Talk:125th Pennsylvania Infantry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article was accepted on 30 September 2011 by reviewer Monty845 (talk · contribs).
WikiProject Pennsylvania (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Authorship by Double Descendant of the Regiment[edit]

This page was initiated by a direct descendant of two members of the Regiment, Sergeant John Coho of Company K and Private John Benton, Sr., of Company E. John Benton was wounded at Antietam and captured at Chancellorsville, but as he is not classified as 'seriously wounded' in the Regimental History, he is likely among the 84 classified as 'Slightly Wounded and Not Reported' on the monument at Antietam. John Benton, Sr., enlisted at (approximately) age 40 in the 125th, and his namesake son enlisted in the 205th PVI, Co. C.

Please consider the pride and passion associated with this type of relationship with the subject as you read the talk. Also, please consider the article POV's nonreflection of these same emotions as you read the Talk.--Donaldecoho (talk) 12:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Regimental motto[edit]

I must insert a statement here that I hope will remain on this page until the 300th Anniversary of the Battle of Antietam. With my insertion of the Regimental motto, "In God We Trust," the anti-religion folks are going to take an interest in this page. After I am gone, there will be attempts to destroy this information.

One way of doing it would be to find errors or contradictions in the Regimental record. The numbering of the graves in the Antietam National Cemetery has changed since muster-out on May 18, 1863. At that point in time, the stone grave markers may not yet have been in evidence. Speculating, something crude and quick may have been marking the graves. Let's say they were made of paper, cardboard, and or wood. The Regiment cited the best information they had available.

For the Regimental Color-Bearer the muster-out notation says he is in grave #420. If a God-hater or country-hater goes looking for grave #420 with the cited name of the Color Bearer, he will not find the juxtapostion of grave #420 and the name associated with the Color Bearer in Bates. When the stones were added to the Cemetery, the Color Bearer received a different grave number. On October 8, 2011, the number associated with the Color Bearer's grave is #3953.

150 more years of weathering might remove all markings from the Color Bearer's grave. I am not necessarily a Simpson-, flag-, or God-fetishist, but the existence of George Simpson's tombstone is critical to the protection of the Regimental History's integrity. If I knew how to, I could insert a digi phot in this page. Can you understand my point about the mutability of information in the internet age and the importance of a photo of George Simpson's headstone on the main page?

A picture of his tombstone would 'certify' some part of the Regimental record. It would also weaken the argument that the senile old men took some bong hits in 1904 and wrote the best fiction that they could 'muster.' haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.87.93 (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Do-it-Yourself Reporting of the 125th's Casualties within the Preeminent Source for PA Regiments[edit]

A 'vicious circle' of sourcing levels is present. Wikipedia editors require a credible, verifiable source. Can we get a ruling: Is the Regiment a 'reliable source' or not?

Sourcing Level: Primary Secondary Pri/Sec/Tertiary?
Agent: The Regiment Samuel P. Bates Regimental Survivors Association
Work: Muster Roster History of Pennsylvania Volunteers Regimental History
Period: 1862-63 1865-1870 1870-1904
Motivation: Army Regulation PA State Legislature Establishing a Permanent Record before Extinction

If a cameraman was present between the lines of the 125th Pennsylvania Infantry, 'Stonewall' Jackson, and 'Old Pete' Longstreet on September 17, 1862, then we should report him as 'MIA' and call his family. If Samuel P. Bates were there (I'm checking into his whereabouts on September 17, 1862) then he gambled 2:3 odds of survival and came out victorious.

Proposed Section "==Internet Numbers are Often Erroneous or Fudged=="[edit]

125th PA Fatalities at Antietam (name,company,rank,muster notation):

1. Baker, Franklyn S, E, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

2. Bortman, Alexes H, K, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

3. Bowen, Francis, D, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3714

4. Brown, John A., D, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3665

5. Burge, Adam E Private Died September 30, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862; buried in Military Asylum Cemetery, D. C.

