Talk:Court-martial of Fitz John Porter

Justification

Why not merge this with the main article at Fitz John Porter? – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There's not much information there and so I started researching it in order to add a section. But while researching I experienced the "pulling on a thread" scenario and found more and more information -- enough to warrant its own article. I think the best comparison is Breaker Morant. This trial was as significant as an indicator of political, military, and social cultures and the divisions in those cultures as that one. It even impacts modern visitors to Manassas National Battlefield Park, since the work Porter did to try to clear his name was used by the park to restore the battlefield to its 1862 appearance five years ago.  –  The Frog (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Outline for Future Work

Adding links to relevant pages.

Error in composition

This article claims that Radical Republicans in the Hayes administration and the Arthur Administration opposed and debated the reinstatement of Porter. However, the Radical Republican page notes that this faction of the party existed until the end of reconstruction in 1877. Furthermore, by this time (1880s) the Republican Party was divided into the Half-Breeds and Stalwarts; not into the radicals, moderates, and conservatives as it was during the Civil War and Reconstruction, although members of those earlier factions were still around and active in politics. So would it be better to say "former Radical Republican ...?" It certainly would be more accurate and more consistent with other Wikipedia articles. RedJ 17 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If that's how the rest of Wikipedia is doing it, then we should go for it, but as I understand there never was a group that called themselves "radical" Republicans and it's a term that historians -- unsympathetic ones, at that -- invented. I used it only for clarity purposes, since objective historians should try to avoid the term. So make it whatever is clear. The Frog (talk) 19:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This entire article is incredibly biased, barely mentions the evidence (and it was overwhelming) of Porter's insubordination.98.215.210.156 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)daver

I concur. The first two paragraphs about the Battle of Second Manassas/Bull Run are a case in point. They are rather unfavorable to Pope ("panicked?" "poorly-worded telegrams?"), are not NPOV, and are largely without citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.150.235.189 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Farragut's cousin?

The article mentions that Porter was David Farragut's cousin. I believe that David Farragut, whose father was Spanish, was not related to the Porters, but after his (Farragut's) father's early death, he was taken in to live with David Porter, and was raised with Porter's son, David Dixon Porter (later also an Admiral). However, they were not blood relatives. If this is confirmed, the error should be corrected in the article.98.170.198.151 (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Farragut's cousin?

The article mentions that Porter was David Farragut's cousin. I believe that David Farragut, whose father was Spanish, was not related to the Porters, but after his (Farragut's) father's early death, he was taken in to live with David Porter, and was raised with Porter's son, David Dixon Porter (later also an Admiral). However, they were not blood relatives. If this is confirmed, the error should be corrected in the article.98.170.198.151 (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagarism?

Large parts of the article appear to be taken word for word from this New York Times peice, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/10/the-spectacular-rise-and-fall-of-fitz-john-porter/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 If this is the case is a re-write needed? Sorry i'm new to Wikipedia, but this seems like an issue. 203.19.70.102 (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Court-martial of Fitz John Porter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080329015836/http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/porter_fj.html to http://www.loc.gov/rr/mss/text/porter_fj.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fitz John Porter.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)