Major General James G. Blunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.

A work in progress

I've been working along with RedHarvest to expand this article to a more appropriate length than heretofore. I have no more time to edit this afternoon, but I did find an additional online source (first source listed under "General References") which I hope to study and make more use of when I get back to editing. Any additional help or sources would be greatly appreciated! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful of online resources like that one. The part I just edited shows that the site considerably altered its interpretation of what Gifford wrote (that they claim as their guiding reference.) I don't know that their tone was intentionally POV, but it became unbalanced. The two most detailed modern references are Gifford's book and Michael Gillespie's (available at the historic site.)
Thanks for your help, especially on the Anderson House! In regard to the source I mentioned above (http://www.webroots.org/library/usamilit/civil/tbolmo00.html; sorry, I should have given the specific address earlier, but was so pressed for time due to a pressing engagement that I wasn't able to), is this the site you were referring to, or was it some other site? The site I was mentioning appears to contain several firsthand accounts of the battle, including statements by Price and Mulligan--thus, it would seem to be an excellent resource. I would like to use it to "flesh out" the details of the battle contained in the article, but before doing so, I wanted to be sure that this was not the article you were referring to. Any insights you might offer would be greatly appreciated! - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That link looks fine, primarily after action reports. I was thinking of the "visit Lexington" link as the part about the Anderson house seemed to be based on it. Lexington is a tricky one (as is Independence) because it has not attracted attention from widely known authors unfortunately. Having only recently visited and obtained Gillespie's booklet, I'm still trying to sort out the different viewpoints of the authors and original sources. Red Harvest (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I live only 20 miles or so from Lexington, and used to be a frequent visitor to the battlefield and museum, though it's been a while since my last visit. I think the article looks pretty decent now, though it might stand further expansion after reading the reports on that link (if it is decided that further details are warrented or desired, or if corrections need to be made). What do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Anderson House

This one is tricky because both sides have valid points. I need to hunt down references to support it but I undestand the Southern argument that the house was in such a commanding position that it really was not suitable as a hospital, and putting a hospital flag on it to prevent if from being used that way was unacceptable. On the other hand the lack of attention to defending it suggests that Mulligan's intentions were that it would be sufficiently in the rear that it would be a good site. My personal interpretation is that he or someone before him miscalculated and assumed that there would not be any force chosing to place itself between there and the river. At any rate, I see both sides as having merit.

Similarly, when it was taken the Federals who retook it had been instructed to consider those holding it in violation of the Laws of War. The MSG inside didn't just up and surrender, they were overwhelmed and compelled to surrender after inflicting considerable casualties. Again, both points of view have some validity. Interestingly, those who executed the men in the hospital don't seem to have been singled out and executed by the MSG following the battle. (That is the sort of outcome I would have expected if the MSG commanders felt strongly in the right on this.) Red Harvest (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cannonball in the Courthouse column

