Talk:Third Battle of Chattanooga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennessee
Portal
Third Battle of Chattanooga is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member.
[Watch Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Template Usage]
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
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)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

Contents

[edit] Information all wrong

I'm not sure where the author got their information, but according to this site, the third (and final) battle of Chattanooga took place on November 23-25, 1863, as part of the Chattanooga-Ringgold Campaign:

  • Other Names: None
  • Location: Hamilton County and City of Chattanooga
  • Campaign: Chattanooga-Ringgold Campaign (1863)
  • Date(s): November 23-25, 1863
  • Principal Commanders: Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant [US]; Gen. Braxton Bragg [CS]
  • Forces Engaged: Military Division of the Mississippi [US]; Army of Tennessee [CS]
  • Estimated Casualties: 12,485 total (US 5,815; CS 6,670)
  • Description: From the last days of September through October 1863, Gen. Braxton Bragg’s army laid siege to the Union army under Maj. Gen. William Rosecrans at Chattanooga, cutting off its supplies. On October 17, Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant received command of the Western armies; he moved to reinforce Chattanooga and replaced Rosecrans with Maj. Gen. George Thomas. A new supply line was soon established. Maj. Gen. William T. Sherman arrived with his four divisions in mid-November, and the Federals began offensive operations. On November 23-24, Union forces struck out and captured Orchard Knob and Lookout Mountain. On November 25, Union soldiers assaulted and carried the seemingly impregnable Confederate position on Missionary Ridge. One of the Confederacy’s two major armies was routed. The Federals held Chattanooga, the “Gateway to the Lower South,” which became the supply and logistics base for Sherman’s 1864 Atlanta Campaign.
  • Result(s): Union victory
  • CWSAC Reference #: TN024 --brian0918™ 00:58, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I agree, the information is incorrect

I support what this previous editor has commented about: the information as it stands is incorrect. The battle primarily took place on November 23-25, 1863. I confirmed by looking in Battle Cry of Freedom by noted Civil War Historian, James McPherson, and on page 679 he gives a map outlining the battle with the dates (which, of course, are only between Nov 23 and 25th). ISBN#0-345-35942-9

[edit] Fixed

This should now be the correct description. It certainly needs more detail and one of those cute little battle boxes. big_hal 23:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minor inconsistency

In the text, at the end of the Nov. 23 section, it says "Bragg moved Walker's division (under Brig. Gen. Stares R. Gist) from Lookout Mountain to strengthen his right flank," but in the diagram, Walker is labeled on Bragg's left flank. I've no idea which is right, so I'm not going to try to "be bold" and fix one or the other, but I'd like to bring it to the attention of those who might have the resources to fix it. -- John Owens (talk) 2005 July 1 13:38 (UTC)

P.S. Flank references aren't like stage directions, where they seem rather opposite because it's from the audience's point of view not the actors', right? I'm pretty sure they aren't. -- John Owens (talk) 2005 July 1 13:40 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

I deleted those merger headers (which probably should have been in Talk pages anyway) because the BoLM page clearly points to BoCIII page as the Main article. This is essentially a REDIRECT (or could be replaced by a REDIRECT for all I care, but someone else created it). Hal Jespersen 15:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no need for a separate BoLM article, which is why I put the merger headers in. My suggestion would be to merge the BoLM article into the BoCIII article and replace the BoLM article by a redirect. As I understand it, that's what the merger headers actually mean. I don't see what the pointer on the BoLM article to the BoCIII article has to do with that. Whether or not that pointer is there, the BoLM article seems unnecessary to me. Hal, it looks like we basically agree on this one, but we prefer a somewhat different way to solve it. At any rate, the suggestion still stands. Anyone against merging BoLM into BoCIII and replacing BoLM by a redirect? ··· rWd · Talk ··· 10:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If you'll look at the source text for the Battle of Lookout Mountain article, you'll see that I recommended that very thing (redirect), but did not do it because someone else created the original article. Normally I do not mind stepping on peoples' toes, but for some reason I did not do it this time. :-) If you do it, I will not object. Hal Jespersen 17:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed your recommendation. In fact, that was one reason I put the merger headers in. Anyway, I replaced the BoLM article by a redirect here. Hopefully that hurt one's toes too badly. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 10:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nov 25th

