. I'd be happy to discuss a good way to include some of the additional information you provided into the article. Sensei48 (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abner doubleday and the cable car

I am writing the biography of Abner Doubleday. You seem to have info I do not about his role in the cable car story. please e mail me. at tombart0@yahoo.com Prof. Tom Barthel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.72.12 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Bull Run (Manassass)

Hey why dont you want the exact numbers of the Battle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.189.195.140 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the footnotes, there are no exact numbers for the battle itself in any of the article's references. If you have information from secondary sources that give them, you can adjust the numbers, footnotes, and Refs accordingly. You can't simply change the numbers. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the aid in the XXII Corps (ACW) page. I learned a couple things from your assistance. Leobold1 (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuze vs. Fuse for ACW Artillery

I noticed you changed the spelling on this. While my natural inclination is to use "fuse" as well, I read an analysis of this by several of the foremost ACW artillery projectile authors (Jack Melton and Peter George at least) that reached a consensus of "fuze." http://cwpforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=140 This doesn't necessarily agree with modern parlance or other armies/conflicts, but it appears to have been the appropriate term for the Union and Confederate service orndance literature. The O.R. uses "fuse" mostly but I'm not sure if those transcriptions are accurate reproductions of the (mostly volunteer civilian) officer's own handwritten spellings, or the government typesetters who were accustomed to using "fuse." As one fellow points out, percussion devices are properly termed "fuze" rather than "fuse". He seems to indicate that "fuze" would be inclusive of both burning powder train and other types. Me, I don't really care as long as I know the rules. Red Harvest (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bull run

what did they wear during the battle of bull run —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.210.137 (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to ask me a legitimate question, sign in as a Wikipedia user so that I can reply on your Talk page or send me an e-mail. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield Scott citations you requested

The majority of the information is directly from wiki articles relating to those persons or places in the paragraph. Since the words are linked, would I still need to cite the wiki article again? For example, in the first paragraph, it is almost word for word from the wiki article on Martin Van Buren. I could put it in quotes and cite the wiki article if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odestiny (talk • contribs) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield Scott citations - update

Thank you for your reply. I have added citations and hope they will suffice. If not, I will try to supply better. For the soldier's statement, I added a second reference in the links at the bottom of the page back to the full letter reproduced on the Cherokee Nation website. Having seen some of the craziness added to the wiki page about the Cherokee, I am beginning to understand the importance of the citations now. Thanks again. Odestiny (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perryville battle maps

Hal,

Outstanding job with the diagrams to accompany the Battle of Perryville article. I've been there and have read a couple of books about the battle; it's not an easy one to get a handle on and your maps greatly enhance the impact of the article.

Thanks!

Rdikeman (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Dead Confederate at Petersburg

I have just one question, upon a close examination of the photo of the individual I see that he is wearing a US breast plate insigia. Has anyone else noticed this or made any comments about this matter? If the breast plate is accurate this was probably a Union soldier. The uniform looks more like the Confederates of the time. Very few had official CSA garb. Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crfarris (talk • contribs) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the outcome of the Battle of Monocacy Junction (slightly)

In the Book "Team of Rivals," Goodwin states that Wallace couldn't hold off the efenders, but delay them instead. Since this was accomplished (delaying Early) I chnaged the outcome to "Tactical Confederate victory, Strategic Union victory (Early is delayed)." Exec. Tassadar (comments, contribs) 03:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruggles Batteries

Hey, continued this here off the Shiloh page - as far as the numbers go, I don't know about newer vs older research (nor do I have access to the footnote/source you asked about). Heck, I'm not even positive I remember the numbers exactly, it's just what I think I remembered reading on probably a National Park Service plaque there on the battlefield itself (and I have *no* idea how one would cite that, although you'd hope that it could be considered at least a semi-reliable source). Hence, my original question about the numbers. --Umrguy42 (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry, looked at the wrong reference. Never mind :) --Umrguy42 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheridan

Hal: I agree with you that a lot of Sheridan is battle description. However, I've only modified Perryville and Chickamauga and have not added to the length. In both cases to focus more specifically on Sheridan. I am brand new at wikipedia and want to get this done right.

