Jump to content

Talk:James Longstreet/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Attribution

"I never heard of any other cause of the quarrel than slavery." This is very, very similar to a statement attributed to John Mosby: "I've always understood that we went to war on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I've never heard of any other cause than slavery." (Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_S._Mosby#Death_and_legacy) It's very likely that both men held that view and expressed it similarly on different occasions: Both were Confederate generals who, after the war, joined the Republican Party and supported Reconstruction. I'm suspicious, though, largely because I can't access all the sources cited on the two articles.2601:18C:4302:85A0:20E1:E2EF:D6A9:CBFA (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

Is it really accurate to describe the southern US as "more Lutheran"? Wouldn't "more protestant" be more accurate? Grant65 (Talk) 12:58, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I have tightened up certain parts of the article by dispensing with unneccessary words and sentences, together with, IMHO, improper use of language. Furthermore, I have tried my best to remove POVs within it.

Babyrina2 10 Feb 2006

update

I am in the process of a large update to this article, including extensive footnotes. However, I am starting to fall behind my intended schedule, so I have removed the inuse template from the top of the file. I hope to finish within a week, but others are welcome to jump in in the meantime. Hal Jespersen 21:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My update is now complete, with two exceptions. At the very end of the article there are two sentences that require citations. I intend to remove those sentences in a couple of weeks if no one provides the citations. Hal Jespersen 23:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Family revert

I have reverted the recent edit about family. Please take care of the following before resubmitting:

  1. Remove duplication. Some of this description is already covered earlier in the article.
  2. Add footnotes for claims, speculation, and data. This is a fully footnoted article and additions need to follow the same degree of citation.
  3. Explain or remove the parenthetical numbers next to the names.
  4. Put dates into the Wikipedia format used throughout the article.

Thanks, Hal Jespersen 21:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert Feb 21

I worked about 20 minutes trying to sort out the two paragraphs of updates some anonymous editor applied this morning and gave up and reverted it. If you would like to reapply any of these changes, please do the following:

  1. Add footnotes in the style used by the rest of the article. Use the name= parameter of the <ref> to handle duplicate notes. Use actual, specific URLs for online articles. Add the Genealogy book to the References section and cite it just by author, as in all other notes.
  2. Do not remove Wiki links from the text.
  3. Do not remove footnotes from the text.
  4. If you have something you disagree with (example, source of his nickname), do not simply delete a footnoted assertion. Adjust the text and footnote to indicate multiple sources differ.

Thanks. Hal Jespersen 20:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Looks good to me, I have no complaints.JRP 01:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This fascinating article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. Although I found one or two minor issues (detailed below), I believe it still meets the GA criteria and should remain listed as a Good article.

For improvement in the future:

  • There are a couple of areas towards the end of the article that need explicit in-line citations, which I have tagged for your convenience (to be honest, the entire "In popular media" section needs multiple cites).
  • It is recommended not to use decorative quotations (the {{cquote}} template) in Wikipedia articles; these are intended only for call-outs.

Thank you for your hard work. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 19:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Wounding at Wilderness

Around citation 44 the article states Gen Longstreet's nasty wound was received about a mile from the local where Gen Jackson was mortally hit. I thought in Foote's third "C.W. Narrative" book he states it was a distance of around four miles. Since his books aren't part of any citations in the article (and sometimes noted for their accuracy) I'm not going to edit anything. Just curious which is accurate, if known. The shorter distance is also more creepy! Kresock (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I got out my maps and measured. It is actually 4 miles, so I have updated the article accordingly. (Jackson was wounded near the current NPS Visitor Center, Longstreet on the Plank Road near the intersection with the Brock Road.) Thanks for catching the error. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

April 8 edits

I have made some modifications to the edits of April 8 regarding Longstreet's actions on July 2. The passage cited from Fuller was too rudimentary a description of what happened that morning; Fuller's book on Lee and Grant spends only seven pages on the entire Gettysburg campaign, after all. I added another footnote from Sears and Coddington, both of whom have lengthy descriptions about Lee and Longstreet on the morning of July 2. I also restored the citation from Wert, which had been removed with no explanation. If someone can find a citation from a reputable historian who claims that Longstreet enthusiastically and aggressively prepared for the battle on July 2, citations can be added to that effect. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

