Talk:Battle of Gettysburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Gettysburg article.
Article policies
Good article Battle of Gettysburg has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
? edit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why does the summary box for the article not say that the battle was a Decisive Union victory?
A: The simple answer is that many historians disagree that it was decisive. The more complex answer is that attempting to summarize a controversial subject in a single word is difficult and misleading. The summary Union victory is 100% accurate. Attempting to judge decisiveness could only be handled in an accurate, NPOV summary as Decisive/Indecisive Union victory or Arguably decisive Union victory with a very lengthy footnote that lists the opinions of many different authors. Furthermore, since the Wikipedia article on decisive victory actually presents three different definitions for the term (decides the outcome of the war, decides the outcome of the campaign, or simple unambiguous victory), the footnote would have to explain which of the three versions of the term is being used. Trying to handle that all in the summary box is a disservice to the reader.
Q: Why do the casualty figures in the summary box disagree with the figures I am used to from other sources? They seem low, particularly for the Confederates.
A: As explained in the article subsection named Casualties, we are using a very recent source that has performed exhaustive scholarship on this subject—a lengthy book that is devoted entirely to strength and casualty figures, Busey and Martin's definitive 2005 work, Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg, 4th edition. We consider that this work supersedes previous works.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)
Martin Osterman (talk • contribs • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.


Archive
Archives
/Archive


Contents

[edit] Historical evaluation of Lee's Leadership

Mentioning the fact that Lee May or May not have been suffering from dysentery during the course of this battle is important. Several historians believe that this significantly impaired his leadership throughout the battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.140.104 (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lee's habit of giving generalized orders

Lee's habit? I would say it was more of a philosophy or at least call it a style, saying habit makes it sound as if Lee was careless when he instructed his subordinate. Ken E. Beck 14:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Jmlk17 10:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. Based on my review, I believe the article should continue to remain a GA. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

how many peolpe died in this war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.208.77.5 (talk) 14:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
in the American Civil War? I think it was something like 620,000...Mathwhiz 29 (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] incorrect claim for highest percentage losses

the 1st Minnesota Volunteer Infantry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Minnesota_Volunteer_Infantry

suffered BOTH the highest % losses in a single engagement in any battle, (a charge on day 2 - 215 out of 262 = 82.06%)

AND the highest aggregate % losses in any battle - they lost another 17 men, for a final tally of 232 lost from 262 starters during the course of the battle = 88.54%)

NOT the 26th North Carolina as claimed in the article - single engagement = 74.73% - aggregate tally = 81.88%


B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.170.140 (talk) 08:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The Busey & Martin reference that's in the footnote reports (p. 129) that the 1st Minn had an engaged strength of 330 for the battle, so its overall loss of 224 was 67.9%. The 262 who were in the famous charge on July 2 (p. 39) suffered a higher loss for that portion of the regiment during the 3-day battle, but that's not what the article's sentence about the 26th NC is addressing. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference Hal, I'll have to see if i can find a copy locally (Australia), as an aside the detatched companies suffered 5 additional causalties at Gettysburg, bringing the total to 237, still not as heavy losses as the 26th NC; - fighting on, despite dreadful losses, seems to have been common theme at Gettysburg.

B

Another interesting tidbit from B&M p. 392: When you consider total losses, including captured, the 1st MN comes in 16th on the Union side! The 25th OH, with 83.6%, had the highest % loss. 1 MN was the 7th highest killed by number, 3rd by %, 6th by wounded #, 2nd by wounded %. (p. 398). This is a great book, although dry as dust. I got it direct from the publisher, Longstreet House. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decisive Victory

