From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessed

Satisfies the B-class criteria of MILHIST. PKKloeppel ( talk) 04:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Role of individual initiative

It is a mistake to cast the defense of Horseshoe ridge as being centrally organized. Notwithstanding the understandible self promotion in the reports of Brannan and Wood, primary sources show that its creation was the result of individual acts of initiative on the part of separate units.

I altered lines in the article that casts Thomas or Brannan as the architect of the Horseshoe defensive line. General Turbin, who was present in Thomas's line states plainly that the line was formed spontaneously by units that had fallen back from Longstreet's breakthrough. At 2pm, Thomas by his own report investigated the ridge because he heard noise there and stated that at this time both he and General Wood were not even aware that the Rosecrans's right had disintegrated. It was not especially well thought out either. As Turchin noted, there was a half mile gap between Thomas's east wing that ran north south, and the Horseshoe line that ran perpendicular to it. General Beatty was there on his own accord. Col. Hunter's 82nd Indiana planted his unit there by his own decision. Granger showed up with his division on his own initiative- not due to communications by Wood, Thomas, Brannan or anyone else. This is not to detract from Thomas, or his appellation as the "rock of Chickamauga". It is just that consideration of the reports of unit commanders paints a more disorganized and spontaneous picture than the ones where a particular personality through his genius is turning the tide of battle. The record shows that the Horseshoe line was an ad hoc creation of separated units collaborating towards a mutual goal. The substantial actions regarding this line- the reinforcing by Granger-Steedman, the defense of the first assaults, the assumption of command of the line and its organization by John Beatty prior to the arrival of Brannan, Wood and Thomas- were all done on the initiative of the individual units. J JMesserly ( talk) 23:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC) reply

In regards to this edit [1], it is true that summaries in the lead section are not footnoted. However, it is not uncommon or in all cases poor style. Consider the first note of Chattanooga_Campaign. This note is proper since it clarifies a technical point on the term itself. In nearly all situations there is agreement on the general ideas about a subject. This is not the case with Chickamauga. The idea that Brannan or Thomas were the masterful architects of the Horseshoe ridge defense; that Wood was the vindictive fool in carrying out Rosecrans order; or that Longstreet was lucky/ was an unerring genius is not born out by the facts, but summaries of this battle often include these statements.