First Bull Run and the Peninsula

I added a NPOV tag, because it seemed to be very, almost too much, pro-Longstreet, especially during the part about Bull Run I and also Seven Days. Anyone else agree? NuclearWarfare (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Are your concerns with the last sentence ("He had been established as Lee's principal lieutenant.") or with another part of this section? Clarify please.Kresock (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Please provide details of your concerns by May 6. This section contains both positive and negative opinions of Longstreet, based on the sources cited. If you have secondary sources that cite poor performances at Manassas or during the Seven Days, please bring them to our attention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Gettysburg

This part of the article seems rather anti-Longstreet. I do know of some other sources that seem to contradict what is written; Longstreet's delay was indeed unavoidable. Should I add them, or not?NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have additional secondary sources that make this claim, please bring them to our attention. One such is in the article now, but it's a rather obscure one. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the POV warning boxes pending resumption of detailed discussions on this talk page about what the problem is supposed to be. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary?

One of my books (Harper's Encyclopedia of Military Biography) contains a brief evaluation of the general, and I was wondering if it merits inclusion in this page, perhaps either the legacy section or split up within the article. Here's the relevant part:

"Longstreet was an ambitious, confident, tireless, and capable commander and administrator; an able tactician, he possessed less strategic sense; he was vigorous in battle but a cautious planner; his actions at Gettysburg remain controversial; much respected by his men, who called him 'Old Pete.'"

The mentioning of "tireless" I remember from other works I've read (such as in The Killer Angels , Three Months in the Southern States, and others; especially noted during Sharpsburg) but it isn't in this page, and his military abilities I think are only lightly covered. Any thoughts? Kresock (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In a biography of this length, adding a one sentence summary from another encyclopedia would be inappropriate. This article attempts to demonstrate Longstreet's qualities by examples within context. If you have some secondary sources that expand on the claim of tirelessness (or confidence or administration), feel free to add them within context. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I recall something appropriate from Piston's Lee's Tarnished Lieutenant; I'll see if I can dig up my copy and post it here on the talk page for perusal since it's a sentence or two. Stack Odds (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Stack Odds

reversion of July 18 edits

I have reverted two edits as follows:

  1. The changes about Longstreet at the Battle of Gettysburg removed cited material. If someone would like to offer alternatives views from other secondary sources and add those citations, that would be perfectly acceptable, but it is unacceptable to remove material from reputable sources that is properly cited.
  2. The additions about the Chattanooga campaign are OK on their face, albeit a bit long for the importance of the topic to Longstreet's career, but this is a fully cited article and it is unacceptable to add uncited material to it. If someone would like to add this material with the proper citations from secondary sources, go ahead (but run a spell check on it first, please).

Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that #1 was removed and #2 was at least partially cited, so I have tweaked it up. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"...Bragg who had no intention of listening to anyone."

This is not a neutral phrase to include in an encyclopedic statement. There's lots of these kind of interpretive statements in recent contributions by User:110fremont. I remind the user that this isn't about being correct; its instead about proving one's points in any arena of disagreement. If one is going to add non-neutral language to a page, one is expected to bring the citation to prove such assertion. BusterD (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Suffolk edits

I don't have the Knudsen ref, so can't look further into this, but what does this mean?

Longstreet advocated the first strategic movements to utilize rail, interior lines, and create temporary numerical advantages in Mississippi or Tennessee prior to Gettysburg.

Johnston at First Manassas and Bragg prior to Perryville both used rails and interior lines strategically before Longstreet suggested it. And what does Gettysburg, which had no rail traffic involved, have to do with it? Are you saying that Longstreet was the first to suggest movement from Virginia to Mississippi or Tennessee? Certainly President Davis had suggested that previously. Most authors imply that Longstreet was merely looking for his own self advancement in getting out from underneath Lee's command, not promoting a new Confederate "grand strategy" (which is misusing the term in this context). Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless this confusion is reconciled, I intend to remove the passages on August 2. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


'Despite Lee's brilliant victory at Chancellorsville, Longstreet once again came under criticism, claiming that he could have marched his men back from Suffolk in time to join Lee.' Not clear. He had been following Lee's orders. Do you mean that Lee came under criticism from Longstreet? Valetude (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox formatting problems

