Jump to content

Talk:Harmar campaign

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger

[edit]

This is the first draft of a merger between Harmar's Defeat and Hardin's Defeat. It was decided in Talk:Hardin's Defeat that the two articles should be merged, and that the existing articles would become redirects to this page. There are some minor conflicts between the existing articles (check the dates, especially), so please do not alter the existing pages until everyone agrees that this article is ready to take the place of the original two. Mingusboodle (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

I think the article is a good read and has incorporated all the important points of the two articles. I think the article has turned out well too, it is much more informative to the reader on the chain of events then just the two articles on the battles, and since the topic is more encompassing, it provides a better title to allow a more comprehensive article to be wrote. I support going ahead and redirecting the other two articles. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the deed is done. Hardin's Defeat and Harmar's Defeat both redirect here, now. If anyone objects, well, I'm sorry, but this discussion has been going on for months. The original articles still exist in the histories of the redirects, if anyone wants them. Mingusboodle (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Harmar Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Harmar Campaign. 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:

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) 08:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Battle of the Pumpkin Fields" name appears to be erroneous

[edit]

Wikipedia's name for the action of October 21, the "Battle of the Pumpkin Fields", appears to be erroneous. This name seems to have been entered into Wikipedia in this 2006 edit, by an editor now long inactive. The cited source was this family history article, which in turn cited a 2003 personal blog. That 2003 blog entry appears to be no longer online, but the blogger repeated the story in this 2009 entry, saying that she once heard it from a historian.

I've yet to run across any reliable source using the term, and there appears to be no book references to the term that predate the Wikipedia entry. Since that time, the term has been used in a few books by incautious writers apparently using Wikipedia as a (presumably uncited) source. The "pumpkin" comparison does have a historical basis, but it was used by an American to describe a different battle, St. Clair's defeat the following year: "The freshly scalped heads [of our men] were reeking with smoke, and in the heavy morning frost looked like so many pumpkins..." (Sword, 1985, p. 186). I don't fault the original Wikipedia editor. Back in those days, people often used whatever they found on the internet as a source. Our job now is to weed out unreliable information so that future readers and writers who turn to Wikipedia will be better informed. Kevin1776 (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. There aren't many good sources for this campaign. Thanks for finding this, and thanks for cleaning up this article. Canute (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The most reliable accounts I think are Sword (1985) and Sugden (2000), which we haven't yet cited here. Another source is Leroy V. Eid, “'The Slaughter Was Reciprocal': Josiah Harmar's Two Defeats, 1790,” Northwest Ohio Quarterly 65 (spring 1993): 51–6, which unfortunately doesn't appear to be online, not even on JSTOR. I thought I might have a photocopy of that article somewhere, but I haven't located it. Kevin1776 (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also William Wells and the Struggle for the Old Northwest by Heath is good, as is George Ironstrack, “The Mihši-Maalhsa Wars—Part II” Kevin1776 (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into this. I have the Sword and Sugden books, as well as a few others, but I don't recall that the spend a lot of ink on Harmar's campaign, except as it sets the stage for the rest of the war. I think we can probably remove the "Pumpkin Fields" title anytime you're ready. Thanks! Canute (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another good source is "General Josiah Harmar's Campaign Reconsidered: How the Americans Lost the Battle of Kekionga," which is online here. Kevin1776 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Along similar lines, I'd like to rename the Battle of Heller's Corner section. I find this name here and there across the internet, but haven't yet found it in a reliable source. From what I can tell, Heller's Corner is a town started sometime after 1830. It is coincidentally near where the battle was, but "Heller's Corner" didn't exist in 1790. See Towns of Allen County, Indiana and The Battle of Kekiona.
Perhaps we'd be better off just naming the sub-sections by their date. Canute (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, I'm glad you're on top of this. I'm convinced this article should be renamed the "Battle of Kekionga," with the info about Harmar's campaign making up the "prelude" or "background" sections. In "Bigger than Little Bighorn: Nomenclature, Memory, and the Greatest Native American Victory over the United States" (Ohio Valley History, vol. 12 no. 2, 2012, p. 3-23), Conlin & Owens argued for that name change:

As tempting as it might be to recast “Harmar’s Defeat” as “Blue Jacket’s First Victory” and “St. Clair’s Defeat” as “Blue Jacket’s Second Victory” to give credit to the victor and remedy several centuries of anti-Native American historical writing, such a nomenclature would merely perpetuate the one-sidedness and ethnocentrism of previous names, not to mention its great-man-of-history focus. Instead, these battles should be named properly and objectively after geographic features—like the Battle of the Little Bighorn—rather than for any person or belligerent. Thus, “Harmar’s Defeat” would become the “Battle of Kekionga,” and “St. Clair’s Defeat” the "Battle of the Wabash Forks."

I don't think their "Battle of the Wabash Forks" name has caught on for St Clair's defeat -- historians seem to prefer "Battle of/on/at the Wabash" -- but "Battle of Kekionga" is arguably now standard. Kevin1776 (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the final battle of 22 October 1790 referred to as "Battle of Kekionga" in a couple of different sources. I think that's a legitimate name for that section, and could perhaps stand as a unique article if we can fill it out with a little more detail or maybe a good map. I don't think it's an appropriate name for 19 October since- from what I can tell- the battle occurred several miles away and closer to another village. If we want to create a new article, then, we'd have (from small to big) the Battle of Kekionga, which is part of the larger Harmar Campaign of 1790, which is part of the larger Northwest Indian War. Thoughts? Canute (talk) 14:26, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hartshorn

[edit]

I'm removing the entire section on Hartshorn's defeat on 20 October. Hartshorn was under Captain Armstrong when he was ambushed the day before, and he was later ambushed at the Siege of Fort Recovery. I suspect this info about an ambush on 20 October was confused with one of those two other events, especially since there are no citations. Canute (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, there was an actual so-called "Hartshorne's Defeat," but it was on May 12, 1790, along the Ohio River near modern Concord, Kentucky. Winkler briefly mentions it, and Sword has it marked on a map on p. 80, but apparently Sword doesn't mention it in the text. Just one more of the many minor skirmishes and attacks of the war. Kevin1776 (talk) 05:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting. Maybe that's what got confused in this article. In fairness to Wikipedia editors, there are a lot of bad sources out there for this campaign; I'm glad we're cleaning it up. The Winkler book only briefly mentions Hartshorne's Defeat but gives no other information on it, and I haven't yet found anything by looking up Concord, KY.
Asa Hartshorn seems to have been all over the place. I'd like to create a bio on him, but I haven't yet found enough info. Maybe I'll start a stub and see where it leads? Canute (talk) 13:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hartshorn's Defeat is mentioned in an archaeology paper by Ball State University, as an action against Ensign Philip Hartshorne. The paper also names the other actions as Pumpkin Fields and Heller's corner. No disrespect to the fine folks at Ball State, but I suspect they got that info from an older version of this article.Canute (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found one small excerpt from the National Archives:

On 30 May, Ens. Asa Hartshorne of the 1st United States Regiment reported that he and a small party had been attacked near Limestone; “in the afternoon, myself with five men went up to the place where we were attacked; we found one man, one woman, and three children, killed and scalped. . . . There are eight missing; the whole killed and missing is thirteen souls; they took none of the property but one horse” (ASP, Indian Affairs,description beginsWalter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61.description ends 1:91).

"Diary entry: 9 July 1790". Founders Online. Retrieved 10 December 2021.

Hartshorn signed the Treaty of Fort Harmar too? He might be the Zelig or Forrest Gump of this war, present at nearly every important event. I hope we can find enough info on him. Kevin1776 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harmar_campaign&oldid=1214064096"