Talk:Battle of Selma

This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles

Military history: North America / United States / American Civil War

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	American Civil War task force

Copyvio?

The text of this article seems almost identical to http://www.battleofselma.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2&Itemid=2

Does anyone know if the target website gave permission? Hal Jespersen 22:42, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map needed

This article would be much easier to understand if it had a map. Most of the text was copied from a website with a map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.106.4.145 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP articles: "Wilson's Raid" and "Battle of Selma"

Hi, User:Red Harvest. I, by no means, am an expert on the American Civil War. Still, I noticed where you reverted two edits of mine in which I had relied upon a primary source stating that all but two houses were destroyed ("sacked") by the Union Army. You have claimed that this information is disputed. Can you please tell me by who, and why Parsons' report, in your opinion, is unreliable? Thanks! FYI: Earlier, I had written: "The scale of destruction was so great that every house in the city was sacked, except two." I had cited Samuel Sullivan Cox's book, Three Decades of Federal Legislation, 1855 to 1885, Mills 1885, p. 402 (Based on the eye-witness account of Alabama's Provisional Governor, Lewis E. Parsons). Be well.- Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because not all houses but two were destroyed. That was the problem from the start: unintentional misreading of a primary source. The author/witness is making a claim about soldiers entering homes and perhaps taking things, etc., not burning per se. Definition is: "the plundering of a place by an army or mob, usually involving destruction, slaughter, etc." That can mean burning, or not. It can mean theft/taking or not--which appears to be the primary thrust of the wording in the account. It can mean killing or other "crimes against persons". The following site has historical antebellum homes in Selma, there are a lot more than 2 still standing ~150 years later (look at the other associated pages in the link.) http://www.civilwaralbum.com/misc15/selma_homes2.htm Jones book about the raid spends a few pages talking about the aftermath in general, and the Southern claims as well, comparing and contrasting various accounts. This sort of exaggeration has become a stereotype in ACW stories, as Jones notes. Red Harvest (talk) 03:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you that it probably doesn't mean "burning of all houses, but two," but rather "pillaging." Perhaps we should reconsider making the point that all the houses, but two, were pillaged. I'll leave that up to your discretion, as I am no expert in Civil War history. Have a good day! - Davidbena (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is it represents one primary source's POV, and a politician at that. It is almost without doubt an exaggeration of what actually happened as Jones explains. The current wording in this article is "Union troops looted the city that night" which is already strongly POV in the same vein. In reading Jones review of the matter there was some looting, some burning, and some general mayhem. The primary sources (and Jones) show that some of this was Union troops acting in unofficial capacity--it wasn't sanctioned by the command. So some soldiers did loot the city. But there were several other things happening too: the primary battle occurred near sunset into the evening and the town was not even completely secured from retreating Confederates until late at night. The departing Confederates had fired warehouses and 35,000 bales of cotton. And then there were the jubilant newly freedmen. It was chaos.

Contrast the chaotic night time entry of an army into a contested city, with Wilson's next move to Montgomery, where there was no battle and a strong provost system was put in place as the army entered a surrendered city in daylight. Red Harvest (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate artillery ordnance at Selma

Saying the 30 plus pieces of Confederate light artillery engaged in the battle only had solid shot is simply not correct and that source needs to be ignored on that particular point. Selma was the second largest arsenal in the Confederacy and the artillery battalions had months to prepare for an attack. Perhaps that statement came from a large siege gun that only had solid shot. Besides there are plenty of first hand recollections who noted "... the rebels were firing upon them a miscellaneous assortment of missiles - shells, solid shot, canister and bullets.” The National Tribune (Washington, District of Columbia), Jun 18, 1903, p. 3, Newspapers.com, accessed Sep 2, 2016. Rjr1960 (talk) 02:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]