I clarified the actions of the Union Army that day. Achilles2006 17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert. When an article has References listed and uses footnotes, it is the responsibility of editors to ensure that the contents of the article matches the references. If you believe the article is incorrect, you need to provide citations to explain deviations from those references. I think the article as written matches the references listed, so you need to add references and citations to make changes of this kind. About the one arguable statement is that Grant was "furious" because that expression is not used in the references. (Eicher says that he was bedazzled, whatever that means. An unlisted reference is Jean Edward Smith's biography of Grant, which says that he questioned Thomas "sharply.") And it is very sloppy to say "according to tradition" when you do not believe that a claim is true, unless you provide an accompanying citation for a source that says it is not. Hal Jespersen 18:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The only reference to Hooker's actions on the 25th is that he was "slowed" by burned bridges. When Hooker was in position to attack, his troops smashed the rebel left, & penetrated to a position behind their center. That was the decisive break in the battle, & made the AofC advance up the ridge easier because the rebel troops facing Hooker were running, & the defenders at the top of the ridge could see they were about to be surrounded. Catton & co, would rather perpetuate the myth, because Grant's plan fell to pieces, & they didn't want to give too much credit to Thomas & Hooker at his expense. Achilles2006 10:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not discussing the merits of the historical facts, about which I am generally neutral, I am saying that you need to have appropriate citations for any information you add that is not based on the references currently in the article. If the references listed say that A, B, and C are true, and you want to add D, you need to find a reference that says D, add it to the References section, and put in a footnote in the appropriate place pointing to it. If you believe that C is not true, you need to provide a reference that contradicts it, not cast aspersions to it or delete it. I will admit that in the older days of ACW editing on Wikipedia that many of the articles were grab bags of assertions and opinions contributed by numerous people, but I have recently been attempting to impose some discipline in the articles by listing references so that assertions can be verified. For brief articles with a small number of references that agree with each other, it has not been necessary to bother with footnotes. However, for larger numbers of references, where those references disagree, or where obviously controversial claims or opinions are being presented, specific footnotes need to be included. Hal Jespersen 15:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The dominant Civil War historians seem to conform to the John Ford view of history- "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend". I understand your points (legalistic though I think they are), & will look around. 198.8.3.36 22:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on Wikipedia. :-) Hal Jespersen 03:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor recipients

I have removed the list of Medal of Honor recipients. Mentioning these men in the context of what each did is legitimate, but simply having a bulleted list of names that are not mentioned elsewhere in the article is inappropriate. I would suggest that if you would like to tabulate medal winners, create an article called List of Medal of Honor recipients in the American Civil War and sort them by various ways, such as by battle, chronologically, etc. Hal Jespersen 20:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Like this? List of Medal of Honor recipients: Civil War A-L
—wwoods 00:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would have been better to have one sorted by battle, but this will do. You can put those into the See also section. Just so I am clear, I am perfectly comfortable mentioning individual medal recipients as long as their exploits are described as part of the flow of the article. For example, Little Round Top mentions that Chamberlain received a medal, but it describes why. Part of the consideration here is politically incorrect to say, but the criteria for giving the medals were different in the Civil War than currently. There were not lesser medals in existence at the time they could have been given. I will wager that a number of people on your list of 17 were put there for capturing a flag. Hal Jespersen 00:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Another way of formatting this would be to include a sentence in the Aftermath section that says "There were 17 medals of honor awarded to Union officers and men, including prominent-name, prominent-name,..." and put into the See also: List of Medal of Honor recipients in the American Civil War (which I just created). Hal Jespersen 00:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Union Army Size

I may be wrong, but didn't the Union have closer to 80,000 men at Chattanooga? Even according to the article, Sherman and Hooker each brought 20,000 men to Chattanooga, while the Army of the Cumberland, which was about 57,000 at the Battle of Chickamauga, suffered only about 16,000 casualties in the battle, leaving about 41,000 men in that army. Even assuming very significant Union desertion and illness rates in the Army of the Cumberland (and the first doesn't seem likely in a siege situation)that should leave the Union with about 70,000 men at least, a lot more than the article states.

It is surprisingly difficult to come up with numbers for this battle. When I worked on this article, it was before the days when we footnoted everything and I have frankly forgotten where those numbers came from. Checking a half dozen or so references in my library just now, I found only one with actual numbers:
  • Livermore, Thomas L., Numbers and Losses in the Civil War in America 1861-65, reprinted with errata, Morninside House, 1986, ISBN 0-527-57600-X.
Livermore comes up with his numbers primarily from the ORs and applies various formulae that differentiate 'present for duty' versus 'effectives'. His numbers for the Union are as follows. Present for duty in the IV, XI, XIV, XV, and XVII Corps and artillery reserves = 63,010. "Deduct 17 regiments" - 5,139. Effectives estimated at 93% = 53,820. Add 2,539 effectiveness in the 2nd Division, XII Corps, which was somehow omitted from the OR. "Total engaged" = 56,359.
I will add appropriate footnotes in the article. Hal Jespersen 22:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)