If you feel strongly about removing the cite from the summary, I can go along with moving the cite along with a fuller explanation deeper in the article so long as the general consensus statements on these particular points survive in the summary statement. J JMesserly ( talk) 16:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I have limited time to work on this over the next day or so, but here are some comments on your recent edits.
  • Although there may be examples of some Wikipedia articles that use footnotes in the lead section, it is a poor practice that encourages the introduction of new or contradictory material to a section that is intended to be merely a summary of the following article. The only reason the Chattanooga Campaign lead section has the footnote is to validate the subject matter of the article itself, so that people understand what they are reading about; it would be unreasonable to delay that information until later in the article. The Wikipedia guidelines for an article of this size also state that the lead section should be three or four paragraphs, so I do not believe that the background material about Gettysburg or the specific tactical formations that Longstreet used are useful additions to this section.
  • It is not acceptable to remove material that is based on multiple reliable secondary sources and merely replace it with alternative text, particularly in those cases where it is based on a primary source, such as Turchin's memoir. Alternative viewpoints must be accommodated under the WP:NPOV policy. I have some simplified examples of how to accomplish this in User:Hlj/CWediting#EFP.
  • One of the editing ethics in Wikipedia is that while variations in style about citations are allowed, subsequent editors modifying a mature article generally defer to the style selected by the original author, avoiding a proliferation of styles in a single article. The style I have used in this article is to list references in the References section in a particular format and to use abbreviated footnotes, usually at the end of paragraphs. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Here are some notes/explanations of corrective edits I made in reaction to the edits of September 3:
  • The lead section paragraph about Davis sending Longstreet to Tennessee is background information not needed in a 3-4 paragraph summary of the article.
  • I restored the information about Brannan rallying his men because of multiple secondary sources that support the claim. Hunter's speech in 1887 is obviously pretty bitter and presumably the professional historians evaluated his claims against others.
  • I removed an additional footnote about the five shot colt revolving rifles because this is already adequately documented in the secondary source footnote.
  • I removed the assertion about Thomas waiting until nightfall to begin the retreat. Both Cozzens and Robertson confirm that Thomas sent orders to his division commanders on Kelly Field between 4:30 PM and 5 PM. The Horseshoe Ridge force was ordered to withdraw "in the gathering twilight." Hal Jespersen ( talk) 00:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The trouble with the article's idiosyncratic format is that it offers only a single hyperlink a given book, whereas individual cites can precisely hyperlink to exact pages with particular passages supporting a statement. This cannot be dismissed as a stylistic quibble. Skeptical readers can instantly verify a statement rather than going to particular websites and attempting to figure out how to navigate to the particular page. I don't see the advantage of removing these links. Also, what is your objection to using {{cite book}}? While I object to some style choices of cite book, I am not aware of any guidelines that give authors license to establish their own idiosyncratic style for formatting citations. J JMesserly ( talk) 10:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
There is no problem with links to specific pages in the footnotes themselves; they simply do not require a full-blown citation in the footnote because the repetitious publication details are in the References. The idiosyncratic style used here appears in 500+ ACW articles and the only issue is mixing styles within the same article. When others write articles and choose the cumbersome, but optional, cite book template, I do not mess with them. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I don't want to get into yet another MOS type debate, but ultimately, your argument is untenable. That's not to say I don't admire some of the qualities of way the refs are done in this article. But we are shooting for A class articles, with the eventual goal of an A class encyclopedia, right? So how can it be that an A class encyclopedia with a million plus articles finds it convincing that since an handful (500 is a handful in this context) of articles use some non standard style for citations that it is ok to basically tell the reader that they will have to suck it up and live with the random citation styles? What are we expecting? That users ought to give us a pass because we are a collaborative effort and all that warm fuzzy stuff? Sooner or later we must have more uniform standards for citations. Along that trajectory, there are many elements of this particular style I would vote for. J JMesserly ( talk) 03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
If or when the MOS guys decide to mandate a particular style we can resume this conversation, but one of the tenets of Wikipedia over the years has been to accommodate different styles within a range of options, which has probably served to make Wikipedia a friendlier place to do business for editors. If I thought the style that I am using, which I started using in 2004, long before the cite book template was invented, detracted in any way from a reader's understanding of what book was being referred to, I would've replaced it. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Thomas waiting until nightfall

The following passage gives the false impression that Thomas immediately complied with Rosecrans' order to retreat:

"At that same time Thomas received an order from Rosecrans to take command of the army and began a general retreat. "

Put aside the stirring prose of Cozzens and Robertson for a moment and read Thomas's report:

"I determined to hold the position until nightfall, if possible, in the meantime sending Captains Barker and Kellogg to distribute the ammunition, Major Lawrence, my chief of artillery, having been previously sent to notify the different commanders that ammunition would be supplied them shortly. As soon as they reported the distribution of the ammunition, I directed Captain Willard to inform the division commanders to prepare to withdraw their commands as soon as they received orders. At 5.30 p.m. Captain Barker, commanding my escort, was sent to notify General Reynolds to commence the movement..."

