|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- I would have started a translation of the more detailed german entry , but when I compared it with the external links Short biographical sketch and
- Text rewritten months ago. Hal Jespersen 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
No railroads west of the Mississippi in 1860?
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. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Missouri_railroads There may also have been railroads in other states across the Mississippi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Highest ranking Union casualty of the Civil War?
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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 08:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
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)