Ever since the infobox was changed from military person to officeholder, there is stray text around Longstreet's picture ([[file: |225px|alt=|James Longstreet]]). Does anybody know how to fix this? Thanks. -Cwenger (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The image= parameter is different for that template (it does not use the "[[File:" coding) and I don't know whether using two stacked images (portrait and signature) is possible. However, rather than simply fixing the images, I would recommend going back to the original template. Longstreet's historical reputation is 99.999% because of his military service, and to lead off with a minor political office really does his legacy a disservice. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I resolved this by stacking the two infoboxes, with military person on top and ambassador on bottom. -Cwenger (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Perfecto! Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Longstreet and Grant

People need to be careful when inserting details about the relationship between Longstreet and Grant. Although their friendship is a popular topic for historians to throw out there because of their obvious roles during the Civil War, many of the details are unclear or in dispute, not least of which concern Grant's wedding. The idea that Longstreet was Grant's best man at Grant's wedding has become so ubiquitous within the popular narrative between the two that it is all over the Internet and often even stated to be so without reference by historians. In his 2001 biography of Grant, Jean Edward Smith says that Longstreet was Grant's best man but provides no direct reference. In his 2002 book To America, Stephen Ambrose states that Longstreet was the best man without reference and as if it were simply common knowledge fact. It appears that Longstreet's supposed role as best man at the wedding has been repeated so often in secondary literature that it simply became accepted as fact somewhere along the line. We should be careful with this, lest the Wikipedia article also becomes another beacon of possible misinformation on the subject. Longstreet himself in an interview submitted to the New York Times after Grant's death in 1885 simply said that he had been "among the guests" at Grant's wedding:

http://www.granthomepage.com/intlongstreet.htm

We know that neither Grant nor Longstreet ever stated in their memoirs that Longstreet serves as best man at the wedding. So far as I know, there is no letter/book/manuscript/source where either of them stated that he did. Further, as might be understandable, there were slip-ups among the recollections of those who were at the wedding that may have contributed to misnomer. Julia Dent Grant, for example, stated in her memoirs that Sid Smith was one of Grant's groomsmen. This was impossible, being that Smith had died during the Mexican War. Therefore, the editor to Julia's memoirs posited the idea that Longstreet "may have been a groomsman." Just food for thought. I tried to clear up the section as cleanly and succinctly as possible. Harry Yelreh (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent job on your edits. A large number of Wikipedia editors are not able to deal coherently with situations where reliable secondary sources disagree. By the way, Wert simply says that he attended the wedding. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

In G. Moxley Sorrel's memoirs, Sorrel mentions Longstreet as Grant's best man on page 28. I don't know if he heard this from Longstreet, but given his position on Longstreet's staff the relationship it is possible. Semperpietas (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


Good analysis

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-forgotten-confederate-general-who-would-make-a-better-subject-for-monuments/2016/01/27/f09bad42-c536-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.a312942fe5fa. Legacypac (talk) 04:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The opening paragraph states that Longstreet performed "poorly" during the seven days battle (a confusion with Jackson?) which completely contradicts the section on the battle later on, as well as the assessment of his contemporaries, most of which considered him one of the strongest confederate commanders during this (overall poorly-led) campaign. I also feel that the opening paragraph disminishes his merits in a subtle way. It is said that "his men stood their ground at Antietam and Frederiskcburg" thus minimizing his own role in these battles, even though his defensive performance at Fredericksburg may have been unmatched by any commander in the whole war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.113.177.85 (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Longstreet. 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).

  • 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) 01:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Longstreet. 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).