Garfield arrived with the order to withdraw at 4. Thomas didn't comply until 5:30, because of the need for darkness. I will modify the passage again to reflect this fact, but if anyone would like to first craft an alternate passage, feel free. All I care about is that the falsehood of the current passage be corrected. Thomas recognized it would be foolhardy to immediately comply with Rosecrans' order and didn't. J JMesserly ( talk) 10:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oops, I meant to change 'began' to 'begin' and forgot in my mad rush. :-) I don't think the language here is a direct quotation of either author, so the responsibility of stirring prose is not theirs. I am not hung up on the specific language of this, but I do not want to give the false impression that the army waited until full darkness before starting to move out. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Lead section

The following paragraph was deleted as "not necessary"

After the defeat at Gettysburg, Jefferson Davis was receptive to the strategy of gaining Confederate independence by diverting the Union attention and resources from fighting Lee's weakened army in the east. On September 5, 1863 Davis and General Lee decided to temporarily move via rail to Chickamauga a corps of veteran troops under the General James Longstreet. [1] It was thought that the South's second most gifted general would have the best chance of delivering a swift crushing blow, possibly destroying the Army of the Cumberland. Though it achieved a tactical victory, the Confederates failed to achieve their strategic goal of routing the Union Army from Chattanooga.
  1. ^ Edward H. Bonekemper (2008). Grant and Lee: victorious American and vanquished Virginian. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 154. ISBN  0313349711.

I hope we have common ground that some background to this important battle is needed in the article. If we can agree on that, then I shall re insert the background information in a place at the beginning of the article but not the summary section. Ok? J JMesserly ( talk) 10:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

There's no problem improving the Background section, although I'd omit the POV that Longstreet was "the South's second most gifted general" unless you can present it as part of a quotation. You would also need to omit the sentence starting "Though it achieved ..." (That misplaced sentence in the middle of the second paragraph of the lead was another reason to delete it.) Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

There are other ways of conveying that Davis wasn't sending in second stringers. Admittedly, the choice I made wasn't the best one. Though there are plenty of writers that have that view of Longstreet, maybe there are other ways of achieving the goal without making a case for a particular rearrangement of the pecking order for Longstreet. J JMesserly ( talk) 03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

As we know, Davis was not deliberately selecting a general he thought best for the assignment from some Army-wide order of merit, but because Longstreet was politicking for an army command, hoping to replace Bragg, as well as to emerge from the shadow of Robert E. Lee. So emphasizing Longstreet's merit is not so important. However, it is always easy to praise him with expressions such as "one of the most accomplished generals of the Confederacy," which would be quite easy to cite without POV concerns. By the way, sending Longstreet west is mentioned in the final paragraph of the section Crossing the Tennessee. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Brannan's role

Brannan states that he was at Snodgrass hill at noon organizing the line. But there are plenty who state it didn't happen that way. It's hard to dismiss General Hunter's remarks as "bitter", and General Turchin's book as reminiscences when both Gustav Kimmerling commanding 9th OVI and Henry S. Byers adjutant 31st OVI tell the same story of forming the intial line absent Brannan's direction. And again, both of them state (included in the cited passage for Hunter) that they held their positions until nightfall when they were ordered to pull back.