I'm looking for some confirmation on this one. I've heard a time or two that the cannonball was removed or replaced at some point. I started hunting around for a source today and found the following: "During the Battle of Lexington in 1861, a cannonball struck the top of this column of the Lafayette County Courthouse. A trajectory study has shown that it was probably fired from a Confederate cannon that overshot the Union trenches. The cannonball fell right out, but, around 1920, what was accepted to be the original cannonball was screwed on a two-foot iron rod that was inserted in a hole drilled in the column, to make sure it stayed there permanently." This came from Roger E. Slusher's Lexington (Images of America series) p. 25--a 2013 publication via the Lexington Historical Assoc. A http://lexingtonmo.com/files/A-Cannonball,-A-Calaboose--Count-Basie.pdf brochure repeats an almost identical story: "A cannonball hit the left column of the portico during the Battle of Lexington. It immediately fell out, but was picked up by a man who later swore it was the original ball. In the early 1900s, he brought it to the County Commissioners, who had the ball attached to the column with an iron rod. It has since become the symbol of Lexington." Red Harvest (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Definitely worth putting this back into the article, given what you've found here. I only removed the info because it didn't seem adequately sourced; I certainly have no objections to its return if you want to use this as documentation. I'll leave it up to you. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You were correct in removing that croquet ball info since it was unsourced. That addition was made by an IP editor from Sept 11, 2013. Elements of that editor's story might also be accurate, but there is no verifiable source. However, it did get me to thinking about the cannonball again, because I had heard second hand that it was not the original. There is likely a contemporary newspaper article about replacing the cannonball in the column, if one knew where/when to look for it. That would provide the sort of confirmation that appears to be needed. At this stage the two sources that I've seen, taken together, don't provide enough detail to verify exactly who made the change, and when. A news item or such about the "before and after" of the cannonball column would clinch it. At this time the best I can do is to note the information, since it runs counter to the vast majority of published sources at this time. I just checked the 1881 Lafayette County History and it doesn't provide an answer, only noting: "One of the cannon balls struck one of the Doric columns of the court house, and the place where it struck is plainly visible at this day." Notice that it says "place", not the ball itself. So while it doesn't confirm or deny, it is consistent with the ball not being present in the 1881 time frame. Red Harvest (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if a call to either the courthouse itself, or the Lexington Battle museum, might give some insight into this. For one, they could confirm or deny the basic story of the cannonball being replaced, and if that story is true, they might be able to point someone in the direction of an article or other usable source on the matter. What do you think? - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking the same. They could likely point to an article of some type about the matter if the story is true. If you call you might ask if there is a source for the analysis of trajectory of the cannonball. It will probably talk about the history of the ball. Red Harvest (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have what I consider confirmation of the story now. The Battle of Lexington State Historic Site has an article from the June 3, 1970 Lexington Advertiser-News that repeats largely the same story and relates its own 1920 article of the event "50 years ago." I've not seen the text, but it has been read to me. It states an elderly gentleman provided affadavit of having recovered the ball from nearby after the battle, and it also mentions screwing the ball onto an iron rod inserted in the column. Red Harvest (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start date of "battle" (siege) incorrect

I've noticed in Larry Wood's new book about Lexington that the initial skirmish is listed as the 12th, rather than the 13th commonly given. The 13th date appears to be a legacy error from the original compilation in the Official Records from the 1881 volume including Lexington, probably stemming from Price's report where the skirmish is given as on the 13th. A much later volume to the O.R. from 1898 contains many more MSG reports from Lexington and those that I've looked at all list the skirmish as the 12th, not the 13th. Additionally, Major Van Horn who commanded a portion of the Union skirmishers gives the date as the 12th in his own post-war account published by the Lexington Historical Society in 1903. Mulligan also gave the date as the 12th in a wartime newspaper account (his Official Report was never published.) Unfortunately, Price's 13th date is also used for the O.R. heading/list of operations. This will require changes and cites in the body of the article, but I'm not sure what to do about the heading dates in intro or info box.Red Harvest (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ran into a similar problem with the date for the very early engagement Battle of Gloucester Point (1861). The notability for this engagement is mainly that it was "the earliest exchange of gunfire between the Union Navy and organized Rebel (Confederate) forces after the U.S. Army surrendered Fort Sumter to the Confederates and as the earliest reported Civil War military engagement in Virginia." I explained the discrepancy in the reported dates in a lengthy footnote as well as the reason for the date given in the text. I used the correct date in the infobox but did not footnote it from there. I suppose, upon reflection, I could go back and cite the same footnote for the date in the infobox. No problem and almost no extra work or extra space used. Perhaps that would be a good choice for this article as well. Donner60 (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like Donner's idea. Footnote it, with a good, thorough explanation, and I'd think that should take care of it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siege vs battle and problems with NPS summary

Another thing worth noting is that the O.R. lists this as a "siege" rather than a singular battle. The NPS/CWSAC summaries call nearly everything a battle, whether a skirmish, a battle, or a siege. This engagement has all of the hallmarks of a siege, rather than a battle. This particular NPS summary is weak and should not be used as a reliable source if any others are available. (For examples the casualties on both sides are erroneous when compared to reports or various other sources.)Red Harvest (talk) 17:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does fit more the definition of a siege, for sure. I've no objections myself, if you want to make the appropriate changes. - Ecjmartin (talk) 04:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of dead links to old online sources