This is a different person but I need to have a list of people who died and the site or biography. Thank you I am doing a report and I need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.244.70.131 (talk) 14:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the "myth" of the charge up missionary ridge

I am trying to leave a question on the Chattanooga (missionary ridge) talk page. I have never done this before and I do not see where to leave the question. I even looked a the Wiki help material: "When you post a new comment, put it at the bottom of the talk page. The exception is that if you're responding to someone else's remarks, put your comment below theirs." Wha? Anyway, I am reading Grant's memoirs and also "Grant takes command" by Catton. Catton states clearly that it's a myth that Union the men charged up the hill without orders. On page 82 he describes how the officers on the field gave the orders. (although it's true that Grant did not order that the ridge be taken.) The wiki article repeats the myth as truth. I'm inclined to make the change. Any thoughts? Thanks. -Neil Ngitkind@aol.com "gopokey" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gopokey (talk • contribs) 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[Discussion moved from my personal talk page.] It is relatively simple. To start a discussion on a new topic, press the "+" tab at the top of the Talk page. To comment on an existing topic, use the [Edit] link for that topic itself. I think the "myth" referred to here is simply a matter of degree. I don't think anyone believes that just the privates took it upon themselves to dash up the hill. Officers had to be involved to a greater or lesser extent. Feel free to update the article to address Catton's reference. Do me a favor, however. This is one of those articles that has very few in-line citations (footnotes). When you add the material, please add the appropriate citations, even though the majority of the rest of the article hasn't been updated yet. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 15:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] union slant

It seems to me that this article has a certain Union slant. I'm not referring to any bias in the writing itself, but to the lack of any information regarding the Confederate movements, etc. I realize that there may be very few documents detailing such movements, but if anyone has any information (esp. primary sources) updating would be stellar. Thx. 74.132.62.250 (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

(Perhaps Union "focus" would be a more NPOV way of saying it.) This is certainly not one of our best battle articles and could use a general expansion in a number of ways, which we invite you to participate in if you would like. At the very vague level of detail presented here, most of the action needs to be described on the Union side because the battle was almost entirely a Union offensive. There were no big Confederate counterattacks, for example. That's the reason, for instance, that the Battle of Malvern Hill has a mostly Confederate focus. By the way, the Wikipedia policy on providing references prefers secondary sources to primary. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orchard Knob

I reverted a change on December 21 that said Thomas's attack on Orchard knob met heavy resistance. You will need a citation to go along with that claim. Check out this passage from http://ngeorgia.com/history/chat.html: "The Army of the Cumberland, the men who valiantly fought for Thomas at Chickamauga, took Orchard Knob on the 23rd of November, 1863, while the Union troops, fresh from battles in Mississippi and Virginia, watched. Lightly defended, the Knob was easily overrun as rebels holding positions on the hill fled on the advance of federal units." (Yes, I will admit that the references and citations in this article are very poor and will need to be improved.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lookout Mountain Section

I'm concerned also about some confusing accounts regarding the action on Nov. 24. It seems someone has made some changes that muddy things up. Before going to specific references, I thought I would just put this out for discussion. Currently the passage says: "The plan for November 24 was a two-pronged attack—Hooker against the Confederate left, Sherman the right. Hooker's three divisions struck at dawn at Lookout Mountain and found that the defile between the mountain and the river had not been secured. They barreled right through this opening; the assault ended around 3:00 p.m. when ammunition ran low and fog had enveloped the mountain. This action has been called the "Battle above the Clouds" because of that fog. Bragg withdrew his forces from the southern end of the mountain to a line behind Chattanooga Creek, burning the bridges behind him."

The way this is worded gets what happened at Missionary Ridge and the dates all mucked up with what happened at Lookout Mountain. Yes, Sherman had crossed the river and was advancing on the Confederate right on the Missionary Ridge line but had encountered Billy Goat Hill and was stalled. And I have no recollection of the Union Army "barreling through" any gap between the river and the mountain. Rather, the day was spent with Hooker's forces steadily working their way south along the foot of the mountain and gradually up the side as far as the Craven House (which was the Confederate headquarters, I believe.) The Union did not advance much further, but the Confederates withdrew from the summit that night (the account then does line up more clearly from that point on). It was only in the morning, after the weather had cleared overnight, that a detachment of volunteers used scaling ladders to cautiously make their way to the top of the bluffs at the crest and discovered the Confederates had abandoned the position.

There are accounts of the dramatic raising of the Union flag at the top that could be seen from all points below that began the third and final day of the battle and was a prelude to the Battle of Missionary Ridge. Esdawg (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)