Wikipedia's definition of a decisive victory: "A decisive victory is an indisputable military victory of a battle that determines or significantly influences the ultimate result of a conflict." Given the pivotal nature of this battle in the course of the civil war, this battle should be listed as a decisive Union victory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.158 (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have addressed this many times. See User:Hlj/Why#Adjectives. It is inappropriate to put arguable claims in the battle box summary. Although some claim that Gettysburg had a decisive influence on the outcome of the war, others--Gary Gallagher is one prominent historian I can think of--claim it did not. Although it would be possible to have a footnote that gave the various views, it would be better to address such differences in the main text of the article and leave the box with an entry everyone agrees on: Union victory. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. "Decisive" would be a crushing defeat, one that permanently destroys one side of the conflict (i.e. Battle of Berlin in World War Two). Don't get me wrong: Gettysburg was a crushing defeat for the Confederacy, as they were never able to attain the same militaristic heights at pre-July 1863, but they were still able to wage a bloody war for another 21 months. Jmlk17 23:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it took this long to get back to you. I read your entry on why you think Gettysburg was not a decisive victory, but I'm still unconvinced. You mention some battles, like Gettysburg, are considered turning points in the war, but that you consider the use of turning points as decisive victories as POV. The use of turning points as decisive victories, however, is used over and over in Wikipedialand: see the battle of Stalingrad, the battle of the Marne, etc. In both these instances, the war bloodily dragged on for several more years, but ultimate victory eventually occurred. Using your definition, only battles that utterly and unequivocally destroy the one side and his ability to resist (i.e. the aforementioned battle of Berlin) would count as decisive victories. This, I believe, is an inappropriately narrow view in respect to Gettysburg's true significance, and the fact that several historians disagree does not cancel out the overwhelming majority who believe that Gettysburg was a turning point. At the very least, a link should be provided on the main page to the page describing the views of both sides (the page whose link you helpfully provided on your user page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
No need for an apology, the page has been like this for years, so I'm not in a hurry. I claim no responsibility for the information boxes in the battle articles for other wars. I do try to maintain some degree of commonality across the major Civil War battle articles. Do not confuse the notion of a turning point with a decisive battle, because they are not always one and the same. If you look at the article Turning point of the American Civil War, you can see that there are a variety of opinions among scholars. However, only a few of these would be considered "decisive" battles. (For instance, the reelection of Lincoln in 1864.) Fortunately, the information box does not have a space with a checkmark for turning point, so we do not have to deal with that controversy in a single phrase. I am perfectly willing to see a paragraph in the text of the article that describes the controversy over decisiveness, although I have never written one myself. To do so, I would need to include something like "Historians A, B, and C have described the battle as decisive [insert reasons], but historians D and E disagree [reasons]." The problem is that I am very familiar with the arguments of D and E, but don't know of any really prominent modern historians who are willing to be in the first category. If you have some citations, pass them along. A problem is that the definition for "decisive" varies and is often used as a synonym for "one-sided" or "impressive." Also, they might make a statement such as "after Gettysburg, Lee never invaded the north again," but I have rarely heard arguments that indicated the result of the battle was a direct influence on that. (Perhaps he would have invaded again if Grant had not been hammering on him in 1864, but then you could argue that the appointment of Grant was decisive, not the battle.) Certainly Gettysburg was the decisive battle in the Gettysburg campaign, but whether it was decisive in the war is quite arguable. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. If a article regarding the discussion over whether or not the battle was decisive is added to the main page I will consider this matter closed. I also believe that said article would forestall any more nagging editing page statements (like mine). I believe that you (Hal) would be the best candidate for writing it, given the superior quality of most of your articles, but I will write it myself if you are too busy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe Hlj is correct here in his agreeing with most of the historical assessments this battle that have spawned over the years. As the Turning Point page states there is much disagreement here, but it is widely contended that the combination of Gettysburg and Vicksburg changed the war in the east for good. Had Gen. Meade produced a more vigorous pursuit and got at Lee's army with a swollen river behind it (and did great damage to it), then the campaign would easily be classified as "decisive". I think the battle and it's effects are most accurate as described here, however I believe the case for decisive or not should be included, with cites, briefly in the Aftermath section. Perhaps including another link to the the Turning Points page there too, since a lot of ground is covered between the intro and that section. Just my two cents. Kresock (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, as I implied, I am willing to do the writing if people will give me some citations of historians who make a case for a decisive victory, i.e., a direct effect on the end of the war. Since the historians I can cite on the other side are prominent scholars, please limit your citations to such folks. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll get some sources, but obviously this will take some time. Also, are we restricting our sources to prominent historians, or do papers and documents of record count (for example, the encyclopedia britannica lists Gettysburg as a decisive victory)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I have some historians who assert that Gettysburg was a decisive victory: Andre Collins and James Gross (Gettysburg) Lee O'Brien (Don't have his book yet, get back to you). I'll continue finding others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Gallagher himself also helpfully points out some historians who disagree with him: he cites James M. McPherson and Emory Thomas. I think I have 5 historians, is that enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.66.185 (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked for citations, not names. I haven't heard of 4 of the people you name and I have read quite a lot on Gettysburg. As for McPherson, the record is mixed. He does say in Battle Cry of Freedom that the combination of Vicksburg and Gettysburg was decisive (so how would that go into the infobox? "Half-decisive Union victory"? :-) But in Crossroads of Freedom, he makes a strong case for Antietam as the true turning point of the war. See what I mean about "arguable"? (I'll now type four tildas to sign my name.