Jump to content

Talk:Second Battle of Petersburg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 0 external links on Second Battle of Petersburg. 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:

Inconclusive?

[edit]

Seriously? The Union forces were charged with capturing Petersburg, and failed to do it for three days before Lee got there with the Army of Northern Virginia, and lost almost three times as many men in the process; the casualty numbers are very similar to Fredericksburg, only worse for the Union than even that battle was. Plus, they had a massive numerical advantage even on the final day of the battle. This was clearly a Confederate victory. 2606:A000:89C6:9300:20E:8EFF:FE51:ABE0 (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: 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) 17:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Result in infobox

[edit]

Topcat777, where the result has been inconclusive, you have changed this to Confederate victory Strategic stalemate (siege of Petersburg begins) and then reverted to reinstate this despite being advised of WP:RESULT and that the result you have applied is contrary to that guidance. Your WP:ANALYSIS in your comment is not supported by sources or the body of the article and falls foul of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Topcat777
Im not sure about this one;
Petersburg Battle Facts and Summary | American Battlefield Trust
"From June 15–18, 1864, Confederate general Beauregard and his troops, though outnumbered by the Federals, saved Petersburg from Union capture. The late appearance of Lee’s men ended the Federals’ hopes of taking the city by storm and ensured a lengthy siege"
--
Now quoting from the body of the article
"Having achieved almost no gains from four days of assaults, Meade ordered his army to dig in. Union casualties were 11,386 (1,688 killed, 8,513 wounded, 1,185 missing or captured), Confederate 4,000 (200 killed, 2,900 wounded, 900 missing or captured). Grant's opportunity to take Petersburg easily had been lost"
You are 100% right that WP:RESULT should be followed
But I think the body of the article supports the engagement as being a confederate victory.
Cheers; LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 02:51, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The source states that Grant lost an opportunity, not the battle. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"the Union Army’s failure to capture Petersburg on June 15–18, 1864, ordained that both armies would settle in for a lengthy siege. The Federals had squandered “one of the few opportunities that would have truly changed the course of the war”(Bearss and Suderow 2012)."
Brian Matthew Jordan, Companion to the US civil war pp 523
--
By May 1864 he was back in Virginia and probably saved Richmond by discerning and responding to Grant’s threat at Petersburg. G rant’s plan to force a showdown, says Williams, was “ foiled by Beauregard’s stubborn defense” (236). With only 2,200 men at his disposal, Beauregard was able to fend off a formidable Union aggression three days in a row, until Lee was able to get reinforcements into place. In this campaign, Beauregard demonstrated both strength and tenacity by digging in
Leaders of the American Civil War : A Biographical and Historiographical Dictionary, edited by Charles F. Ritter, and Jon L. Wakelyn, Taylor & Francis Group, 1998.
--
"Beauregard rightfully saw it as his greatest victory"
A Grand Opening Squandered: The Battle for Petersburg pp 137
--
Three sources, one talks of union failure (implicit confederate victory), the second talks about Richmond the Confederate capital being saved
And the third explicitly uses the word you would like. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A simple fact is that the battle resulted in neither Grant being driven off nor Petersburg being captured. It was not fought to such a conclusion but morphed into a siege. A lost opportunity or operational failure is not equal to a defeat of one party or the victory of another. Saving Richmond is not ipso facto a victory. And in, "Beauregard rightfully saw it as his greatest victory", there is nuance in meaning - Beauregard's defensive operation was a success but he did not defeat Grant. Presenting this simplistically in the infobox as a Confederate victory does not accurately capture the nuance - the standard terms [in this case, victory] do not accurately describe the outcome. Perhaps more to the point though is what the article actually says: The failure of the Union to defeat the Confederates in these actions resulted in the start of the ten-month Siege of Petersburg. This would clearly indicate the result as inconclusive and in no place does it indicate this to be otherwise. The infobox summarises what the article actually tells the reader, not what we think it should tell the reader. The aftermath section is where we should present details of how good quality sources have analysed the result of the battle but it doesn't particularly do that. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Inconclusive" in reference to what? That point in time (June 18, 1864)? The campaign? The war itself? If it's the war, then all battles are inconclusive until the final one. If this is inconclusive, then many other battles could be reclassified as such (Cold Harbor, The Crater, Kennesaw Mountain, etc.). But I doubt any historian has called it that. Topcat777 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"there is nuance in meaning" sure but I fail to see how a result inconclusive result has any meaning at all, I provided you a source that uses the word, victory.
Confederate victory tells the reader about the content of the article far more clearly than your bland inconclusive... LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inconclusive means there was no clear victory for either side. And we are confined by what the article tells the reader (not what we would like it to tell the reader) per actual sourced content. Cinderella157 (talk) 20:56, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
National Park Service counts it as a Confederate victory- https://www.nps.gov/civilwar/search-battles-detail.htm?battleCode=va063 Topcat777 (talk) 21:33, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and feel we are arguing in circles. Given that I will change the article now to confederate victory, given there is a consensus (of two) between myself and @Topcat777 who similarly seems unmoved. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Second_Battle_of_Petersburg&oldid=1287001228"