Jump to content

Talk:Siege of Petersburg

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

New version

[edit]

I have done a substantial rewrite and added a number of maps. The article is now in approximately the same format as many of the other campaign articles, although I have retained the battle box, which is not all that useful for a campaign, but what the heck. The article still needs work to be a higher-quality vehicle because it is mostly derived from the National Park Service battle descriptions and has little additional context, such as life in the trenches, the political environment running up to the election of 1864, and any indication of what was going on elsewhere in the war at that time. I will be making improvements over time, unless someone would like to beat me to it. (People looking for ideas for work could start filling out some of the empty battle articles that display as red.) Hal Jespersen 22:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead soldier picture caption accurate?

[edit]

In the picture of the dead soldier, the caption reads that he was a Confederate soldier who was killed during the Union assault. His uniform (particularly his hat) seems to be Confederate, but he is well clothed (more like a Union soldier) and his pouch on his right side (obscured in the picture by his body) bears U.S. insignia. Is the caption correct? Srajan01 (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the caption the Library of Congress uses. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Frassanito's work on the photographic documentation of Petersburg, he states that this soldier was indeed a Confederate soldier. We must remember that the Confederates used whatever equipment was available to them, and a lot of Union equipment was used by the Confederates. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also add some doubt into this presentation. I have seen captions (of the soldiers sitting in the trenches) as soldiers that were a part of the Sixth Corps attack on Fredricksburg, during the Chancellorsville campaign. This certainly needs to be researched some more. Joe Colflesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.144.104.65 (talk) 15:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

expansion, April-May 2009

[edit]

I have started to reorganize and expand this article, using the more recent campaign style and providing footnotes. Currently all of the battle descriptions are essentially copied from the National Park Service American Battlefield Protection Program website, which is public domain. I will be re-writing all of these to remove the plagiarism and expand the content significantly, both here and in the individual battle article. I expect this will take at least until mid-May 2009. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I obviously underestimated the work involved here. At the rate I am progressing, it will probably be late June. :-( Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another update: well, this is pretty embarrassing as it is now November and there are still seven battles within the campaign that are not up to snuff. I have taken a break from this article and am working on another campaign article. I will return as soon as possible. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced incorrect photo

[edit]
previous photo

Nota: file now renamed to File:Union soldiers entrenched along the west bank of the Rappahannock River at Fredericksburg, Virginia (111-B-157).jpg. --Martin H. (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the photo in the information box. The one here previously, shown on the right, was misidentified by the National Archives, as shown in the File description I updated. (Click on the photo to see the updated description.) The new photograph in the box is another one of the Dictator siege mortar. If someone else has a superior photograph for this location, please feel free to edit responsibly. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you still haven't provided the reason for that photo being "wrong"--Valkyrie Red (talk) 12:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read the third sentence above (starting with "(Click..."). Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

warning boxes

[edit]

Two warning boxes were added to the article today. Please provide detailed information on the changes recommended to correct the supposed problems. Unless such additional guidance is provided, these boxes will be removed on May 15. Regarding {{Story}}, this is a narrative historical article, so the source of the objection is unclear. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no explanations have been offered in 10+ days, I have removed the boxes. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the Battle of the Crater

[edit]

It's clear from the text that the Battle of the Crater occurred on July 30 but the map and the caption on the map both read June 30. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblehelper (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

[edit]

The article African Americans at the Siege of Petersburg is unnecessary given the prominent role African Americans played during the siege. Mitchumch (talk) 15:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mitchumch, I just ran across your proposal and I am a bit confused about your reasoning. Why does their prominent role mean they should not have a separate article? Since their involvement was so large, it makes sense to me to have a separate article since trying to include all that information in the main article might make it overly long. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Howicus If their role was that prominent, then by consequence their presence within the Siege of Petersburg article would be completely covered. Is there content in the African Americans at the Siege of Petersburg article that is not covered in the Siege of Petersburg article? Mitchumch (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would say there is, Mitchumch, at least at this point. The African Americans at the Siege of Petersburg article includes more background on African-Americans in the battle, talks about the African-American XXV Corps, and gives more info on the roles of African-Americans on both sides. I would not be opposed to merging that information into the main article, perhaps as a section; some of the information is quite general and perhaps outside of the scope of an article focusing on a single battle. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 16:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An aspect section sounds good. I'm not opposed to a separate article. I simply don't think the content in the African Americans at the Siege of Petersburg article is sufficient to warrant a separate article at this point in time. In other words, it doesn't satisfy the conditions stipulated in WP:WHENSPLIT. Mitchumch (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point Mitchumch, I'd support such a merge. That and the fact that the African Americans article is mostly based off of a single source at present. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Petersburg. 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) 00:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign dates