As stated in my first remarks above, having good guys and bad guys help a narrative along but are distortions. It generates sales and that is the business that Cozzens and Robertson are in. Now, if their works were articles in peer reviewed scholarly historical journals, it would be another thing, but then we wouldn't have dramatic phraseology such as the "mad" rush to safety. "Mad"? Really? J JMesserly ( talk) 10:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't recall the source of that adjective, but since it is not presented as a quotation, you can't blame either of the two authors. My objection to the way you had modified the sentence is that it implied the generals were swept away involuntarily by the mass of moving men, when it's pretty clear that they moved on their own. Wikipedia is founded on secondary sources, so if you have some lined up to disagree with Cozzens and Robertson (and Tucker, too, by the way), we can include alternative opinions more prominently. In all my years here, I have encountered only a tiny number of formally peer-reviewed ACW sources cited, so that's not such a good argument. Cozzens's book is from a university press, so presumably somebody reviewed it. Robertson's article series was heavily cited as well. (It's not like I'm cited Shelby Foote here, you know.) None of those 19th century primary sources were peer-reviewed and I presume they did not include citations. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Certainly, these are reasonable authors and it wouldn't hurt to add some balance from a few other secondary sources. On a quick scan of the article the way you left it, I didn't see that many huge issues remaining. A controversy section could be of use since there is wide disparities between portrayals of the battle but this is already a big article, so I'd rather remedy other weaknesses first.
You are welcome to add additional balance from secondary sources. I personally do not think that this minor issue about Brannan is worthy of opening up an entire section about controversies, but perhaps you have others in mind. (One word of caution: some battle articles in the past have had such Controversy sections, often structured as a bulleted list, but objections from others have merged these concerns back into the main flow of the article.) In my opinion, the most controversial thing about the battle is that some see it as a strong victory for Bragg, while others dwell more on the lost opportunities of missing out on a decisive victory. The lead section of the article is actually relatively weak on this final judgment, focusing on the former without mentioning the latter. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
We seem to be in violent agreement that they didn't utterly loose their heads, neither were they bobbing bodies in a mob. Rapid withdrawal to Chattanooga was a reasonable move that an utterly dispassionate strategist could have made, but OTOH Rosecrans might have been in not much better psychological shape than Van Cleve. Still, there is some room for improvement of the current sentence or two regarding the rout of the right. J JMesserly ( talk) 03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I think that a complete analysis of Rosecrans's state of mind is more appropriate for his biography than this [lengthy] article, but go ahead and make responsible edits. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply
As opposed to what- irresponsible edits? ;-) Actually I wouldn't go that direction anyway. We are on solid ground if we stick to the facts and identify what the commanders knew, the advice and options available to them, and the decision they made. As for the biographies, I personally am less interested in material that attempts to put commanders on the couch- as far as I'm concerned that sort of treatment is based on unprovable conjecture. What contemporaries thought of their mental state (eg. Lincoln's stunned duck remark) are germane since these opinions of contemporaries affected their political standing with superiors and subordinates. J JMesserly ( talk) 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Rosecrans fled from Bragg

According to Garfield, then Rosecrans's chief of staff, Garfield publicly contended that Rosecrans fled Bragg's Army. Was this statement made in reference to Rosecrans staying in Chattanooga, rather then joining up with Thomas's division (XIV Corps) at Chickamauga, as Garfield had done or was ordered to by Rosecrans? In other words, did Rosecrans lose his nerve during the Battle of Chickamauga? Cmguy777 ( talk) 19:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Rosecrans's actions are covered here and in William Rosecrans#Chickamauga in reasonable detail. Yes, after Longstreet's breakthrough Rosecrans and a number of other officers "fled" to Chattanooga. Rosecrans sent Garfield back to communicate with Thomas about withdrawing the remainder of the army rather than returning to the battlefield himself, decision under grea stress that arguably ruined his career. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Request for simplicity

[moved comment into sequence] Can I just chime in here for a second and say something? I know this is probably futile -- but these Civil War articles are hard has hell to comprehend. I consider myself somewhat learned -- I've read here and there on the war -- but every time I come to Wikipedia to read about specific battles, I get confused and lost. It seems like in an effort to be as thorough and as detailed as possible -- something has been lost. Are these articles meant for an encyclopedia? I came to this article in an attempt to understand how Rosencrans split his army and left a gap and still don't understand. Here's one simple plea: to rethink all these Civil War articles and make them more understandable. I consider myself very interested in history -- I couldn't imagine what it must be like for someone who hasn't read much on the Civil War to attempt to read these articles. And please -- for the love of Peter -- redesign all the maps! I can't count how many hours I've spent trying to figure out what these maps mean -- where I am geographically -- zooming in and zooming out -- opening them in different windows -- these maps could convey so much more. Visual information is the key here right? I know everyone here is passionate and intelligent -- and this is written with the utmost respect -- but please try to consider a little more the average reader when constructing these entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.24.14 ( talk) 15:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia articles are created by volunteers and you are welcome to volunteer to improve them. I have been involved with Wikipedia for almost 10 years and I have seen it progress from relatively brief articles to ones that are significantly more comprehensive and specialized, perhaps another illustration of the Second law of thermodynamics. :-) There are two opportunities I can see for articles that are easier to understand. First, the initial section of each article (the "lead") is intended to be a relatively brief summary of the article, so the reader can supposedly get the gist of it from there. Second, there is a companion to the English Wikipedia called the English Wikipedia, accessible from the languages links in the left-hand column of each article. Unfortunately, no one has chosen to write the simple English version of the battle of Chickamauga, but you are certainly welcome to start one. Here is the simple version of the battle of Gettysburg, as an example: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gettysburg.
I actually drew the maps for this article and I will have to say that you are the first person to comment on them, or to suggest that they "could convey so much more." What information do you think is missing? By the way, if you had not noticed, there are geographic coordinate links in most Wikipedia articles involving events, which you can click to access a modern map of the area. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Longstreet's assaults