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the problem here is that the term "decisive victory" is being used in two senses. The first and most obvious being an overwhelming victory, and the other a pivotal strategic victory. Would it be appropriate to add a new term "pivotal victory" or something to that effect to describe battles that were not overwhelming but were particularly significant? Geeman (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Decisive, huh? What did it decide? If I recall, Lee later sent Early on an invasion that reached the outskirts of Washington. If Wallace hadn't sacrificed his command in a hopeless battle, Early may very well have made it. As to the comment directly above. I'm in agreement with you on the misunderstanding here, but I am loathe to introduce a neologism even for a battle as historic and analyzed as this one was. Mstuczynski (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I concede the point: Gettysburg was not a decisive victory. After searching the net and several books (I even went to the library) I am forced to acknowledge historical consensus. I believe, however, that a few sentences could be added to the "Confederate Retreat" section, describing how the battle might have been decisive had Meade aggressively pursued Lee after Gettysburg. Perhaps the historical assessment could also be added to, describing criticism of Meade's actions immediately following Gettysburg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.67.14 (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. The problem with part of your suggestion is that we don't include speculation about what might have happened if history turned out differently. It would certainly have to be in the context of quoting historians (pr participants, I guess) about the speculation. Almost all of the what-ifs commonly discussed about the battle turn out to be Confederate-leaning, actually. What if Jackson were there? What if Lee had listened to Longstreet? What if Longstreet had attacked earlier on July 2 or 3? Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Battle of Gettysburg was a defeat the Confederacy was unable to recover from. Due to the defeat, they lost any hope of support from any European empire, and they would never be able to pull off anything the same again. It is also considered the wars turning point, and therefore I believe it should be labeled as a decisive victory. Compare it to the Battle of Waterloo. That wasn't the last battle of the war, but it was certainly the final straw. (Trip Johnson (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC))
They recovered sufficiently to start an offensive and flank Meade out of his Rapdian line three months later, causing him to retreat to Bristoe Station. This was done, mind you, while Longstreet was away with his corps helping to win the Battle of Chickamauga. A crippling defeat of the Army of the Cumberland, but by no means decisive. There is little evidence, save for speculation, that Great Britain had any intention of ever intervening on the Confederacy's behalf, Russia was clearly on the Union's side, and Napoleon III of France was not going to get involved without Great Britain (that was the main point of his foreign policy). And the Waterloo Campaign was certainly the last campaign of the Napoleonic Wars, what followed was merely the pursuit. Mstuczynski (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please reread the discussion above. The decision about the war's turning point is not agreed by historians--and those who do use the term almost always link it with Vicksburg--and is not directly related to the use of 'decisive' in any event. Please try to get a consensus of secondary sources and Wikipedia editors together before changing the infobox summary. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I never said the Waterloo Campaign was not the final campaign. If you read carefully, I said that it was not the last BATTLE of the Napoleonic Wars. Compare it to Naseby aswell. By far not the last battle of the English Civil War, but definitely the final straw (Trip Johnson (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
Yes, my point was Gettysburg was not even close to the last campaign. Bristoe, Mine Run, Overland, Petersburg and Appomattox that's five more; very close to two years of further warfare. After Gettysburg both armies returned to almost exactly the same positions they had occupied before the start of the campaign. Something that is decisive decides something. How can you say that that decided anything? After the Waterloo campaign, Wellington and Blucher occupied Paris and Napoleon was on an English ship headed for the South Atlantic. I would call that pretty decisive. Incidentally, Napoleon's restoration lasted "100 days", not even 100 days after Gettysburg Lee was on the offensive again. Mstuczynski (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The setback at Gettysburg did not ensure the destruction of the Confederacy. Rather the South still had a few chances left to reorganize and achieve independence. Following Lee's defeat the army of Northern Virgina retreated back towards the potomac river and was not pursued by Mead's army. This allowed the South time to reorganize their strategy. If the South had avoided major engagements with the Union army and fought small defensive battles, the unpopularity of Lincoln would have reached a critical point in the North. If the South could maintian this strategy of obstruction by withdrawing evertime the Union began an offensive (but retreat slowely, and skirmish with the enemy), Lincoln would have lost the election of 1864. With his electoral defeat, "little Mac" would have made peace with the confederacy. It is important to note that even with the defeats at Vicksburgn and Gettysburg the Confederacy still had strong armies left in the feild. The army of Northern Virgina would rebuild to 64,000 strong by the beginning of the overland campaign. The army of Tenn still held a strength of between 40-50,000. These forces would be enough to delay a Union drive on Atlanta or Richmond before the 1864 election. Assuming President Davis does not interfer with the strategy, Lincolns defeat is very likely, ensuring Confederate survival. The South still had a reservoir of skilled generals and with the exception of Grant or Sherman could outmatch any union general. Any policy of obstruction and a gradual retreat, would inflict huge looses on the north. If the South had begun to conscipt blacks (for service in the army) in 1863 a fresh manpower reserve of over 1 million eligable males could be taped. Such numbers could rebuild the looses at Gettysburg and Vickburg. Also with the increased strength of defensive warfare (use of trenches and forts) the South could hold the Union off. Other measures would still need to be taken. Plantation farms would have to be seize and converted into food production. If the South emplemented this option quickly the burden of the Confederate commissary would be have been relieved. The average Southern soldier would therefor not starve to death and moral would increase