  • 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) 10:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Lookout Valley

For some reason, this article completely skips Longstreet's biggest failure in the Civil War--his refusal to secure Lookout Valley, and the subsequent debacle at The Battle of Wauhatchie. This is probably the most concrete example of Longstreet's insubordination toward Bragg, and the main reason he was sent to Knoxville. 204.93.125.230 (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC) RW

Treason and Oathbreaking

This article manages to somehow ignore the fact that Longstreet committed Treason ("levying war against [the United States]") and also broke his oath as an officer in the United States Army:

"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." (1830s oath)

Can we maybe say something about that instead of whitewashing it? Bgoldnyxnet (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It is not that simple, and maybe you should think about your definition of whitewashing before using the term. Longstreet, stationed in the New Mexico Territory, was offered and accepted a commission while still in the U.S. Army; as he had offered his services to Alabama. Then Longstreet, still in the west where mail needed time, tendered his resignation from the U.S. Army as was his good right; which, if accepted, would absolve him from the oath mentioned above. The U.S. War Department had the right to decline the resignation and to dismiss and even to arrest him instead (as it did with numerous others) to bring forward charges (like treason etc). But it didn´t, they accepted his resignation and didn´t charge or court-martial him. Thus the oath no longer applied to him. He took no actions against the U.S. before his resignation was accepted, being on travel back to the east and receiving a new Confederate commission after his arrival and the aforementioned acceptance of his resignation. The U.S. could have brought forward individual charges against him after the war had ended, it didn´t either. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Longstreet, along with Lee, was indicted for Treason after the War on June 7, 1865. Smith (2001) pages 416-418. The treason charge against Longstreet was dropped on June 20, after Grant went to Johnson and told him he would resign if Lee was charged with treason. Longstreet was indicted but saved from prosecution and punishment by Grant. I believe Longstreet was under the surrender document at Appomattox. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who fought for the Confederacy definitionally committed treason. This is especially true for former US Army officers, and even more so for Longstreet, who accepted a commission from an enemy nation before resigning from the US army. Powderhound522 (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

What is your point? Also, if the Confederacy constituted a nation, as you say it did, then it is difficult to make the argument that he committed treason. Display name 99 (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Defecting from your nation to fight against them in the service of another, enemy nation is exactly treason. There’s no other definition to be applied to that action. I make this point to say that just because he wasn’t charged at the time doesn’t mean we should obfuscate the meaning of his actions in the present. Powderhound522 (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

If you knew your history, you would know that he went with his state. He fought because the CSA was invaded by the US. The Confederates weren't trying to overturn the US government - they wanted to be left alone by it. [User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] You talkin' to me? 22:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Bubba, this is the racist history of the Lost Cause. It’s a lie, propagated by former confederates and their allies. Powderhound522 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Nothing that he said was wrong. Again, what is your point? You have offered no sources calling Longstreet's action treasonous nor given any specific proposed improvements to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 10:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture - alternative history fiction

This paragraph was added today - does it really need to be in the article? I don't think so. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 22:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit of citations

I saw this in the featured article review, and thought to edit a few issues. I combined the different sources into a single citation to clean up sources. In addition, the multiple citations sometimes made it look like multiple secondary-source authors agreed, when often the additional citations were Longstreet himself and Alexander. Here's the changes I made:

  • All citations are bundled
  • Citations from secondary sources are first and in alphabetical order; sources from primary sources go afterwards starting in alphabetical order afterwards.
  • Dates for Longstreet and Alexander updated to time of publication since they didn't update editions. Otherwise, a reader may be under the misimpression that Longstreet and Alexander are modern secondary sources.
  • Deleted all duplicate links, as this is part of Featured Article style.
  • Accidentally had a editing conflict, but I think I caught all your changes. But I noticed that even with the changes, the article was switching between abbreviations and full statement for ranks with Lieutenant in it (and when used as a title, I think both Lieutenant and following noun (e.g., Colonel) are capitalized. I thought spelling it out in full each time was easiest, but change if you think otherwise.
  • Made Longstreet "pay master" quote linked. Cited Longstreet verbatim in "pay master" quote, as that is most appropriate. Mentioned Wert's response after his comment. "Other historians" was deleted as only Wert is mentioned.

As mentioned, this was done in one large edit (hence the conflict) so that you could revert it. There are larger issues I saw when editing, but will put these in the Featured Article Review.