Unfortunately, as has happened on many other pages that relied on online links for ref/cites, many of the links are now dead or just default to home pages. I'm replacing these on the main page as I come to them and find paper text to cite. In the meantime, if editors can ID the original source, and find the same in traditional paper volumes, it would be best to replace the electronic sources with ink based sources (e.g. things like after-action reports from the "Official Records".) Red Harvest (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parole

From the entry: "The Federals were then paroled by General Price...."

I would like to expand this to include a definition of what "parole" means in this instance.

Also, my great-grandfather Jesse J. Ridgell fought on the Union side in this battle but our family history says he was taken to a prisoner-of-war camp in Virginia from where he later escaped. He returned to the Union Army in Missouri but was declared unfit for battle owing to what was probably chronic viral bronchitis. Were any Union prisoners taken to POW camps after the first battle or were they all paroled? What would have happened to soldiers (other than the ones who are mentioned in the entry) who broke their parole?

Jesse served in the 14th Home Guard Ridgell's Co. under his uncle, Captain Richard W. Ridgell.

Thank you. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is an interesting subject particularly in this case since I had wondered what became of the Camp Jackson paroles--and several prominent men who received them considered them invalid and ignored the restriction, fighting for the MSG before exchange. If you search the full O.R. for the siege of Lexington you will find some correspondence on this matter with respect to the summary executions after Shiloh (author Larry Wood described it briefly.) The majority of the Federal enlisted troops from Lexington were not properly exchanged. Some of their officers stated and/or believed they had been (per the O.R.) and 100+ men petitioned the dept. command recounting what had happened at Shiloh. The nucleus of these Missourians took the brunt of the initial attack at Shiloh.
Of the Federals at Lexington, Mulligan refused parole and was the only one held for a time (by Price.) The rest who were not wounded/in hospital were transported across the river with parole papers, on their own recognizance. Your ancestor's story about being sent to Virginia after Lexington sounds somewhat unlikely (not unlike one of my own with a VA link that was jumbled over generations), so it would be best to see if you can find his archive records to sort it out. Inquiring about him at the "Missouri in the Civil War Message Board" is a good way to learn more detail--there are some dedicated authors/researchers there. Jesse's card is on the Missouri soldiers database for the 14th HG, says after capture he was mustered out at St. Louis, Oct. '61. Richard went from Capt. of 14th HG after mustering out, to Sgt of 7th MSM Cav after parole. Note that he was dropped from roles in Sept. 1862 because he was an "unexchanged prisoner". Red Harvest (talk) 07:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hemp shocks

What are "hemp shocks" and couldn't that just be changed to "hemp bales"? Especially given that "shocks" doesn't link to anything agricultural. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normal agricultural definition of shocks is: "1. A number of sheaves of grain stacked upright in a field for drying." I don't know if Wikipedia has a page for it, but this was common agricultural practice for many things before combine harvesters. This is not the same as a bale. Baling of hay, wheat, corn, hemp, etc. was done after drying. The hemp bales used later would be ones that had already been harvested and brought to the wharf for storage. That is why we have the expression about "making hay while the sun is shining." You want to cut your grasses in dry weather with more on the horizon/forecast so that it has time to dry before being bailed and put up for storage. If it rains on your freshly cut grass that tends to be a problem...as in mildewed/moldy bales in storage. (This much I remember from growing up on a farm and cutting, raking, baling, and then bucking bales of hay onto the truck then to the barn loft.) Red Harvest (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a stub of a wiki article about it (shocks) referring to "stooks" from a later time. The article still needs work to explain the older practice of "shocking." I've added the link to this page and added agricultural shocks to the shock disambiguation page. Red Harvest (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on First Battle of Lexington. 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, 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) 07:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:First_Battle_of_Lexington