This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philip Kearny article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not trying to start an edit war or anything, it just happened that my edit happened same time as yours. I have two reliable sources that say Kearny's birthday is 6-2 1815, and I'll change back the side of the picture. Those two sources both say Columbia university (those sources being civilwarhome.com and the 1911 Encyclopedia). ugen64 21:59, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
I'm no fan of edit wars either. Sorry for almost getting into one. :)
Is this how regular talks go between users, replying on other users' names? I've never had to do it, but I suppose this is how... anyway, [4] says 1815 (which was your second example), so... what is up with his birthdate :-\ ugen64 22:09, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
OK, I hit upon something that I can't swear is accurate, but I guess it's the best we can do at the moment until something more definitive comes up. I checked "Philip Kearny" (in quotes) with some dates in quotes on Google. "June 1, 1814" gives five hits, "June 2, 1815" gives nineteen. "June 2, 1814" and "June 1, 1815" each give zero hits. So I guess the best thing is to go with June 2, 1815 at least for the time being. - Hephaestos 22:52, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
At first I thought the posthumous promotion reference may be a mistake, confusing him with Isaac Stevens who was also killed at the Battle of Chantilly, as several descriptions of that battle have Kearny as a Major General during the action. But the 1911 Encyclopedia does mention him not receiving his commission by the time he died, so I looked around some more and came across this documentation in an old biography of Kearny:
MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your note of the 2d instant, I have had the records examined, and find the following answers for your questions in relation to General KEARNY:
- When General KEARNY was appointed Major-General of Volunteers, he stood number six on the list of Brigadier-Generals.
- His commission as Brigadier-General of Vols. was dated 7 Aug., 1861, to rank from 17 May, 1861.
- He was appointed, during the recess of the Senate, Major-General of Vols.; the letter of appointment was dated July 25, 1862, to rank from July 4,1862. His commission, prepared after his death, bears date of March 13, 1863. The records do not show that the services, on account of which the rank of Major-General was conferred were stated in either the letter of appointment or the commission.
- At the date of his death, he stood number thirty on the list of Major-Generals of Vols. GEN'L:DEPEYSTER, Tivoli, N. Y.
Very truly yours, E. D. TOWNSEND,
then Asst. Adjt.-General, now Adjt.-General U. S. A.
Philip Kearny was not confirmed as Major-General of Volunteers until March 9th, 1863, nor was the order, says Brevet-Maj. G. E.H ~ —, announcing his promotion as Major-General, received by his old, then Birney's division, until November, 1862.
I certainly don't know enough of the technicalities of rank promotion to say... was he in fact promoted to Major General in July 1862 and not posthumously (just with the details not complete), or does that in fact mean he was not promoted until after his death? Carl Lindberg 07:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll keep looking and post more soon, though a number of things lead me to think that he was in fact promoted before his death, and the posthumous reference is either a mistake or coming from the perspective of the Senate confirmation being the critical date. Not sure why I'm so interested in this little factoid, but, well, there you go :-) Carl Lindberg 05:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess the main thing that piqued my curiosity was that on their commemorative plaques at Ox Hill Battlefield Park, both Kearny and Stevens are named as Major General. On the county plan for the park (page15), it specifically notes that Stevens was posthumously promoted (which he was) but does not say the same about Kearny (the panel had a local historian on it, so I was thinking it was at least an informed omission). The Chantilly Union order of battle, which comes from one of the books on the battle, lists Stevens as brigadier general but Kearny as major general, indicating in that author's opinion he had already been promoted. The bit I quoted earlier is from an 1869 biography, Personal and military history of Philip Kearny, major-general United States volunteers by John Watts DePeyster. The last paragraph is the author's summary; it was a footnote explaining why Kearny's commission was listed in an 1863 newspaper article, along with other generals (including Stevens) who were promoted posthumously. The 1911 encyclopedia bio mentions the delayed commission, but does not say the promotion itself was posthumous, which is consistent with the above info. In fact, with online searching at least, I can't find any page (other than those derived from the wikipedia article) which does mention a posthumous promotion. Back to DePeyster's book, he prints a few other things: A note from Birney on Sept 4, where he references "Major-General Kearny", and a portion of Pope's battle report that references "Brigadier-General Stevens" but "Major-General Kearny", both of which seem to indicate Kearny had already been promoted (while Stevens had not). This website on the battle consistently makes the distinction as well. Given all that, it seems as though the posthumous reference is either a mistake — a confusion with Stevens, or because the commission was confirmed alongside several promotions which were posthumous — or a different perspective on what constituted promotion. If other authors had the same opinion, I guess I would expect that it would be mentioned at least somewhere else :-) Do you know of any other references which say it was posthumous? Carl Lindberg 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can buy the idea of a rider holding the reins in his teeth, but the bridle? Literal application of that description raises a quizzical picture--if the general had the bridle in his mouth, what did the horse have?