6. Burley, Emanuel J., D, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

7. Carton, Peter, H, Corp, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3746

8. Clark, Thomas H., I, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3784

9. Corbin, Wm. W., I, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

10. Cretin, Joshua, K, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

11. Crissman, Austin A Private Died September 20, of wounds received at Antietarn, Md., September 17, 1862

12. Cunningham, Benj., F, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

13. Davis, John, D, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3667.

14. Decker, Nicholas C Private Died October 11, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

15. Dierfield, James H, H, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3610.

16. Edwards, Amon G., A, Corp, Died at Chambersburg, Pa., October 9, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

17. Ewing, Levi M., B, Pvt, Died at Hagerstown, Md., September 21, of. wounds received at Antietam, September 17, 1862

18. Funk, George, A, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

19. Gibboney, James H, G, Corp, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

20. Harkin, Samuel B., I, Pvt, Wounded at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862; died at Coffee Run, Pa.. November 16, 1862

21. Hays, William M., I, Pvt, Died October 31, at Frederick, Md., of wounds received at Antietam, September 17, 1862

22. Hess, Samuel, H, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3609.

23. Hoffman, Uriah D., C, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

24. Hoover, Joseph W., H, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

25. Householder, G.W., I, Pvt, Died September 18, of wounds received at Antietam, September 17, 1862

26. Hunter, James H, A, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

27. Johnston, Robert M., Officer, Adjutant Died September 19, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

28. Kelly, John A, D, Sgt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

29. Kinsel, Erastus, A, Pvt, Died April 7, 1S63, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

30. Kuhn, David, C, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

31. Lier, John, E, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3634.

32. Long, James, G, Pvt, Died at Frederick, Md., February 5, 1863, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 182; buried in Mt. Olivet Cemetery

33. Markley, Isaac, D, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

34. McAllister, Alfred, I, Sergeant Died at Huntingdon, Pa., October 25, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

35. McCarthy, John, H, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

36. McCoy, John S., C, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

37. McCracken, Joseph, F, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3608.

38. M'Dermitt, Louis C. K Private Died at Boonesville, Md., October 18, of wounds, with loss of leg, received at Antietam, September 17, 1862

39. McDermitt, Mich'l A. K Private Died at Philadelphia, Pa., October 17, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

  • 55. McGonegal, Geo. W., B, Pvt, Wounded and Missing in Action at Antietam, Md.

40. McLaughlin, Joseph S., D, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3823.

41. Myers, William, K, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

42. O'Donnell, Michael, H, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

43. Riddle, James D., G, Pvt, Died September 26, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

44. Rose, John, D, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

45. Shaw, Daniel A., Pvt, Died September 25, of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

46. Simpson, George A., C, Sgt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3953.

47. Snyder, Joseph, I, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

48. Teats, John A. B Private Died at Frederick, Md., November 30, of wounds received at Antietam, September 17, 1862; buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 4043.

49. Walker, Wm. C., F, Pvt, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862

50. Ward, Frederick C. K Private Died September 19, of wounds received at Antictam, Md., September 17, 1862; buried in National Cemetery, section 26, grave 3749.

51. Williams, Benj. F., C, Corp, Died November 13 of wounds received at Antietam, Md., September 17, 1862

52. Wirt, Edward H, I, Corp, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3972

53. Wolf, Theowalt, A, Pvt, Died at Smoketown, Md., January 25, 1863, of wounds received at Antietam, September 17, 1862

54. Woomer, Andrew, A, Corp, Killed at Antietam, September 17, 1862. buried in National Cemetery, Antietam, section 26, grave 3669.


  • The eternal judgment upon the soul of George W. McGonegal, deeply disturbs me. In Bates (Vol IV, p. 112) he is considered as "Wounded and Missing in Action." Page 86 of the Reg History considers him as "Severely Wounded" at Antietam. Local media in Blair County documents his death as occurring during 1862. [1] How can a soldier who 1) receives a 'severe wound' at the Battle of Antietam and 2) dies within 100 days of the battle NOT be considered as having 'Died of wounds'? Hereby, I question the judgment of the Regiment and hypothesize that the total of "Killed and Died of Wounds" on the Monument at Antietam should or should not, on behalf of George. W. McGonegal, be raised to 55?
  1. ^ Hoenstine, Floyd G. (1940). Military Services and Genealogical Records of Soldiers of Blair County Pennsylvanis. Harrisburg, PA: The Telegraph Press. p. 231. 