The Confederacy also had a rare oppurtunity at the seige of Chattanooga. If Braxton Bragg had been replaced and General Longsteet promoted to command the army of the Tennessee the disaster at Missionary Ridge could have been prevented. Longstreet would conduct a tightning siege effort, which would force Grant to assault impressively defended positions. The reason why this did not work for Bragg was because he feuded with his generals and got Longstreets troops detached, greatly weakening the army. With Longstreet in command the impregnability of the confederate defenses would be assured and the army of the Cumberland would starve to death. Such a disaster would prevent Shermans march into Georgia, saving Atlanta. The victory would even open up a Confederate route into Kentucky. Despite these final hopes the South ruined any chance of victory. But with a strategy of obstruction, black recruitment, and converted farms and better command the South could have reversed a grim military situation and win politically against Lincoln. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.154.117 (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here

[edit] Reb casualties understated.

The casualty figures for the CSA at the Battle of Gettysburg are understated in this article's box by about 5,000. The more commonly cited rebel casualties at Gettysburg were around 28,000. This article represents a minority viewpoint on the CSA casualties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.96.1 (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)AaronCBurke (talkAaronCBurke (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)• contribs) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is based on the most recent scholarship available:
  • Busey, John W., and Martin, David G., Regimental Strengths and Losses at Gettysburg, 4th Ed., Longstreet House, 2005, ISBN 0-944413-67-6.
as explained in the Casualties section. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Busey and Martin's book may be well-documented, and fairly recent, but does that mean it trumps previous works? AaronCBurke (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)