This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a very nice and interesting article, but is it entirely NPOV? It seems to lay a very heavy emphasis on the Western theater and on the Tennessee Valley in particular.
Three points might be made (and hopefully can be, by editors who know their Civil War better than me):
Might these points serve as the basis for making the article a bit more balanced? Opus33 03:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The most successful blockade to date? That's a pretty bold statement. While I'm not a Civil War expert, I believe that the blockade was initially unsuccessful. The Union navy only had about thirty ships to block about 190 southern ports. In 1862 nearly all Confederate ships made it through the blockade. It took about two years for the Union navy to build up enough ships to be effective. By 1865 when the blockade was most successful, the Union navy was still only blocking about half of the Confederate blockade runners. While this still severely hindered the south, I wouldn't call it the most successful blockade to date.
I'm also fairly certain that the price of cotton overseas went down instead of up during the war. Britain and France refused to recognize the Confederacy of the southern states and as a result the south refused to sell cotton to them. But this tactic was unsuccessful and Britain and France instead turned to Egypt and India as their source of cotton. By the time the south realized that their tactic was not effective and lifted the embargo, Britain and France would no longer buy their cotton. When the Civil War was over the South found that their cotton wasn't worth as much as it used to be.
Skiguy330 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Rjensen is making major changes to this article without discussion? Could you discuss first, especially since you are deleting large portions of the original article? -- JW1805 (Talk) 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently taking AP US History and was taught that the 3rd part of the plan was to capture Richmond in the East, which was unsuccessful (until the end of the war) due to the skill of Lee and Jackson.
I realize this is contradictory but I'm just throwing it out there for review.
Thehebrewhammer 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The statement that "Lincoln did implement the two parts" oversimplifies the development. The Mississippi was opened only because the Navy, against explicit opposition of General-in-Chief McClellan, captured New Orleans and thereby inverted Scott's strategy. A thorough evaluation of the original Anaconda strategy would show that the Army fought only one major battle (Vicksburg) on the river. Columbus and Memphis were outflanked and ceded without fighting, and Island No. 10 would have been likewise (the victory was as much due to the gunboats there as the conventional army units, anyway). The real author of the naval strategy was Gustavus V. Fox, and it is a shame that historians neglect his contribution. PKKloeppel ( talk) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I am new to Wikipedia and do not know many of its policies. Is there a reason for this talk page not to include the WP:MILHIST template? PKKloeppel ( talk) 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have taken my own advice (see two comments above) and have rewritten the article. For better or for worse. PKKloeppel ( talk) 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Hal, for your constructive criticism. I will try to reply to each point in turn.
So long as we are at it, do you think it is possible to point out that BOTH "Anaconda" and "On to Richmond" were used to bring the Confederacy down? Their relative merits are a judgment call, and I don't know how to state it in an article devoted to one side without injecting my own POV. PKKloeppel ( talk) 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
One more try on primary sources and the official records: in any case where information is available in secondary sources and in the ORs, you should cite the secondary source. This is not a matter of a middleman, it is a matter of verifying primary sources. If you go directly to the primary source, the Wikipedia reader has no way of knowing that the information is verified by a secondary source. Your example of orders of battle is appropriate because virtually all notable battles of the Civil War have secondary sources in which orders of battle are listed, and occasionally corrected. Why should the reader be left wondering about whether he is reading a corrected order of battle or the raw data? Other examples of data in the ORs that would seem to be immutable, but aren't always, are casualty figures, number of effective combatants, number of artillery pieces, times of day, geographic names, accounts of the actions of individuals and units, etc. As I think I said previously, the only data I would consider to be gospel in the ORs would be the text of correspondence sent during the war, which is presumably transcribed correctly, although the accuracy of the contents of the correspondence needs verification.
As to your other comments, one of my methods of reviewing material is to pose questions for the author where I think that the material is unverified, incomplete, or could be improved. The intent of the question is to prompt modifications to the source document and its citations, not to receive answers on the talk page. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
128.61.43.160 ( talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A history of Civil War strategies, both Northern and Southern, has recently been published: Donald Stoker, The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War (Oxford, 2010). ISBN 978-0-19-537305-9. It is worth pursuing because Stoker asserts that it is the first history devoted to its topic. (So far as I know, the claim is correct.) I do not believe that it contravenes anything written in the article, but it provides fresh insights. Certainly anyone who wishes to rewrite or otherwise extensively modify the article should first read Stoker. PKKloeppel ( talk) 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1st paragraph Derived /= Derided I presume that was the intended meaning. Please for an editor to double check/change
"Virtually all present-day historians agree that the Union's Western campaign was at least as significant as that in the East"
Is this true? All present day historians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.0.105 ( talk) 16:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Should this be merged with Union Blockade? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a very nice and interesting article, but is it entirely NPOV? It seems to lay a very heavy emphasis on the Western theater and on the Tennessee Valley in particular.