As for biographies, my thought is that development of the subject's personality and impact should be the primary focus. Am I reaching by wanting to put in things like quotes from Sheridan. For example at Chickamauga, I have a newspaper account by a colonel who saw Sheridan crying at the destruction of his division. There is another at Chickamauga where he sees his men being forced back into the battle line by subordinate officers, cut down by Confederate fire but unable to return fire because of retreating Yankee mobs from the front line. Sheridan screamed out to the officers, "Let them go! Let them go for their lives!" I was thinking the bio entroy could show Chickamauga as the biggest whipping that Sheridan ever got in his life. I would cut out the he went this way and that way and focus on him. There is also a great quote from Gen. Lovell Rousseau on Sheridan at Stones River. It would tell the reader more about Sheridan in combat that simply saying he was promoted x date to rank from x date.

What are your thoughts?

On the overland, I didn't have much of a problem with most of the section. Just the statement that he lost all the battles but one. I don't think this is needed as a contrarian position. Rather, eliminate that statement and the Sheridan quote. Both are what I would view as being on either extreme.

Procedure question: I'll be making some extensive edits to the Valley. Is there a way that I can store proposed edits without changing the actual content?

ShenandoahValley (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old Abe

I added the battles and spelled the names out, looks like you like to contribute battles and there are several on the Old Abe page that need added if you like.(Lookinhere (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longstreet

Hi. I know that Wert had been discussed on the talk page, that was why I replaced it and asked that it not be removed again. I had no interest in Fuller, he would be more appropriate on a Blitzkrieg page as far as I know. Sorry for the confusion, I was reverting vandalism there when I noticed your ref was missing again. Mstuczynski (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime you need it. Mstuczynski (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment now open!

An FA-class nomination for 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment is now open and can be found here if you wish to comment! Thanks! --Daysleeper47 (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:David Hunter.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:David Hunter.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:David Hunter.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana

Hal: How do I go about nominating an article (in this case, an image) for deletion? To be specific, I think the image of CSS Louisiana (Wikipedia site Image:CSSLouisiana.jpg) should either be deleted, for reasons that I state on its Discussion page, or at least marked so that users know that it is incorrect. Thank you in advance for your attention.PKKloeppel (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Longstreet

Mr. Jespersen, I have to disagree on most of your assumptions - you say Fullers book is a book about Lee, certainly, but Jean. E. Smiths book is about Grant. By that assertion, that book should not be a source either. And who says that an enormous amount of scholarship simply overides what came before, or makes an earlier observation correct? The problem with that notion in the case of Longstreet is much of the secondary sources about this general are a re-hash of the Lost Cause propaganda, and do not consider objective research, or research by military historians. The problem with your assetion that it is not important what Mr. Wert's background is, as long as he is widely respected, or a prolific writer, is that his background is an important part of writing about war. No doubt he is a good Civil War writer, but at some point he does not have the professional depth of knowledge and experience to quantify SDF Freeman, for example, is correct about the slow on the 2nd day of Gettysburg accusation. If Jeff Shaara, for example, was a writer of medical novels based on historical medical events, he could still only be considered to have a less than prefessional amount of knowledge on the subject of medicine. I am not simply deleting a viewpoint I do not like, I am deleting an observation not proven beyond the level that some earlier historians of bias thought this. Another problem with relying so heavily on one source - Wert, is that about 30 of 64 notes are soley from that book. Again, he is a respected author, but he is not the final say, or only author or source that talks about longstreet. Clearly, this article could use a somewhat more diverse spread of sources.(110fremont (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In time I'll find an add more sources that will make this article better. Some will be primary sources, and I re-read through the policy, there is no absolute policy that says Wikipedia is only secondary sources. With all due respect, you are not the owner and approval authority of what goes in this article, everyone that uses Wikipeida is the owner/editor of any and all articles. Wert is a secindary source and so is Fuller, both are relevant sources to use as contributing sources to this article. Fuller's way of explaining this piece of the event is better than what is in Wert, that is why I select to use it. Thanks. (110fremont (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