[edit]

If we're using the NPS classification, as explained at Siege of Petersburg#Classifying the campaigns, then shouldn't it end on March 25, 1865 with the Battle of Fort Stedman? Or at the very least, before the Battle of Lewis's Farm on March 29, 1865, which is part of the Appomattox campaign according to the NPS? –CWenger (^ • @) 04:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 September 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Invinciblewalnut (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Petersburg → Richmond–Petersburg Campaign – This article is really about the campaign, which according to the National Park Service stops a few days before the siege ends (in the beginning of the Appomattox Campaign). So naming it after the siege becomes very confusing, when that is just the central feature of the campaign. I am indifferent as to whether campaign should be capitalized; it is in some Civil War campaign articles and not in others. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Petersburg Campaign would work too. I was just going with the name used by the NPS, and currently used in the article. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the capitalization of "Campaign", unless Nom can show that sources overwhelmingly cap that. Most campaigns are not capped. Same goes for both original proposal and AjaxSmack's. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's fairly mixed in reliable sources. I was mostly basing the capitalization on the article Overland Campaign, although I see now that most other Civil War campaign articles use a lowercase 'c'. Can you clarify your position on a move to Richmond–Petersburg campaign or Petersburg campaign? –CWenger (^ • @) 13:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "fairly mixed in sources" means we use lowercase, per WP:NCCAPS policy. I think Petersburg campaign would be good. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's easy to find a more common title when you're not limited by what the article is actually about. –CWenger (^ • @) 04:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what does easy to find a more common title when you're not limited by what the article is actually about actually mean? I don't see many publications or third party sources refer to this specific operation as the "Richmond–Petersburg Campaign" aside from the National Park Service you cited which again, conflicts with WP:COMMONNAME as only one publication refers to the Siege as such. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine we had an article about the Gettysburg campaign, but none about the Battle of Gettysburg. We wouldn't rename the Gettysburg campaign article to Battle of Gettysburg just because it's the more common name, because that's not what the article is really about. That's essentially what is going on here. As evidence of this is the fact that the end of the siege is barely even mentioned in this article; it's only described briefly in the Aftermath section. Richmond–Petersburg campaign is the official NPS name but as I mentioned I am fine with Petersburg campaign. A Google Books search shows many results using those names. –CWenger (^ • @) 05:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Gettysburg campaign were a series of notable battles that were basically one giant battle split into several smaller ones. Even if your were true, the Richmond–Petersburg campaign would be a far less commonly known title regardless if its historically accurate. It's like renaming the Battle of Fredericksburg to the Fredericksburg Campaign as its a also a series of battles, albeit in a smaller scale. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously no analogy is perfect, but what if the Battle of Fredericksburg ended after the conclusion of the Fredericksburg campaign? The ideal solution would be a separate article about the siege. But barring that I think the historically accurate title is appropriate. Siege of Petersburg would still redirect unless there is a separate article. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit to Union order of battle

[edit]

The Union X Corps listed in the section Opposing forces reported Alfred Terry commanding. Later in the article, Quincy Adams Gillmore was referred to as the corps' commander - thereby creating an inconsistency in the article. Terry is also referred to as a divisional commander elsewhere and David B. Birney as commanding X Corps. Gillmore was transferred to Washington and replaced by Birney July 23, 1864 (see article David B. Birney). Birney was given sick leave (about 7 October) and returned home and died on 18 October from dysentery/gastroenteritis (also from article David B. Birney). Terry was a divisional commander under Birney (see Second Battle of Deep Bottom order of battle: Union). With Briney's death, Terry was given command of the corps (see Alfred Terry).

I have made this edit to resolve these inconsistencies but I am not happy with the provenance of the information. When Terry assumed command is also a grey area. The edit implies 18 October but this was probably earlier as a temporary command that became permanent some time after Briney's death. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: - Volume I of Frank J. Welcher's The Union Army: Organization and Operations, 1861-1865 has a history of X Corps. Page 455 lists the commands of X Corps as Terry from 4/22/1864 to 5/4/1864. Gillmore was then in command from 5/4/1864 to 6/15/1864, after which Terry took command until 6/18/1864. Welcher then has William T. H. Brooks in command from 6/18/1864 to 7/18/1864 (our article on Brooks does not mention this, nor does Warner's Generals in Blue) and then Terry was back in command until 7/23/1864. This was followed by Birney (Welcher has Birney's final day as 10/10/1864), after which Terry command until 11/4/1864. You then have Adelbert Ames for two weeks until Terry resumed command on 11/18/1864. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hog Farm. I will look at the text a bit closer but I think the article here mentions Gillmore, Birney and possibly Terry as commanding. I think I can amend my edit to the OOB section to give the dates of command for these three commanders as ranges with gaps on the basis they were "substantive" as opposed to the gaps being temporarily filled. I can cite Welcher. I might ping you with the result of my edit. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hog Farm. Pls see this edit. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! I'm about 70% of the way through reading Welcher's volume II on the Western theater, and have largely determined that Welcher is good as a reference work, not so good for reading cover to cover. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor's Branch

