Talk:John Sedgwick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


  • I would have started a translation of the more detailed german entry [1], but when I compared it with the external links Short biographical sketch and

Another short bio, I found it is simply a literal translation taken from there. So actually it is not a translation issue but more a question of copyright. - Olaf Fritz 17:54, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Text rewritten months ago. Hal Jespersen 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No railroads west of the Mississippi in 1860?[edit]

I'm quite sure this is inaccurate. There were railroads in Missouri, though they may well have not gone in helpful directions to supply Sedgwick's expedition. For example, see Wikipedia's page on railroads in Missouri. There may also have been railroads in other states across the Mississippi —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Highest ranking Union casualty of the Civil War?[edit]

I removed the statement that Major General John Sedgwick was "... was the highest ranking Union casualty of the Civil War." because I do not believe it accurate given that he was not the only Major General killed in action commanding a Corps. Major General John F. Reynolds was killed in action at Gettysburg commanding the I Corps.

As well Major General James B. McPherson was killed in action at Atlanta commanding the Union Army of the Tennessee. Given that McPherson's command of an army would be superior to that of a corps it would make him the 'Union casualty with the highest command upon death'. But not rank given all three men held that same rank upon death. BCV

Sedgwick outranked both Reynolds and McPherson by what the Army calls today "date of rank." There are many interesting incidents in the war of major generals gaining or losing commands (or bickering about them) based on this hierarchy. Hal Jespersen 14:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe to make the statement that Sedgwick is the highest ranking Union officer to die in the Civil War will need some source about 'date of rank' procedures during the Civil War. I interprete 'date of rank' to affect seniority but seniority does not denote a higher rank, because seniority based on 'date of rank' can be overruled. Major General Winfield Scott Hancock was recognized by Major General George G. Meade to have command of the Union army at Gettysburg before he arrived on the battlefield dispite the fact that other Major Generals present held 'date of rank' seniority at the time.

Even based off of 'date of rank' would make Sedgwick the 'Union Major General with the highest seniority upon death.' We need a reference source to justify the claim to a reader unfamiliar with date of rank procedures.

Your example of Hancock is one of the ones I referred to in my reply. In that case Meade had written permission from Henry Halleck and Lincoln to assign officers irrespective of rank or seniority and that caused friction between Hancock and Oliver O. Howard. Another example is Ambrose Burnside in the Overland Campaign.
If you don't agree with my rewording, please correct it instead of deleting it. Hal Jespersen 16:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The rewording does clarify the statement well, Thanks BCV

A more fundamental problem is that the use of the term "casualty" is easily misunderstood. Technically, a "casualty" is not a fatality, but a loss due to death, injury or capture, with "missing" being included in many records, since those who are missing are at least potentially KIA, WIA or POW. It would be more accurate and precise to state that Sedgwick was the most senior Union officer killed in action -- assuming, of course, that there were no more senior officer killed in action. After all, it isn't merely the date of promotion to a rank, but the date "effective from" specified in the promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Added "Dances with Wolves" piece into the legacy section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seattlehawk94 (talkcontribs) 18:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

repeatedly asked?[edit]

Did Grant repeatedly ask or reportedly ask "Is he really dead"? (Since "repeated" was used about a sentence or two before, I can see the word "repeatedly" being used by accident where "reportedly" was meant, but maybe repeatedly really was meant- only recourse to the reference/source will tell, I think.) Schissel | Sound the Note! 02:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly. (Why would we use the cautionary "reportedly" for such an innocuous question as "Is he really dead"?) Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Platte River[edit]

Concerning the statement "Sedgwick commanded an expedition to establish a new fort on the Platte River in what is now Colorado". The Platte River does not run in Colorado, only in Nebraska. So it must be one of it's tributaries, either North Platte River or South Platte River. Which was it? אביהו (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John Sedgwick. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)