And I thought Longstreet's article was quite stable, oh silly me! And I'm still not sure why this discussion wasn't carried out on the talk page for the article. Anyways I was under the impression that Wert has been relied upon as a trusted resource about the general, the most thorough and probably the most complete one out there. Even my keyboard recommends him! Your compromises should prevent any 3RR nonsense from occurring, and that's good. Like you say, the hashing out is best left up to other readers to decide with (hopefully) all evidence and points of view available in the page. Kresock (talk) 02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any problem with the new phrasing you made to the passage, I think it is free of emotionalist Lost Cause political interpretation, and provides solid objectivity. I agree with that policy section you provided - as I understand it, and your example of temperture, a primary source that states a simple fact, is a supportive part to secondary interpretation. I added a recent article of examination to the reading list done this year, which is one of the best I have ever seen on the known fact "play by play" one can read straight from the ORs. (John Lott) Large portions of entire books have been written, such as by Phanz, on the second day. He would be a strong counter to the Wert statement for example. Another Wikipedia article could be established for that aspect alone, if the details of what happened are too far in the weeds for the purposes of this artcile (more of an overview of his career). An article like that could weight Lost Cause vs. academic vs. military, for eaxmple. (110fremont (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Suggested additions/revisions to Battle of Nashville article

This is not for inclusion in the article, but I read the above captioned article and have a couple problems with it.

There certainly was a whole lot of intrigue, directed at Thomas, happening on the union side, some of it within his own lines, but nothing is said in Thomas' defense. Thomas is unfairly characterized as being slow, but I think he insisted on being ready. His enemy was entrenched in field fortifications, and I seem to recall that a 3-1 superiority was desired to assure success. His goal was to obliterate the AOT as a force to be reckoned with, primarily by an effective pursuit, which was uncommon in the ACW. This was going to require cavalry...

When Sherman walked out of the war toward Savannah, (saying that if Hood wanted to go to the Ohio River, he was willing to provide rations!) he took the best two thirds of the force that had besieged Atlanta with him, including about half of Thomas' superb Army of the Cumberland, and all the serviceable cavalry horses. To replace that portion, Thomas got the Army of the Ohio, mainly the XXIII Corps, led (from well to the rear, by some accounts...) by the scheming Schofield. He also got the XVI Corps, off somewhere in Missouri! My impression is that the XVI arrived just in time to go into the trenches/fortifications the night before the scheduled attack/ice storm. Wilson, his cavalry commander, was commandeering almost anything with four legs for his troops, as far away as Louisville, and still couldn't get enough horses for them all.

I think Hoods' army was going nowhere. Having the ability to maneuver is different from saying that he could outrun Thomas in a race to the Ohio. By 1864, the countryside had to be pretty well stripped, and what passed for service of supply in the AOT couldn't have been up to that kind of move, either. Hell, some of his troops didn't even have shoes!

Hoods' chances of recruiting any significant force from an invasion in late 1864 had to be lower than in 1862, when Bragg moved into Kentucky. The troops recruited then didn't add up to a whole regiment...

In the event, I think Hood did Thomas a favor by moving to Nashville and waiting for the ax to fall. That the ax was ready to fall eight days after the Battle of Franklin speaks well for Thomas' organizational skills, welding a victorious army together out of the diverse elements that formed it, originally scattered over four or five states...

I think the reason for the panic by the union high command related to their fear that in the unlikely event that Hood somehow did get by, there would be a lot of hard questions relating to Shermans' jaunt to Savannah. OK, maybe it wasn't panic, but you could see it from there...

I think this article might be well served by a timeline indicating what portions of his army arrived and when, thus showing that the panic at the top was unwarranted.