[edit]

Hi Hog Farm. this edit is trying to make sense of the reference to Taylor's Branch. The edit is my best detective work since I haven't been able to locate anything specific. Could you please cast your eye over this to make sure I haven't got this horribly wrong. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm away from my books but will research this when I get back later this week. Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Gordon Rhea's On to Petersburg cuts off at June 15. The best I can find in my library so far is from Ed Bearss's Fields of Honor pp. 340-341, describing a new Confederate line after Burnside's attack: Under cover of darkness on June 17-18, the Confederates abandon their temporary line behind Harrison's Bed, and fall back to the new line anchored on Battery Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and extending southward to Colquitt's Salient and beyond to Rives's Salient. This new line is fronted by Taylor's Branch from Rives's Salient to the Hare House. I suspect that this is probably the same as the "Taylor's Creek" mentioned by the NPS here. Hog Farm Talk 19:08, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second Reams Station (August 25)

[edit]

Hi Hog Farm (and any body else that can help). The subject section mentions the II Corps infantry division commanded by Brigadier General Nelson A. Miles but the Opposing forces section gives divisions of Maj. Gens. David B. Birney and John Gibbon and Brig. Gen. Francis C. Barlow. I looked at Nelson A. Miles and Francis C. Barlow and II Corps (Union Army). These seem to reinforce that the mention of Miles as a division commander is an anomaly. If not incorrect, it appears to be in need of explanation - and perhaps other edits for consistency across the article.

Regarding divisions of Maj. Gens. David B. Birney and John Gibbon and Brig. Gen. Francis C. Barlow [emphasis added], I know that Birney was appointed commander X Corps. Are the two ands in the passage meant to imply that Gibbon took command of Birney's division following Birney's appointment to X Corps. Was II Corps a two division corps at this time? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: - From Vol. 1 of Welcher again. Going through pp. 332-335, in July and August 1864, II Corps had three divisions. These were originally commanded by Barlow, Gibbon, and Birney. When Birney was assigned to command of X Corps on July 23, command of his division went to Gershom Mott. Barlow was intermittently on leave throughout July and August (Welcher just says sick but our article on Barlow implies this is related to his nasty Gettysburg wound), and Miles commanded the division in the absence of Barlow. Page 334 of Welcher has the following leadership information for 1st Division of II Corps: Francis C. Barlow, to August 17, 1864, sick Nelson A. Miles, to August 23, 1864, Francis C. Barlow, to August 24, 1864, sick Nelson A. Miles so Miles was in command of the division on August 25. I think the order of battle is presenting the organization as of the outset of the campaign, which is why it is not mentioned that Birney left divisional command. What's in the article is essentially right; that's just the problem with having an orbat for only a specific point in time for a lengthy, complex series of operations. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Hog Farm. I can now resolve this by stating that Miles was temporarily in command of Barlow's division. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beefsteak Raid

[edit]

Another one please Hog Farm (or any one else). This article gives the time of the attack as 12 am 16 September. Presumably this is 0000hrs 16 September? It then referrs to 8 am as the nominal end of the attack. The article Beefsteak Raid gives the attack start as 5 am. Neither gives a source. Unless there is a source to clarify the attack, it might best omit specific times (and the date?) or to be more general (ie the early morning of 16 September). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinderella157: - Welcher vol. 1 p. 874 supports the ending time of 8 am, but does not provide a specific beginning time beyond "morning". Starr's The Union Cavalry in the Civil War vol. 2 p. 404 gives 5 am as when Rosser attacked the Union camp but does not give a specific ending time beyond stating that the Confederates were on their way back by sunrise. Cisco's Wade Hampton: Confederate Warrior, Conservative Statesman p. 143 has the 8 am ending time, although I'd be a little hesistant to cite that book as this review calls it a hagiography that follows the Dunning School and the fact that top words of praise on the physical back cover of the book is from Southern Partisan also seems a bit concerning. I personally would leave the times out as not really necessary detail for this high-level article, but 5 am and 8 am can be supported in the academic literature. Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Siege_of_Petersburg&oldid=1256288859"