Talk:Daniel Sickles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

I merged two articles and deleted one. Its talk page had the following:

I apologize for my unfamiliarity with this process, but I was interested in further information, and found these related websites: (input by 12.222.7.23 (User:Mksmith)

http://www.medalofhonor.com/DanielSickles.htm http://www.civilwarhome.com/sicklesbio.htm http://www.ehistory.com/uscw/features/people/bio.cfm?PID=66

Thanks, Lou I 09:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Date of birth

Why did the date of birth change from 1825 to 1819??? Because Find-A-Grave gives it 1825. Lincher 03:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keneally's American Scoundrel says 1819. So does Tagg's Generals of Gettysburg. And Congress: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/bibdisplay.pl?index=S000402. And Arlington: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/dsickles.htm Hal Jespersen 15:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teresa's Affair

I had always heard that it was not "blatantly public" at all - do we have sources for this?--TurabianNights 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a footnote. I don't think it is necessary to go into the details of the affair in the article, but it was well-known to their acquaintances and Key would publicly signal Teresa from Lafayette Park by waving a handkerchief. I would call that reasonably blatant. Hal Jespersen 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall, and I once did a lot of research on Sickles, the handkerchief waving incident occurred only once--on the day of Key's murder. In fact, Sickles saw Key waving the handkerchief and ran out and shot him. The murder itself is better described in the Wikipedia entry for Teresa Bagioli Sickles. The "blatantly public" aspect of the affair was that Key and Teresa were frequently seen alone together in society by mutual friends. But this was with Sickles' knowledge. Sickles was neglectful of his wife and grateful that Barton Key took an interest in her, although Key had told Sickles that he thought of Teresa as a daughter. During their affair, Barton Key and Teresa met for sex in a house on 15th Street. Apparently all the neighbors were aware that two "society" people, a man and a women, arrived separately and used the house for their romantic meetings. In this respect, it was blatantly public--to the neighbors of the house in that poor mostly black neighborhood. Rob043055 15:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make improvements to the article, but please cite secondary sources (not your recollections of research) for your claims. The article needs more footnotes anyway. Hal Jespersen 16:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Newt Gingrich's Grant Comes East

In the alternate history novel Grant Comes East, Newt Gingrich and Willaim R. Forstchen do a great hatchet job on Sickles, portraying him as a tool of Tammany Hall. Any truth to that? In the Gingrich/Forstchen universe, the South won at Gettysburg, but it didn't prove to be the end of the Civil War, and in fact, Ulysses S. Grant is called east to take command of the newly-formed Army of the Susquehannah to fight Lee. Sickles, who was not wounded at Gettysburg, violently puts down riots in New York City in order to show the elite of New York that he is their hero, and uses Tammany Hall to push for his being made Commander of the decimated Army of the Potomac, so that he can wrest control of the army from Grant, become a hero, and become elected President in 1864. It's important to remember, though, that Sickles and Tammany were Democrats, after all, and we know Newt's feelings for Democrats. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read all three books of the trilogy and found them greatly entertaining. As to your question, I think many New York politicians of the era were in bed with Tammany Hall and we know from real history that Sickles was a pretty slippery character, so I think the authors took a reasonable leap of imagination. Hal Jespersen 00:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)