I believe his pursuit gives the lie to those who thought Thomas slow. His troops, led by the remounted cavalry, chased the AOT over a hundred miles in little more than a week, over at least a couple major rivers swollen by the continuous rain, right out of Tennessee and pretty much right out of the war. The AOT never fought as a cohesive unit again, though some elements were present in North Carolina at the very end... Charlie Welch (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coddington

I have only scanned this book, my impressions were, as you say, at the operational and strategic level, and not at the tactical. One book review I read once said Phanz was better at the lower level, interesting it was mentioned in the review of Coddington. I can only say I have heard positive comments on Coddington's assessment of the campaign. Civil War Courier is a monthly newpaper. It usually has 2-3 articles each month from contributing authors - some well known. I am not sure what else Mr. Lott has written, the article did not provide a bio. (147.217.65.7 (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To answer your last on more objective sources - we discussed Phanz is good for the second day, but yes, there are sections where he rehashes Freeman I beleive. Glenn Tucker wrote "Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg." That's a really good one. Actually many contemporary primary sources seem to be the best, which became ignored after Lee died in 1870. Read Lee's report, and Longstreet's, Ewell and Hill's. British liaison/officer Col. Arthur Freemantle, who kept a diary, published it before the end of the war and he basically gives Longstreet credit for realizing that the attack could not succeed but saw no reluctance on Longstreet's part to obey orders. The German/Prussian liaison also wrote reports and observation, which I cannot comment on, as I have not read them. A person I know who works for the Park service at Anteitam just recently read an account that said that Longstreet looked "just fine at the battlefield," then observed how unhappy he was, when he observed Longstreet in the saddle on the way back to Virginia. For a more current writer - Gary Gallagher has worked to straighten out some of the Lost Cause Mentality, Gallagher is a very prominent historian, not just a writer. Dr. Piston's book a alright, but i have heard that if he wrote it today, instead of 1987, he would have steered farther away from Lost Cause influence. At the time, it was still not possible to get a book about Longstreet published that did not follow the popular formula. Someone who knows Piston told me that his original manuscript was 650 pages, and the publisher would only publish if he cut it to less than 200. I heard that 2nd or 3rd hand, but if its true, it shows how strong the grip on what was allowed and what was not allowed by the academic circles for a log time. I hope a few of these names are of interest to you. (110fremont (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No, it would take some time to get through all this. I see your point that "the goal here is not to assemble quotes from 1863 and analyze them ourselves, it is to find analyses by secondary sources that come to the explicit conclusions that, in contrast to the claims of the lost causers, Longstreet supported Lee's tactics and enthusiastically and aggressively approached the battlefield on July 2." To my knowledge explicit secondary source conclusion as you describe are out there, but will be not as easy to find compared to the better known books like Gallager, many will be in more obscure magazines and journals. I will look for the type of wording you describe - direct contradiction to the anti-Longstreet type stuff. One easy one I know is Dr. Willaim Garrett Piston Lee's Tarnished Lieutenantp.58: No one will ever guess Longstreet's dislike of Lee's tactics from his performance on JUly 2. He timed his en echelon attacks carefully. He even led Barksdale's Mississippi Brigade against the peach orchard in person, riding well ahead of the attack and waving his black hat instead of a sword. A captured Union soldier remarked: Our generals don't do that sort of thing." That is a secondary source description of Longstreet who was doing his all in aggresive action and attitude to make Lee's plan work. He knew the plan was not going to be easy to make work, because he saw the tactics as faulty, so he added his own presence to compenstate. To get the maximum out of tired troops, that were already spent from the march. The Union quote is of course a primary. See if that fits somehow. It does not use the word aggressively, but it is Dr. Pistons description of aggressive support of his boss's plan. I'll have to read the Lott article, which I have, to see how that author describes Longstreet. (110fremont (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your comments, they are thought-provoking. Because of some time scheduling limitations on my part, I have not been planning on doing any upgrades to this article in the near future--probably not until the fall, at the earliest. You are certainly welcome to make improvements to the article yourself. Although the article currently has very few in-line citations/footnotes, that is an acknowledged limitation that I hope to correct over time. If you make any additions, footnotes would be welcome. By the way, I often have discussions with people regarding the ineffectual pursuits during the Civil War and Thomas after Nashville is the only counter example anyone can come up with. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hal- You're far from the first to call me provocative, but it's usually not in a good way! One provocative statement I like to make is that the best general in the ACW was a Virginian. The obvious comeback is 'Lee or Jackson?' When I answer no, the gears start to grind. I makes people stop and think, it usually opens their minds to rationally consider a point of view. I have no clue about how to do anything on this site; I've answered some questions on wikianswers because I feel like I can. I'm not big on citations and footnotes because, while I can remember that I saw something on a given subject, where I saw it can be elusive. Also, some people expect equal respect to be given to sources regardless of its respectability; just because something appears in print somewhere doesn't necessarily make it true, just ask the publishers of supermarket tabloids. I read most of B&L about 20 years ago before it occurred to me that it was merely a forum for some to defend/justify/ their actions. I feel confident in asserting that more ink has been spilled than blood in the ACW. My knowledge of history in general, and the ACW in particular, is at least above average, but a lot of it I remember from decades ago. The last book I read on the ACW was written by a retired navy captain named Buell, who compared the leadership of three pairs of generals who opposed one another Opportunities for pursuit were usually passed up in the ACW, especially early on. This may be because both sides had about the same level of mobility. I like defining pursuit as chasing a defeated enemy, as opposed to just continuing an advance, such as the AoP or Shermans' army in their 1864 campaigns.