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Phil is listed as having the same parents as Stephen W. Kearny [1], but Stephen is said to be his granduncle. This needs to be cleared up. Ealtram ( talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a similar problem with the reference to Robert Anderson playing Kearny in the 1966 episode "The Firebrand". Philip Kearny was not in California at that time and the character of "General Kearny" is most certainly referring to Philip's uncle, Stephen W. Kearny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanbag82 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Philip Kearny. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This needs a bit of re-writing due to lacking correct chronology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:682B:8AD6:2419:55AD ( talk) 16:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I am a little concerned about the statement in the article that at the time Kearny died "there were rumors in Washington that President Abraham Lincoln was contemplating replacing George B. McClellan" with Kearny (I am assuming this means as Commander of the Army of the Potomac. There are two issues here. 1) There is a lack of a citation for this claim 2) Even if this was a rumor does it have any relevance? The problem as I see it is the story seems questionable, in so far as it seems a bit implausible that a Division Commander would be promoted to head the Union's main army over the heads of several corps commanders. Of course if it is the case that Lincoln did not seriously make such a consideration, this does not mean there was not such a rumor, but it does considerably alter its context. As it reads at the moment (to me at any rate) it looks like there was a serious possibility Kearny was about to succeed McClellan. If this was not the case, but there was still a rumor, then I think this needs to be made clear, and also justification for the rumor being included as such speculation would not usually be seen as encyclopedic. For instance if it is being argued that the rumor showed that Kearny was held in high regard by the Northern public and press then it is obviously worth including, but this should be made clear. Dunarc ( talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Amended by Dunarc ( talk) 23:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This is what Grant says of Kearny’s actions in the taking of Mexico City –
This does not jibe with the narrative in the article. Alcmaeonid ( talk) 08:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Personal Memoirs of U.S.Grant, Complete Volume 1 CHAPTER XI. ADVANCE ON THE CITY OF MEXICO—BATTLE OF CONTRERAS—ASSAULT AT CHURUBUSCO—NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE—BATTLE OF MOLINO DEL REY—STORMING OF CHAPULTEPEC—SAN COSME—EVACUATION OF THE CITY—HALLS OF THE MONTEZUMAS. Sorry I can’t give a page number because I only have the eBook. Alcmaeonid ( talk) 16:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Philip Kearny article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not trying to start an edit war or anything, it just happened that my edit happened same time as yours. I have two reliable sources that say Kearny's birthday is 6-2 1815, and I'll change back the side of the picture. Those two sources both say Columbia university (those sources being civilwarhome.com and the 1911 Encyclopedia). ugen64 21:59, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
I'm no fan of edit wars either. Sorry for almost getting into one. :)
Is this how regular talks go between users, replying on other users' names? I've never had to do it, but I suppose this is how... anyway, [4] says 1815 (which was your second example), so... what is up with his birthdate :-\ ugen64 22:09, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)
OK, I hit upon something that I can't swear is accurate, but I guess it's the best we can do at the moment until something more definitive comes up. I checked "Philip Kearny" (in quotes) with some dates in quotes on Google. "June 1, 1814" gives five hits, "June 2, 1815" gives nineteen. "June 2, 1814" and "June 1, 1815" each give zero hits. So I guess the best thing is to go with June 2, 1815 at least for the time being. - Hephaestos 22:52, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
At first I thought the posthumous promotion reference may be a mistake, confusing him with Isaac Stevens who was also killed at the Battle of Chantilly, as several descriptions of that battle have Kearny as a Major General during the action. But the 1911 Encyclopedia does mention him not receiving his commission by the time he died, so I looked around some more and came across this documentation in an old biography of Kearny:
MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your note of the 2d instant, I have had the records examined, and find the following answers for your questions in relation to General KEARNY:
- When General KEARNY was appointed Major-General of Volunteers, he stood number six on the list of Brigadier-Generals.
- His commission as Brigadier-General of Vols. was dated 7 Aug., 1861, to rank from 17 May, 1861.
- He was appointed, during the recess of the Senate, Major-General of Vols.; the letter of appointment was dated July 25, 1862, to rank from July 4,1862. His commission, prepared after his death, bears date of March 13, 1863. The records do not show that the services, on account of which the rank of Major-General was conferred were stated in either the letter of appointment or the commission.
- At the date of his death, he stood number thirty on the list of Major-Generals of Vols. GEN'L:DEPEYSTER, Tivoli, N. Y.
Very truly yours, E. D. TOWNSEND,
then Asst. Adjt.-General, now Adjt.-General U. S. A.
Philip Kearny was not confirmed as Major-General of Volunteers until March 9th, 1863, nor was the order, says Brevet-Maj. G. E.H ~ —, announcing his promotion as Major-General, received by his old, then Birney's division, until November, 1862.