I'm not sure what you are trying to explain with this section. Is it solely that the casualty tally from the muster lists of the regiment does not agree with either the NPS website or AOTW?

By the point of this writing, the NPS has changed their website to reflect the numbers on the physical monument. Having purchased the complete works of Samuel P. Bates, I can state
"The originator of the webpage at http://antietam.aotw.org/officers.php?unit_id=269 has committed intellectual fraud."
The statistics quoted on the webpage do not appear in the work of Samuel P. Bates. So, what the author did, was pull some statistics from somewhere nearby, perhaps a bodily orifice, we'll never know, and then cite them fraudulently to Bates.
This Discussion page documents a long sequence of vetting of MY facts and MY arguments. I've got to ask, who vetted AOTW? and I've got to proclaim from the highest mountaintop "I AM CREDIBLE, AND AOTW IS _NOT_."

If so then it is sufficent to say that various sources e.g. NPS website and AOTW, give differing numbers of casualties arising from Antietam but that the figures quoted on the monument are supported by the muster lists, which are contemporary and identify 54 officers and men as having been killed during the battle or died subsequently of wounds received during the battle. Without evidence you shouldn't speculate on why the discrepancies exist (personally I think the NPS website is a typo and AOTW has only counted men killed on the battlefield not subsequently - but that's only my opinion). However you chose to do it I don't think it warrants a separate section but should just follow the table. I'd also suggest that you don't quote the names of all the casualties - see WP:NOTMEMORIAL for the reasons why not. NtheP (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A FULL EXPLANATION

As the 150th Anniversary period progresses, uniform standards and definitions for quantifying carnage are needed. When a soldier enters the military, he/she doesn't know what fate will bring. During the Civil War, many died from infection and dysentery, and these soldiers (in my opinion) are worthy of honor. They are worthy of the same dignity, respect, and honor as the CMH recipient.

When a human body is pierced or broken during battle and a life is shortened due to a battle-inflicted wound, is it really important how long it takes for the soldier to die? Is a slow exsanguination less valorous than an instantaneous obliteration? Who has the right to exact these judments?

By the modern standard, 229 members of the 125th would receive 'Purple Hearts,' just for Antietam. Some poorly-defined fragment of the 54 mortally-wounded can't get to the status of KIA on the internet.

Using a stopwatch, the authors at AOTW have divided the 54 Pennsylvanians who received a mortal wound at Antietam into "real casualties" and "collateral damage." Wikipedia endorses this bifurcation.

When someone at AOTW takes just a little bit of time to think about it, which I have invited them to do, they will change their numbers. Then, Wikipedia can revise the main article heading and treat all mortally wounded soldiers as equals. The eternal condition of the souls who now stand in the classification of "collateral damage" is in peril. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt John Kahoe 125CoK (talkcontribs) 11:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't endorsing anything - an editor has taken what they consider to be a reliable source and used that information to support a piece of information. If you say it's wrong or dubious and have another source to support another figure then nothing stops you changing the lead paragraph. As it stands it's incorrect as it uses the AOTW figure which as I read it relates only to Antietam to cover the whole existence of the regiment. So unless zero casualties were taken at Chancellorsville and Mud March the total casualty figure must be higher.
Without taking sides on what defines KIA, AOTW seem to be using the figures quoted by Bates and have not applied a stopwatch to anything. I don't know what source Bates used but obviously it doens't agree with the muster roll figures used on the NPS memorial. The probable answer is that the actual figure of men who died on the field at Antietam or died later of wounds received during the battle will never be exactly established. NtheP (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