A few things here... All citations are not bundled. There is an issue with some of them being bundled. That is being dealt with. But to say that all of them are bundled is false. I don't know what you are speaking about regarding alphabetizing sources. A few terms may be linked more than once if it has been a long time since they were mentioned previously. You removed a link to lieutenant colonel even though the link had never appeared before. We cite the years of the editions of works that are being used. Sometimes, it is impossible to know when a primary source is published. So one can only cite when it came out in a book, even if that is centuries later. The year cannot be changed without changing the the publisher and other details, because the publisher that released a new edition of the book likely did not publish its first edition. You were wrong to say that the Alexander book was published in 1907; that is a different work. The work that we use here in this article was only discovered decades after his death and was published for the first time in 1989. Abbreviations for ranks should not be used the first time that these ranks are mentioned, but they may be used afterwards. Finally, you do not have the right to completely change a style of citation whenever it suits you. Different articles may have different styles. There is not one uniformly mandated style on Wikipedia. I personally do not like the style of reference that you have used. I find it confusing. I have written this article. When you write your own article, you may use a different style.
I removed mention of other historians in the citation to Wert, because indeed only he is mentioned. Display name 99 (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I put it out there as a single-click reversion mainly so you could see it and determine what was worth keeping and what was not.
  • With respect to the bundling. I do apologize if bundling citations was considered changing format. I didn't consider it so. That's why I kept the sfn citation style and sources (besides suggesting the two date changes the same.) My thought was if you liked it, you wouldn't have to do the work.
  • No doubt the loss of the Lieutenant colonel link was my mistake as I tried to ensure I didn't override any of your edits during the conflict as I was removing duplicate links. I just wanted my attempt to remove the duplicate links to be in the edit. (But because of the edit conflicts, I had to back-edit the edit too.) Same with the implicit suggestion on how to format the Longstreet quote in the citation without mentioning Wert twice and making Longstreet a live sublink.
  • As mentioned, I have no argument with the reversion, and tried to keep changing it easy for you. Again, if there was anything of value in the edit, please add them yourself. Getting an article in shape for featured review is stressful. I also commented on a few issues in the Featured Article review. I think they are minor but important, but ultimately they are just comments in passing. I wish you the best with the article! Wtfiv (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

FA status

A lot of work has gone into this article, mostly by a small number of editors. Congratulations! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:56, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Revert of recent edits

I am undoing the revisions recently made to the article. None of them had a single edit summary, meaning that it's impossible to know what exactly the editor who made them was thinking. There were numerous problems. The editor moved citations around so that the end of one paragraph was without any citations, which is unacceptable. [1] The claim added that Molino del Rey was one of the bloodiest battles of the Mexican-American War [2] was unsourced. Grammatical problems include substituting a person's name for a pronoun when the name was already mentioned in the sentence ("Porter told him that had he attacked Porter") [3] but also substituting a pronoun for a person's name when the person's name had not been mentioned for several sentences. [4] The link to the 8th Infantry Regiment in which Longstreet is supposed to have served before the Civil War links to an article about a unit not created until after Longstreet's death in 1918 [5], meaning that it cannot be a correct link. The other edits to the article were not all clearly bad. A few of them were good and I am going to restore them. However, most of them, even if they didn't necessarily hurt the article, also did not appear to be helpful. The editor in question should use better judgment in the future to ensure that his or her edits are factually correct, sourced, and necessary, the last of these meaning that they actually make the article better and that they aren't just tweaks made out of boredom. Also, please use edit summaries to help other editors figure out what you're doing and why. Display name 99 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits concerning Colfax massacre

I see there was a good-faith change by a new contributor, an appropriate reversion explained in edit summary by a seasoned editor, then a re-application of the change, this time with stronger sourcing and an attempt to explain the change in edit summary. I've created this thread so this insertion can be discussed if necessary. First, Welcome! I appreciate when re-inserting the material, an effort was made to improve the citation with the Atlantic Magazine source, so I thank the new editor for that attention. For the record, our normal working procedure on Wikipedia is (Bold, Revert, Discuss). For my part I'd prefer to see more discussion on the talk page and less in edit summary. Does anyone wish to further discuss these edits? BusterD (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent Edits

MaxSand458, I will explain why I have reverted your edits to the article.

The edits have bad formatting. I am specifically speaking about putting a period in between references and improper writing of dates in articles. "April 13th of 1873" should be April 13, 1873. The style of writing in general is bad. You inserted a 2-sentence summary of the Colfax Massacre, which had already been mentioned in the article, in the middle of a general discussion of Longstreet's legacy, completely breaking the flow of the article. It is especially problematic and confusing that the Legacy section had more detail than the Reconstruction section.