I certainly don't know enough of the technicalities of rank promotion to say... was he in fact promoted to Major General in July 1862 and not posthumously (just with the details not complete), or does that in fact mean he was not promoted until after his death? Carl Lindberg 07:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll keep looking and post more soon, though a number of things lead me to think that he was in fact promoted before his death, and the posthumous reference is either a mistake or coming from the perspective of the Senate confirmation being the critical date. Not sure why I'm so interested in this little factoid, but, well, there you go :-) Carl Lindberg 05:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess the main thing that piqued my curiosity was that on their commemorative plaques at Ox Hill Battlefield Park, both Kearny and Stevens are named as Major General. On the county plan for the park (page15), it specifically notes that Stevens was posthumously promoted (which he was) but does not say the same about Kearny (the panel had a local historian on it, so I was thinking it was at least an informed omission). The Chantilly Union order of battle, which comes from one of the books on the battle, lists Stevens as brigadier general but Kearny as major general, indicating in that author's opinion he had already been promoted. The bit I quoted earlier is from an 1869 biography, Personal and military history of Philip Kearny, major-general United States volunteers by John Watts DePeyster. The last paragraph is the author's summary; it was a footnote explaining why Kearny's commission was listed in an 1863 newspaper article, along with other generals (including Stevens) who were promoted posthumously. The 1911 encyclopedia bio mentions the delayed commission, but does not say the promotion itself was posthumous, which is consistent with the above info. In fact, with online searching at least, I can't find any page (other than those derived from the wikipedia article) which does mention a posthumous promotion. Back to DePeyster's book, he prints a few other things: A note from Birney on Sept 4, where he references "Major-General Kearny", and a portion of Pope's battle report that references "Brigadier-General Stevens" but "Major-General Kearny", both of which seem to indicate Kearny had already been promoted (while Stevens had not). This website on the battle consistently makes the distinction as well. Given all that, it seems as though the posthumous reference is either a mistake — a confusion with Stevens, or because the commission was confirmed alongside several promotions which were posthumous — or a different perspective on what constituted promotion. If other authors had the same opinion, I guess I would expect that it would be mentioned at least somewhere else :-) Do you know of any other references which say it was posthumous? Carl Lindberg 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I can buy the idea of a rider holding the reins in his teeth, but the bridle? Literal application of that description raises a quizzical picture--if the general had the bridle in his mouth, what did the horse have?
Terry J. Carter ( talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Phil is listed as having the same parents as Stephen W. Kearny [1], but Stephen is said to be his granduncle. This needs to be cleared up. Ealtram ( talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a similar problem with the reference to Robert Anderson playing Kearny in the 1966 episode "The Firebrand". Philip Kearny was not in California at that time and the character of "General Kearny" is most certainly referring to Philip's uncle, Stephen W. Kearny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beanbag82 ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Philip Kearny. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This needs a bit of re-writing due to lacking correct chronology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:682B:8AD6:2419:55AD ( talk) 16:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I am a little concerned about the statement in the article that at the time Kearny died "there were rumors in Washington that President Abraham Lincoln was contemplating replacing George B. McClellan" with Kearny (I am assuming this means as Commander of the Army of the Potomac. There are two issues here. 1) There is a lack of a citation for this claim 2) Even if this was a rumor does it have any relevance? The problem as I see it is the story seems questionable, in so far as it seems a bit implausible that a Division Commander would be promoted to head the Union's main army over the heads of several corps commanders. Of course if it is the case that Lincoln did not seriously make such a consideration, this does not mean there was not such a rumor, but it does considerably alter its context. As it reads at the moment (to me at any rate) it looks like there was a serious possibility Kearny was about to succeed McClellan. If this was not the case, but there was still a rumor, then I think this needs to be made clear, and also justification for the rumor being included as such speculation would not usually be seen as encyclopedic. For instance if it is being argued that the rumor showed that Kearny was held in high regard by the Northern public and press then it is obviously worth including, but this should be made clear. Dunarc ( talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Amended by Dunarc ( talk) 23:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This is what Grant says of Kearny’s actions in the taking of Mexico City –
This does not jibe with the narrative in the article. Alcmaeonid ( talk) 08:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Personal Memoirs of U.S.Grant, Complete Volume 1 CHAPTER XI. ADVANCE ON THE CITY OF MEXICO—BATTLE OF CONTRERAS—ASSAULT AT CHURUBUSCO—NEGOTIATIONS FOR PEACE—BATTLE OF MOLINO DEL REY—STORMING OF CHAPULTEPEC—SAN COSME—EVACUATION OF THE CITY—HALLS OF THE MONTEZUMAS. Sorry I can’t give a page number because I only have the eBook. Alcmaeonid ( talk) 16:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
References