ALL SOURCES, INCLUDING BATES, derive from paper-and-pencil or paper-and-pen records that were originated by the Regiment and carried around by the Regiment. When the 125th mustered out at Harrisburg, the company historian had to account for all of the missing names from the 'muster in' roster. The 'muster out' roster, as contained by Bates, DEPENDS upon the company's paper records. The Great Great Grandson of Sergeant John Kahoe is being corrected about Regimental history. All of GGgrandson's assertions derive from _THE_ _PRIMARY_ _SOURCE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt John Kahoe 125CoK (talkcontribs) 13:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a chance I might be able to digitize the paper records from the Regiment. My Uncle, as the firstborn heir of his generation, has possession of the legacy but has never let anyone, including me, SEE IT or touch it. He's not very internet-savvy, but I might be able to convince him to let me touch it for this purpose. Unfortunately, I'm not the firstborn heir of my generation; my living cousin, John Kahoe is. Since he's not 'into reenacting,' I have his permission to use his name as a pseudonym.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt John Kahoe 125CoK (talkcontribs) 13:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

42 years after the Battle, Sixty eyewitness survivors, including Sgt John, of the Regiment attended the dedication of the Monument. You're telling me that they (all 60 of them) don't know what they saw, and they (all 60 of them) couldn't vouch for the accuracy of the information on the Monument. Getting to the 'stop-watch' thing, why do you think the Regimental Committee didn't want the 54 who died to be differentiated into 'died on the day of battle' and 'didn't die on the day of battle'? They were honorable soldiers and were certain that the distinction was delusory. Why would someone ask to remain anonymous and be noted as 'slightly wounded'?

This is the same reason that Eisenhower marched German civilians through the death camps in Germany. A brilliant historian who retired at Gettysburg, he was certain that 'modification of the facts' would begin almost instantly.

Eventually, Lord-willing, I'll 'get to' the Chancellorsville part of this page. Yes, there were casualties at Chancellorsville, but there wasn't wholescale decimation of the Regiment. I'll need to 'freshen up' recollections at that point in time. In the event that I pass before completing my work, I must put 'first things first' and get Antietam right.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt John Kahoe 125CoK (talkcontribs) 13:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I've proven, to the satisfaction of most third-graders, that both Bates and AOTW are wrong in their presentation of the summary statistics. I've also proven that my Great Great Grandfather, the Sergeant Coho who lifted the wounded Mansfield from his horse and appears in the photograph at the dedication of the Monument, wasn't trying to 'punk' history. Because of a peculiar pronunciation my surname appears variantly as Kahoe, Caho, Coho, and Kho troughtout the Regimental Record. Sergeant John Coho's obituary appeared int the August 28, 1927, edition of the Altoona Mirror as 'Coho.' He is buried under a tombstone which reads 'Coho.'

Due to Sergeant Coho's luck (alone) at Antietam, I am alive to correct an injustice to the Regiment. Perhaps 149 years later, the presentation of this analysis was the reason God chose him to survive. By allowing Sergeant Coho to survive, the 54 who were taken have been protected.

If you accept my thesis and extrapolate the implication then the 'Bloodiest Day in American History' just got bloodier by 21 souls. Are there any other legacies on any other Antietam 'Talk' pages as agitated as I am? Is it possible that political motivations may have existed to under-report casualties at Antietam? Perhaps localized to the few most badly decimated Regiments? For purposes of 'Correcting the Record,' may I have a section entitled "The Bloodiest Day Gets Bloodier"? re-add comments made by User:204.238.139.57 following mass removal of talk page content