Appomattox would be another instance of a successful pursuit followed to it's conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Welch (talk • contribs) 06:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: G.H. Thomas @ Nashville, reply to yours of 4/17

Thank you for your comments, they are thought-provoking. Because of some time scheduling limitations on my part, I have not been planning on doing any upgrades to this article in the near future--probably not until the fall, at the earliest. You are certainly welcome to make improvements to the article yourself. Although the article currently has very few in-line citations/footnotes, that is an acknowledged limitation that I hope to correct over time. If you make any additions, footnotes would be welcome. By the way, I often have discussions with people regarding the ineffectual pursuits during the Civil War and Thomas after Nashville is the only counter example anyone can come up with. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hal- You're far from the first to call me provocative, but it's usually not in a good way!

One provocative statement I like to make is that the best general in the ACW was a Virginian. The obvious comeback is 'Lee or Jackson?' When I answer no, the gears start to grind. I makes people stop and think, it usually opens their minds to rationally consider a different point of view.

I have no clue about how to do anything on this site; I've answered some questions on wikianswers because I feel like I can. I'm not big on citations and footnotes because, while I can remember that I saw something on a given subject, where I saw it can be elusive. Also, some people expect equal respect to be given to sources regardless of its' respectability; just because something appears in print somewhere doesn't necessarily make it true, just ask the publishers of supermarket tabloids. Maybe a question to ask here is what sources are considered reputable, which are thought less so, and how might the casual observer tell the difference? And where could a discussion on this as it relates to the ACW be found?

I read most of B&L about 20 years ago before it occurred to me that it was merely a forum for some to defend/justify/whitewash their actions. I feel confident in asserting that more ink has been spilled on this subject than blood in the ACW.

My knowledge of history in general, and the ACW in particular, is at least above average, but a lot of it I remember from decades ago. My first interest in the ACW coincided with the Centennial, and the last time I did much reading on the subject was about the time of Ken Burns opus on PBS...

The last book I read on the ACW was written by a retired navy captain named Buell, who compared the leadership of three pairs of generals who opposed one another. Thomas ended up looking very good; I think Buell (no relation to the general) may have said that Thomas was one of the progenitors of what has come to be called 'The American Way of War.'

Opportunities for pursuit were usually passed up in the ACW, especially early on. This may be because both sides had about the same level of mobility, or maybe it just wasn't covered at West Point. I think Clausewitz said pursuit is the most difficult operation and the one that yielded the greatest rewards, but I don't know if there was even an English translation in the 1860's...

I would define pursuit as chasing a routed enemy, as opposed to just continuing an advance to the next position, such as the AoP or Shermans' army in their 1864 campaigns.

Rear guard actions are required to slow/prevent pursuit. There are a lot more instances of successful rear guard action than successful pursuit. Forrest after Shiloh and Cleburne after Chattanooga come to mind. Does Thomas' defense of Snodgrass Hill at Chickamauga qualify as a rear guard action?

BTW, I think Appomattox would be another instance of a successful pursuit followed to it's conclusion.