Talk:Turning point of the American Civil War
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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] Overland Campaign?
Discuss impending edit to the page: I will clean up Gary123's entry on Chattanooga, but delete his other about Grant's Overland Campaign. The OC, which lasted from May-June 84, not 84-85, was essentially an inconclusive series of battles. It led to the Siege of Petersburg--true--but there was almost another year of siege to go and more influential events (Atlanta) would happen while Grant and Lee were stalemated. If his point is that Grant had a strategy of attrition and this was the turning point, you could make the argument that his appointment as general-in-chief was the TP.
The point I made in writing this page is to look at inevitable forces. The OC was not one of them. Without other things happening, the Siege of Petersburg might have simply dragged on long enough for the North to get sick of matters and give up. Hal Jespersen 13:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Atlanta
I removed the comment that Atlanta was the South's largest city. The 1860 census shows Richmond at 37,910 people and Atlanta at only 9,554. By 1870, Richmond totaled 51,038 people with Atlanta still trailing at 21,789. Atlanta was an important rail center, but trailed a number of Southern cities in population throughout the war.
New Orleans was the CSA's largest city. Cameron Nedland 02:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Scott Mingus 12:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Historians
I think this page has become too much personal pov, it is influebnced by what the authors consider decisive battles and not reputable historians. For example one of the most famous military historians from a purely military point of view makes a compeeling case on why Chattanooga was the decisive battle fo the Civil War, but that section was completely removed. Another problem is that some battles are included for changing the "nature of the war" while others are excluded becasue they did not make union victory inevitable. there ought to be a strict gudeline on what battles are included and excluded and reputable historians should be behind each battle listed.--Gary123 23:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I added a References sections, which was neglected in my early days of Wikipedianism. I believe the algorithm for inclusion is explained in the article. Chattanooga was added by someone to the original article, but since I recall no mention of the works of "one of the most famous military historians" in the edit, it carried little weight beyond "one of my favorite battles," which others have used implicitly in proposing changes. The reason I don't think it's a TP is that it should be subsumed by the logically following Atlanta Campaign. (I didn't originally include Atlanta either because it ought to be subsumed by the 1864 Election, but didn't feel like fighting that one.) The reason "nature of the war" is a legitimate issue is that each change caused more of the Union's unique advantages (all-out determination to win with superior manpower and economy, emancipation as a goal, etc.) to be introduced, advantages they had been reluctant or unable to employ earlier. Hal Jespersen 01:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually it did specifically mention JFC Fuller the inventor of blitzkrieg and perhaps the greates 20th century military historian. I think this page has become pretty much a list of favorite battles and practically any battle can be listed as changing the nature of the war either geographically, through manpower losses or through tactics. Frankly I don't think this artice really qualifies as encyclopedic, no other war enjoys a similar page and if anything wars like WW2 have even more debate about which battle was decisive. I suggest that this page be peer reviewed and perhaps even reccomnded for deletion, I think by its very nature a page like this lends itself to POV. Each individual battle already or could in the future include reasons justifying why it was decisive.--Gary123 03:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
- The reason this page was written was that there is enormous historical and popular treatment of the topic. You cannot pick up a book about Gettysburg without seeing it mentioned. (That's pretty much true about Midway in WWII, also, but that, rightly or wrongly, is not a controversial statement, whereas Gettysburg certainly is.) I have mostly resisted additions of "favorite battles" and if you think something here should be omitted, state your reasons. I do not recall the discussion of Chattanooga after all this time, but if you would like to reintroduce it, state your case. If you believe the opening paragraphs do not correctly describe what a turning point is or how to measure one, have a whack at that, too. If you have additional references on this subject that contradict the two listed, bring them forward. Hal Jespersen 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Citations
On my to-do list: add citations/footnotes. (This was a very early article for me on Wikipedia and footnotes were relatively uncommon at that time. Since this article consists primarily of opinions, it needs to be pointed at secondary sources.) Hal Jespersen 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] southern states often threatened to_____?____ laws that they opposed.
168.9.82.3 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Nullify? Is this a quiz? I would remove "often" from your question. Hal Jespersen 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Grant's crossing
Wouldn't that be a sub-turning point, with the seige of Petersburg being the actual turning point, which is not even listed here as a turning point? Just seems not quite significant enough. Have there been other historians propose this? Civil Engineer III 17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