I've created this section to continue the discussion begun at User talk:Hlj#Chickamauga comments about the content Harold Knudsen wishes to add to the article. Please continue discussing here. Mojoworker ( talk) 23:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply

All -- I created an account on Wikipedia with the intention to add a section in this Ckickamuaga article that explains the mechanincs of the assualt column of the left wing under Longstreet. I have not been a user of wikipedia, however, noticed years ago there was mention of my book here; approx. one sentence, which I thought about again the other week that did not really explain why this is (in my judgement) a significant improvement to tactics for the offense in the CW. And --- although this column was very early, it is similar to what developed in the 20th century. This I know from my own training and knowledge of 20th century wars. ** I am not saying Longstreet created what became the schwerpunkt in WWII, because later thinkers paid attention to 20 SEP 1863. I have never found (so far) that in later generations to claim that connection ** I am saying he did this, and it turned out to be a modern technique of 20th century tactics. His records do confirm in my opinion that he thought: 1) Narrow front 2) great advantage in numbers/brigades, 3) Keep the column together and reach behind the Union line. Bottom line is I think there is merit in fleshing this out a bit, and why I added the two paragraph section. I believe that this action on the morning of the 20th is important, but gets little attention in the historiography compared to other things, so I thought I would add to an article on Chikcamauga. Everytime I talk about this to CWRTs and other groups, I get more and more questions that force me to think through how to explain it better, and in recent years I have gone back to force ratios and the effects of the narrow echelon of the why it worked, as well as the bits in the record about talking to soldier Tom Brotherton asking him if there was a pathway through the Union line, etc. This contributed in selecting the spot, because Brotherton told him it would get him through to the open terrain behind the Union line that he could use to maneuver and gain further advantage of position. I also agree with comments paraphrased from Robertson in persious paragraph, there is no evidence this was intended as a Grand DIV made up from brigades of 3 DIVS in any writings from Longstreet. i have no idea who might have said there was an intention about a 3 DIV Grand DIV? There was no though of that, and I have looked over everything I can find in letters and primary sources. I have never seen it, so Robertson is correct on that to the best of my knowledge. (I have read his memior, articles in Century Mag. and ORs, all many times, and off the top of my head I can't think of when he ever mentioned a Grand Division as something he preferred. My guess is he thought them unweildy) Hood's book is unfortunately thin. It is clear Longstreet did not think Grand Division. Let me stop here and let others comment, HK Harold Knudsen ( talk) 21:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Part of the craft of writing an encyclopedia article is deciding on, and sticking to, a consistent level of detail to be used throughout. This article devotes 19 paragraphs to the second day's battle, two of which describe the organization of Longstreet's column and his initial assault. In my judgment, adding two very lengthy paragraphs outlining one author's opinion on his tactics is not a balanced approach from a level of detail standpoint. Furthermore, the two paragraphs do not balance alternative viewpoints in the manner required by Wikipedia for handling conflicting secondary sources. That is the reason I edited down your submission and balanced it with the other viewpoint, primarily expressed by Glenn Robertson of the Combat Studies Institute. (In theory, a two-paragraph exposition of one opinion ought to be balanced by two paragraphs of the opposite, and that is obviously not practical here.) Your work may eventually turn out to be influential, and numerous secondary sources may emerge in the future with the same point of view, but Wikipedia is a place to summarize consensus, not advocate. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 21:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Longstreet questions

