Major General James G. Blunt

This article is rated A-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 Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. United States Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

--198.254.16.201 13:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary. Hal Jespersen 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the October 26 edits to this section. There is an entire article on Little Round Top and this section is deliberately short in deference to that. The place for speculation on the historic importance of the Union position needs to be discussed there, merged appropriately with military historians' views that do not comport with Oakes' self-interested judgments. (In my experience, very few serious military types believe that the loss of LRT would have been for long, and even if it had, the Army of the Potomac had a number of alternative defensive options they could have exercised.) Hal Jespersen 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some modifications to the casualty section in response to a recent edit. It is not possible to say in a Wikipedia article "some estimates are as high as..." We need to have those estimates cited. I do not happen to have references that show casualties as high as 20,000 in July 2. Part of the problem with the way this article was originally written was that it limited itself to actions on the Confederate right, so the figures from Pfanz addressed only those casualties. I added a reference from Trudeau for the entire day, but it is still only 16,800, not 20,000. Sears does not provide a full day's estimate. (These numbers are difficult because actions on Culp's Hill in particular occurred on both July 2 and July 3, and there are not reliable figures for the casualty breakdown in the units over those two days.) If someone has better references, let me know, but note that I am trying to use all published material for references, not random websites. I would also be interested to hear opinions about whether the comparison to Antietam makes a lot of sense considering that the second day casualty figures here are not dramatically larger than the first day's. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The comparison to Antietam is absolutely insightful, in my opinion. Keep in mind, the casualty figures used in this article are not the only ones and some might consider them low. I've seen some for the second day (typically including those that estimate the traditional figure of 28,000 Confederate casualties for the battle) that estimate around 20,000. In any event, it's unanimous (as far as I know; it's the consensus at least) that the 2nd day at Gettysburg was the bloodiest of the battle. The first day of the battle - like Antietam - was an all-day thing, lasting more than 12 hours. It's extremely telling and worth noting that on the 2nd day you have about 17,000 casualties in roughly half the time. I don't have a source on hand - I'm only offering my informal opinion here as discussion, as requested - but for what it's worth here, I have spoken with several National Parks guides who can provide information that the Second Day's fighting particularly on the southern end of the battlefield was quantitatively on a level at least equal to, if not far beyond, that seen anywhere else in the American Civil War. Harry Yelreh (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Chicago Manual of Style, both styles of possessive forms are correct..but more sources pontificate for leaving the s off. See this for reference. Is there something else in Wikipedia that serves as a precedent? Cheers, ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Wikipedia had a binding precedent, the MOS would mandate one style over another. The precedent in use here is that if two styles are considered correct, the original author of the text chooses one and others respect the choice. The other precedent is that the 300+ ACW articles I have written use this style (other than in the cases of unintentional errors). Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've probably been enjoying reading many of them. You are the first to raise objection. Guess I shouldn't have used that bot on all those articles...

Are you using breveted instead of brevetted in the articles that you write? That's one that I've been changing quite a bit. I've been looking at your style guidelines on your user page among other things and have learned a few things..thank you, I will be using some of it.

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have often (always?) used breveted because I suspect that brevetted (which should be pronounced breVETTED due to its double T, rather than BREVETed) is the British variant, similar to US traveler vs. UK traveller. However, a number of dictionaries I consulted had the 2T version listed first, so I have not pushed back on the changes. (I am really one of those old-fashioned guys who think dictionaries are prescriptive rather than descriptive and the order given is important.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I raise a question about the casualty figures given in the article for the 1st Minnesota during its charge. The article states that "based on new research" it has been determined that the regiment suffered "only" 67.9% casualties, rather than the 82% ususally reported. From the context, however, the 67.9% casualty figure seems to be the percentage for the regiment during the entire battle, not just for its charge on day two. The 1st Minnesota did not charge with all of its companies - some companies (which would later be present during Pickett's charge) were detached from the regiment at the time of its charge. I wonder, therefore, if the 67.9% figure is incorrect for the charge alone. In other words, I question whether the 67.9% figure represents the casualties the unit suffered from the charge, or from the entire battle. I also wonder if the claim that 330 Minnesotans charged, rather than the "262 effectives" usually reported, is incorrect, and is simply the total number of men the 1st Minnesota had at the battle, including the detached companies. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundsquirrel13 (talk • contribs) 03:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article states pretty clearly that the 67.9% figure is calculated for the effective strength of the regiment after both July 2 and Pickett's Charge. Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then my point would be that the 82% figure, which this article claims has been proven inaccurate by new research - ("Based on new research it has been determined that the numbers, though not as high as the frequently reported "262 effectives charged in, suffering 82% casualties", were still horrendous by any standards.) - could still be the correct figure for the casualties suffered by the men who charged on day two, since the whole regiment did not participate in the charge (three companies were detached.) As far as I know, 82% has never been cited as the regiment's total casualty figure during the battle. Also, Richard Moe's book on the 1st Minnesota (The Last Full Measure) states that only 262 Minnesotans charged, not 330 as this article currently states. Is it possible that 330 is just the total number of soldiers in the regiment at Gettysburg? Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. Upon further reflection, your points are well taken and I have made adjustments to the paragraph in question. Let me know if that is satisfactory. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks for the attention. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These may have to be reexamined. The article notes that there were approx 6,800 2nd day casualties and 6,000 1st day casualties among the confederates. This makes 12,800 which means to reach the 23,200 casualties for the total battle Pickett's Charge would have had to have suffered nearly 85% casualties which we know isn't accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.15.217 (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to improve the article with information derived from reliable secondary sources. As this particular sub-article states, casualties for the second day are difficult to estimate. Remember that Pickett's Charge was not the only battle action on July 3 -- there was heavy fighting on Culp's Hill and there were two large cavalry battles fought the same day. One of the ironies here is that usually people complain that the Confederate casualties for the overall battle are portrayed as too low in these articles. Some of the older sources claim as high as 28,000. If that were the case, there would be an even larger discrepancy. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the map titled "Confederates sieze the wheatfield" a regiment in Sweitzer's brigade is mislabeled: 32PA should be 32MA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.137.165 (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First day has a link to the second day, but second day doesn't have a link to third day.