Please do not remove comments that have already been added to a talk page, it makes it difficult for others to see the full history of the discussion. This includes your own, strike your own through if you think they don't apply or hide them but please don't remove them.
As far as I can tell this entire discussion seems to rest solely on one thing and that is how men who died subsequently to the battle of Antietam of wounds received during the battle are recorded in this article. Neither Bates nor AOTW or anyone else is disputing the number of casualties the regiment suffered at Antietam (although one piece of information missing from this article is the strength of the regiment at the start of the battle), indeed Bates and AOTW include the number of men slightly wounded as well. Putting those numbers aside there is a very good correlation between the muster rolls that you quote and the Bates/AOTW figures about the number of men killed outright on the field of battle. Mention of a stopwatch was made earlier in this thread, I think that whichever way you look at the casualty figures a stop watch has been applied. Bates appears to have used a quite basic rule along the lines of they aren't KIA if they left the battlefield alive. The muster out book must make a similar assessment - if the man was alive at the date the must book was compiled then he's alive. Therefore the possibility exists that there are others who died subsequently of wounds received during the battle who are not being commemorated by either count.
Is Bates count being disrespectful to the men who died after the battle? I don't think so because Bates wasn't setting out to honour anyone but was employed by the state to write a record of the regiments raised in PA and was probably consistent if his method of recording casualties suffered by all the regiments not just the 125th.
Has the Bloodiest day in American History got bloodier? Sorry but probably not, there are numerous accounts of the Battle of Antietam and almost as many different assessments of the number of casualties suffered. For every editor who has taken the 'Bates line' there will be another who has taken a broader definition of KIA and presents a higher numer of deaths directly attributable to the battle.
Is Wikipedia being disrespectful to the men who died after the battle? Again I'm going to say no. WP is not a memorial, it's an encyclopedia. You might not like the Bates figures but they are correct in what they say - 29 men were killed on the field of battle and another 117 were seriously wounded and that is encyclopedic knowledge. It is also in the way Wikipedia works, a reliable source and by comparison with muster roll a verified source as well. To that end it's going to be accepted; Wikipedia is not the place for original research resulting in GROUNDBREAKING HISTORICAL ANALYSIS. You talk of a wrong being righted, I don't think there is any wrong to right. There is a note in the article that the casualty figures can be viewed with different interpretations and I think that is as much as you are going to get. I'm sorry if that's a compromise that you won't be able to accept but unless reputable sources come to light which disprove Bates and AOTW it's going to be the best that happens. And I don't think any injustice is being done to the 60 men who came together 42 years after the battle either. Time is a great healer but it's also reknowned for playing tricks with the memory and while their beliefs might have been heartfelt about what they recall they are highly likely to be collectively faulty.
Finally I'd ask you to refrain from comments such as proven, to the satisfaction of most third-graders, what you believe will be "obvious" to you but not necessarily to anyone else especially if as I have tried to show above that your figures are subject to different interpretation. I have no doubt that your opinions about the number of men who died due to Antietam are sincerely and steadfastly held howevre I would ask you to respect the opinions of others who may not share and/or disagree with your opinions. NtheP (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Once my Bates arrives, I can index by footnotes to Bates and explain the internal conflict within Bates. 5 volumes amazon CD $17.

Wikipedia is not a place for original research. There is also a policy of neutrality hence the way I have worded the article to show that their are two different sets of figures available. I have not promoted one over the other or attempted (and neither will I) to speculate on why the differences exist, just to confirm that the figures exist. If any reader wants to go away and do further investigation that is down to them but Wikiepdia is not here to steer them in favour of any of the alternatives. This article is not the place for a discussion on what you think are issues with Bates' methods of counting. It's your perogative not to accept them but not yours to attempt to debunk them here.
Regarding the notes, I think the neutral solution would be to add where the state got the figures for the monument from. Was it the muster rolls or the regimental association? And to leave it at that or if you want a casualty figure to use the overall figure of 229 killed, missing and wounded.
And I'm still interested in knowing what the strenght of the regiment was at the start of Antietam so that I can understand how big a loss they took with 229 casualties. NtheP (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, we're engaging in some cool conversation. Of the 931-932(ish) who mustered in, 700 were considered 'engaged' at Antietam. I just saw that number a few days ago and cannot footnote it right now. If you'll entertain both of the Coho numbers for one second, we're talking 229/700 = 33% ballpark, mostly within 20 minutes. I've seen what the 125th marched into characterized as a 'bear trap,' set and sprung by Jackson and Longstreet (sorry, no footnote)(Probably, Priest)(I'll get this onto the mainpage sometime soon as an extended quotation). On the Antietam page at Wiki, I've seen the phrase, something like "fighting swirled around the Dunker Church." It was so chaotic that it cannot be described. Frankly IMOHO, the case of the 125th is a microcosm within the 'swirl.' Priest just loves their contribution and fairly dramatizes it.