The following was moved from User talk:Hlj:

On secondary source of whether Longstreet thought about this formation later in the war; I am not aware of any (none that I have come acress yet), except Wert citing the letter from Longstreet to Alexander after the war. But that really talks to the idea of force ratios; the type of discussions you find in military manuals of the 1980s about the later decades versions of the schwerpunkt of WWII and also what the Soviet Army was going to use in Germany in a WWWIII offensive. I do say that Longstreet and Lee (we know from the records) did discuss previous battles for learning purposes; to review the actions and look for ways to improve. This came from a discussion between me and Dr. Bill Piston and so I added it, so that could be secondary source sentence from two historians. Overall, my book covers the expamples of Anteitam and Fredericksburg for the defense (where I draw the comparison to the Killzone/Killbox), and Chickamuaga for the offense. I have not done much with 1864 to research any mention by Longstreet in using this formation specifically later. What he did to roll the Union flank at Wilderness has similarity in formation. i.e. to land on a narrow spot hard, but it was used to roll the flank (tactical level), not split a force like the German intention and drive into the distance (operational level of war). I agree with Robertson that there is nothing in the memior or the ORs. If there is something in a letter he wrote, or an observation by someone else, I have not found it yet - that makes a clear link to later 1864/65 battles. There is another attack he did on a small scale which failed at Knoxville - right on that corner of Ft. Sanders - which in my opinion was the correct angle to attack because the defenders would less than a clean shot until they were close and it would be hard to mass fires as opposed to targets right out in front. The attack failed for several reasons, such as Longstreet thought the parapet was not as high as it actually was (due to the moat) and ice on the slope, but I think the Union Army improved upon this attack at Spotsylvania; using a greater force ratio to break into the Confederate fortification in the same angle Longstreet used at Ft. Sanders. So it was an improvement in that it achieved rupturing the defense line, but the next step had not been thought through - the reinforcement of that success. How to exploit it. In my mind this could be another attempt, maybe a linkage, at the narrow column idea (knoxville) then picked up on my Col Upton who made it more robust with 12 regiments. Don't know for sure without the research. How does Robertson say the formation at Chickamauga was happenstance? Its true the OR and the memior does not cover it, does Longstreet say this somewhere? Do you know? That would be a helpful piece of this puzzle.

To me the clues in his thinking this through intentionally are the fact he wanted to know if there was a trail that led through the woods into the open area behind the Union line in his talking to private Tom Brotherton who's cabin was right there, and so he used the trail/road as a guide for the formation like I have so many times in keeping a unit togther in wooded terrain. Its what we call a control measure. Another piece of evidence is he moved one division to close the flank with Polk, so this division's job was flank security of the attack formation, and then he lined up the 5 Virginia units behind Johnson's 3 and put the whole thing under Hood for command and control. That was very intentional too. It proves he wanted the formation to stay together for an indefinate amount of time. THis is what my experience and intution help tell me about his troop leading procedures. And what evidence there is. Longstreet's memior is a very important historical record, but the original manuscript went up in flames in his house fire in Gainesville in the 1880s along with a lot of war correspondences, etc. So he started all over again by memory, and worked on it as an old man decades removed from the war. So unfortunately the book is much harder to read than what his prose and clarity of thought he had and demonstrated in articles in did in Century in the 1870s. In instances like this, where the hisorian tried to really drill down and find evidence of somehting the memior just does not provide it. Does not mean it did not happen, but a key primary source does not make mention. But as Ed Bearss says - you have to look at the ground at the sites. The ground helps fill in the blanks, and for me as a trained soldier the ground, the existing records, and experience of like formations/actions helps as well to know the actions in time not necesarily covered in a a record. Anyway, if you have some insight on Mr. Robertson's point that would be helpfull. Regards, HK Harold Knudsen ( talk) 16:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply

The quotation from Robertson about happenstance is from his article in Blue and Gray Magazine, Summer 2008, page 26. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Reference the sentence:

"Longstreet had spent the morning attempting to arrange his lines so that his divisions from the Army of Northern Virginia would be in the front line."