The recent addition contains excessive detail. The article is already close to being too long under WP:Article size and cannot afford the addition of more detailed content. This is especially true when such detail is in entirely the wrong part of the article, as it is here.

The sources are not of a particularly high quality. The article should rely on peer-reviewed monographs and not on short articles written by journalists specializing in modern issues. Granted, the Redemption book is popular history written by someone who was not academically trained as a historian, but it is still a book rather than a popular magazine article, meaning that it would have required a much heavier amount of research.

The most recent change does not adhere to WP:Neutral point of view. This is exemplified by the use of "so-called" and the sentence "Longstreet's bravery was not in leading the militia, but in standing up to the white power structure."

I encourage you to consult Wikipedia guidelines and familiarize yourself with our policies before making further edits. Display name 99 (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Taps

@Display name 99: The article currently reads His offenses included visiting after taps referring to Longstreet's West Point student time, linking to Taps (bugle call). But the tune specifically linked to was written by Dan Butterfield during the Civil War, decades after Longstreet was at West Point. I'm assuming the actual reference is to Tattoo (bugle call), Scott Tattoo, or some similar thing, but can't say for sure without being able to consult the cited source (Wert's bio). Hog Farm Talk 19:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm. Wert uses the word "taps" but does not clarify. If you want to change the link, I would have no issue with that. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I've simply removed the link, because I don't think it's clear enough to chose a specific target without further information. Hog Farm Talk 22:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Fine by me. Display name 99 (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Louisiana State Militia

In the article and Infobox, it list “Louisiana State Militia” I had previously made this hypertext to the Louisiana National Guard, but this edit was reverted, claiming that the national guard did not exist then.

The state militia forces were simply the name each state used to refer to what is now the national guard. And according to the Louisiana National Guard website, they trace their origin back to 1600s.

https://geauxguard.la.gov/history/ Digital Herodotus (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

General Longstreet's early years confused with that of his nephew's?

I’m bringing up the below referenced video in the event this has not been discussed here previously. Early on in the video, there is an interview with a man with the Longstreet Society who is described as its “resident expert” concerning the general. He maintains that the early years and upbringing of General James Longstreet was confused by an early historian of the general who mistook the general’s nephew (from his older brother William), James Carter Longstreet, for General James Longstreet. He notes that his source for this is the family’s modern historian, a direct descendant of the general, who extensively researched the life of his ancestor.

I know that many Wikipedia editors are passionate about accuracy regarding all things Civil War and, therefore, for any unfamiliar with this video and interview who might want to view it and determine its validity as a source for the article, please click below. If it is deemed credible, then it would appear that the section of the article dealing with General Longstreet’s childhood might have to be revised accordingly. If any disagree, please don’t attempt to argue with me as I am hardly an expert on the subject and am just trying to be helpful for the benefit of others. I would, however, enjoy reading discussion among others here more educated than myself regarding the subject. Again, I do not know if this has been brought up here before.

Thanks to all for producing such a splendid article! It is most appreciated. For the video:

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS968US968&q=james+longstreet&tbm=vid&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiN887e0rb-AhVnFVkFHW47AUEQ0pQJegUIqAEQAQ&biw=1280&bih=578&dpr=1.25#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:900d97f1,vid:-Doop5_RKtU HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Engineering instructor

The article talks about the tactical ideas that Longstreet learned from Dennis Hart Mahan but describes Mahan as his "engineering instructor". Did Longstreet really learn tactics in an engineering course? I'm guessing that "engineering" has crept in here because Mahan was an engineer as well as a military theorist but that the course was not an engineering course.Bill (talk) 01:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Billposer, the source disagrees. Display name 99 (talk) 22:05, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
So how did tactics get into an engineering course? Bill (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Military engineering is not just building things but also maintaining lines of transportation and communication. The source, Wert, also says that Mahan devoted a week in his lessons to "the art of war," which could include the things that do not fit so neatly into engineering. What we know is that Mahan taught an engineering course and that he had theories about military conduct that Longstreet later applied. From that, Wert concludes that Longstreet was influenced by Mahan's theories. As Wert is Longstreet's premier biographer, I have incorporated his position into the article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Longstreet/Archive_1&oldid=1239780672"