Major General James G. Blunt

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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 Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force American Civil War task force United States: Civil War / Military history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - American Civil War task force. This article is supported by WikiProject Military history - U.S. military history task force. Virginia: Northern Virginia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Northern Virginia Task Force, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Text and box casualty numbers do not match. I have Fed: 46killed, 198wounded, 529captured/missing, 100+ drowned; Conf: 36k, 117w in one source - Fed:49k, 158w, 533c, 100+ drowned; Conf: 36k, 117w, 2c in the Winkler book - and Fed: 49k, 158w, 714 c/m; Conf: 33k, 115w, 1m in the Eicher work. Any consensus out there? The last para of the 'Battle' section has other numbers and a cite, plus an added statement that needs citing. Kresock (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the figures, but you can cite approximates and then list the discrepancies in the footnotes. In the meantime, do you have the correct Eicher title in the Refs? Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rereading Jim Morgan's book, and I don't see any final numbers. I'll see if he might shine some definitive sourcing light for us. BusterD (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan does specify 553 Union prisoners (p. 178). BusterD (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got a quick reply to an email from Jim. His best source is from Vol VII, Table XXXVIII of The Medical and Surgical History of the Civil War. US: KIA 223, WIA 226, Missing 445. CS: KIA 36, WIA 264, Missing 2. He differs from the chart in one specific: he can account for 3 CS missing by name. In Morgan's book (p. 183) he discusses why the 49 Union dead figure is incorrect. He estimates (p. 184) "the Union death toll at Ball's Bluff approached 250." I'm guessing there's overlap between the 226 wounded and the 553 prisoners. BusterD (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the ref, thanks for catching that Hal! Adding in 100 or so drowned (listed separately because not direct combat deaths?) still doesn't get us to 250 Federals dead, so the idea of the overlapping/overcounting just might be. I've seen big ol' tables that list casualties from several sources on some of the battle pages, but I am also leaning toward just dealing with it in the notes. The numbers I gave are from a 2001 book, a 2008 book, and the Eicher one from 2001; that being said, I would give more credence to any work that can offer up three Confederates (by name no less) when my believing Conf. estimates almost anywhere is a true leap of faith to me. The casualties in this battle are overshadowed by the ramifications due to it anyway. Can the identified burial statement be cited? Kresock (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. BusterD (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the responses. I cited some figures for the Yankee casualties, but if there's other significantly different totals around they could be added. I'm less sure of the Conf. numbers so I'll leave that alone. One thing I noticed about this article is no mention of Stone's arrest/confinement and his testifying before the almighty committee about this action. I'll remedy that (after expanding Stone's page about it more) if there aren't objections. Kresock (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Ball's Bluff. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080316193811/http://www.nvrpa.org:80/parks/ballsbluff/index.php to http://www.nvrpa.org/parks/ballsbluff/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map of the battle area is very hard to interpret, even when enlarged. You would do better with a graphic representation of the area, showing Leesburg. Valetude (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently both sides considered Leesburg specially important. Could we have the reasons for this? Valetude (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]