-- do you know where this comes from? I have not found any evidence he wanted to put the VA units in front. His OR entry only mentions the shift to the right of the four eastern divisions and moving the ad hoc division of 5 VA brigades behind Johnson, and there is nothing in the memior either. Does not mean he did not want to or try, but I have never seen this as an intention by him in the historical record.

There are three problems with this idea if he in fact wanted the VA units in front:

1) The last two VA brigades were not up yet at dawn. Since units from VA and the west only worked togehter one day so far, and as a general rule you want to keep units of the same parent organization together due to the familiar working realtionships that exist (if you can). It makes more sense to to do as he did and have the three VA units fall in behind Bushrod Johnson and when the other the VA units came up, simply fall in behind the three from VA. This is essentially what he says in the OR entry. 2) The Union was aware there were units from VA in the battlefield, and they had seen them on the Confederate left on the 19th, however, they were not sure if Longstreet himself was actually there, and/or if his supposed presence was misinformation. It makes better sense to hide from plain view the VA units as not to show where reinforcments are being placed. More units from VA arriving - and seen - would add to the probability Longstreet was actually there - especially fresh units. Can the researcher pinpoint the exact intention in recorded writings - probably not, but masking movements was and is important in all wars, and Longstreet was well tuned to this we know from other battles where the practice was mentioned. 3) Longstreet mentions food and ammunition were also wanting in the early am, and were a big focus for him. This took a good portion of the time, and jockeying around units in front to the rear and then the VA units forward would be difficult and make the logistics prep problematic. He had realistically 3-4 hours to get his wing feed, ammunition distributed, aligned with Polk, the attack formation set, and the two VA brigades emplaced as well. Bragg wanted him ready around 10am, it can all be done, but there were a lot of things to do.

For these reasons I'm not sure it is true he wanted to re-position the VA units in front. Can you help on this point and identify who says this and how they arrived at that claim or assumption? V/r, Harold Harold Knudsen ( talk) 20:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC) reply

This is also from Robertson, although I think I need to adjust the citation because the place I just found it was in the Woodworth compilation of essays, The Chickamauga Campaign, which previously had been listed as a Further Reading entry. Robertson's essay is entitled "Bull of the Woods?" I will fix this after I post the updated talk page. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 22:09, 19 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Hal, Understood - you are back from a trip.....got your 2008 Robertson magazine source; I'm sure he has a citation regarding his point about the column was happenstance. And also, roger on the Bull of the Woods article aslo by Robertson. 150th today of this very topic. V/r, Harold Harold Knudsen ( talk) 17:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC) reply

As these are judgments on his part, which is a prime responsibility of a secondary source author, there is no explicit citation for this judgment, it is a result of his analysis of a variety of sources. To give you an example that I'm very familiar with, Stephen W. Sears renders the judgment in his book Gettysburg that (paraphrasing) "Meade outgeneraled Robert E. Lee." He places no footnote on that statement, but it is perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia to report his judgment, along with those of other secondary source authors. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 16:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC) reply

Ok, fair enough. Author judgement.

Also, Another thought on this article (not part of Longstreet's assault) - mention of how the important cavalry arm was not utilised in this battle. That was a major oversight for the Confederates on the 20th; it meant nearly 1/5th of the Confederate strenght was not in this fight. It could have, and probably should have been used to get behind the Union formations and seize the McFarland Gap and or rossville gap. Anyway, there is a fairly new book called Failure in the Saddle that talks to these issues. Regards, Harold Knudsen Harold Knudsen ( talk) 19:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Chickamauga. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Chickamauga. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC) reply

List of CSA Casualities

Is there a list of casualties for the Battle of Chickamauga for CSA Units? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdon20 ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Battle_of_Chickamauga&oldid=1194767329"