Do you understand what the problem with the numbers is yet? After all of this nauseating 'debate team' stuff, I was forced to feret out my own reasoning, kinda like being on the tenure track. I'm not expecting anything controversial at all. The Regiment is citing one part of Bates, the muster-out roster, and somewhere else in Bates are the summary figures that are so often cited. My current belief is, these summary numbers are early, flawed Army numbers. I'll find the sources for both AOTW within Bates and the Regiment within Bates and juxtapose them. You'll see when I juxtapose (with footnotes) (without modern segue) references from two different parts of Bates' own work. After you see the raw juxtaposition (Bates v Bates), we can discuss it.

Oh, have you ever thought about how and why the 20th Maine became so visible at Gettysburg? Those lucky grunts had a Professor of Rhetoric (Chamberlain) as their commander. The phrase that echoes in my head (no citation) goes "The greater part of valor lies in the telling of the tale." Priest (pre-internet) thinks very highly of the 125th's efforts, but they've never really had a proper 'mouthpiece.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.238.139.57 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

IN SHORT, THE REGIMENT IS CITING BATES, VOLUME, CHAPTER, VERSE. I saw the footnotes in the Regimental Record but didn't digest them properly. 2+2=4. I don't even need to cite the Regiment any more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.238.139.57 (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok so let's see what numbers we get from Bates and see if they can be explained away. 33% casualties in 30 min is bad even by Civil War standards. NtheP (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

NtheP: Are you excited by what we've just done _together_? We've explained away the mystery, and we're left with 'Cold Harbor-type' numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.238.139.57 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Well let's see all the Bates' figures first. NtheP (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

NtheP: I swear: I'm not the slightest bit intoxicated. I'm imagining the guffaws at the 42 Reunion when they read their official statement to posterity with, everywhere inserted, long citations to Bates ;-)

NtheP: Take a look at this photo from the battlefied: http://www.antietam.stonesentinels.com/PX/PA125sign.php

I've seen it before, but I'm going to the Battlefield today to take some really good digi photos. The weather prediction is very good. Does the sign raise the hair on the back of your neck? Today, I'll carry a musket, but eventually, my impression is going to be George Simpson--I'll carry only a flag, have a bandage on my right temple, and dare you to take the flag from me. This is the first time I know where to look in the Natl Cem and whom to look for. I should be back in Gettysburg by 3p.m. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.87.93 (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

How does one request review for removal of this article from 'Start' and 'Stub' classes?--Donaldecoho (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)--Donaldecoho (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

This is generally a very good article and could easily meet B-class criteria[edit]

I'm going to go through the page, and possibly invite another editor to help. If I see one glaring omission at the moment, it's the lack of a section which discusses what happened to the regiment after Chancellorsville. If enlistments expired, did the unit disband, just as the Gettysburg campaign was beginning? Did members join the Veteran Reserve Corps? Often a military unit has a "legacy" section in which monuments, memorials and other notable mementos are outlined. This would well-accompany the "notable members" section.

This is fine work, especially coming from a relatively new editor. @User:Donaldecoho: Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if I can help you learn more about contributing on Wikipedia. I'd be happy to help. I'm sure others would likewise enjoy providing you more information about the project. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:King4057 and I have assessed the current version of the article as C-class. IMHO, we're only short a "mustered out" or "legacy" section. (See 29th Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry to look at a similar article in slightly better condition.) I'd move the monument information down to the legacy section to keep the history chronological. Other than those minor issues, this is almost B-class. Very impressive. BusterD (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added a draft of the 'Muster out and After' section and will continue to develop it. It is torture to consider separating the Antietam monument from the Battle of Antietam for correct chronology-the story of the retreat is inseparable from both the monument section and the Battle section.--Donaldecoho (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)