Three points might be made (and hopefully can be, by editors who know their Civil War better than me):
Might these points serve as the basis for making the article a bit more balanced? Opus33 03:12, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The most successful blockade to date? That's a pretty bold statement. While I'm not a Civil War expert, I believe that the blockade was initially unsuccessful. The Union navy only had about thirty ships to block about 190 southern ports. In 1862 nearly all Confederate ships made it through the blockade. It took about two years for the Union navy to build up enough ships to be effective. By 1865 when the blockade was most successful, the Union navy was still only blocking about half of the Confederate blockade runners. While this still severely hindered the south, I wouldn't call it the most successful blockade to date.
I'm also fairly certain that the price of cotton overseas went down instead of up during the war. Britain and France refused to recognize the Confederacy of the southern states and as a result the south refused to sell cotton to them. But this tactic was unsuccessful and Britain and France instead turned to Egypt and India as their source of cotton. By the time the south realized that their tactic was not effective and lifted the embargo, Britain and France would no longer buy their cotton. When the Civil War was over the South found that their cotton wasn't worth as much as it used to be.
Skiguy330 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Rjensen is making major changes to this article without discussion? Could you discuss first, especially since you are deleting large portions of the original article? -- JW1805 (Talk) 04:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently taking AP US History and was taught that the 3rd part of the plan was to capture Richmond in the East, which was unsuccessful (until the end of the war) due to the skill of Lee and Jackson.
I realize this is contradictory but I'm just throwing it out there for review.
Thehebrewhammer 07:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The statement that "Lincoln did implement the two parts" oversimplifies the development. The Mississippi was opened only because the Navy, against explicit opposition of General-in-Chief McClellan, captured New Orleans and thereby inverted Scott's strategy. A thorough evaluation of the original Anaconda strategy would show that the Army fought only one major battle (Vicksburg) on the river. Columbus and Memphis were outflanked and ceded without fighting, and Island No. 10 would have been likewise (the victory was as much due to the gunboats there as the conventional army units, anyway). The real author of the naval strategy was Gustavus V. Fox, and it is a shame that historians neglect his contribution. PKKloeppel ( talk) 14:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but I am new to Wikipedia and do not know many of its policies. Is there a reason for this talk page not to include the WP:MILHIST template? PKKloeppel ( talk) 19:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have taken my own advice (see two comments above) and have rewritten the article. For better or for worse. PKKloeppel ( talk) 16:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Hal, for your constructive criticism. I will try to reply to each point in turn.
So long as we are at it, do you think it is possible to point out that BOTH "Anaconda" and "On to Richmond" were used to bring the Confederacy down? Their relative merits are a judgment call, and I don't know how to state it in an article devoted to one side without injecting my own POV. PKKloeppel ( talk) 04:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
One more try on primary sources and the official records: in any case where information is available in secondary sources and in the ORs, you should cite the secondary source. This is not a matter of a middleman, it is a matter of verifying primary sources. If you go directly to the primary source, the Wikipedia reader has no way of knowing that the information is verified by a secondary source. Your example of orders of battle is appropriate because virtually all notable battles of the Civil War have secondary sources in which orders of battle are listed, and occasionally corrected. Why should the reader be left wondering about whether he is reading a corrected order of battle or the raw data? Other examples of data in the ORs that would seem to be immutable, but aren't always, are casualty figures, number of effective combatants, number of artillery pieces, times of day, geographic names, accounts of the actions of individuals and units, etc. As I think I said previously, the only data I would consider to be gospel in the ORs would be the text of correspondence sent during the war, which is presumably transcribed correctly, although the accuracy of the contents of the correspondence needs verification.
As to your other comments, one of my methods of reviewing material is to pose questions for the author where I think that the material is unverified, incomplete, or could be improved. The intent of the question is to prompt modifications to the source document and its citations, not to receive answers on the talk page. Hal Jespersen ( talk) 00:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
128.61.43.160 ( talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A history of Civil War strategies, both Northern and Southern, has recently been published: Donald Stoker, The Grand Design: Strategy and the U.S. Civil War (Oxford, 2010). ISBN 978-0-19-537305-9. It is worth pursuing because Stoker asserts that it is the first history devoted to its topic. (So far as I know, the claim is correct.) I do not believe that it contravenes anything written in the article, but it provides fresh insights. Certainly anyone who wishes to rewrite or otherwise extensively modify the article should first read Stoker. PKKloeppel ( talk) 01:29, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
1st paragraph Derived /= Derided I presume that was the intended meaning. Please for an editor to double check/change
"Virtually all present-day historians agree that the Union's Western campaign was at least as significant as that in the East"
Is this true? All present day historians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.142.0.105 ( talk) 16:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Should this be merged with Union Blockade? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)