Talk:Gettysburg Campaign

Puzzled as to why this is being renamed a campaign

While I disagreed with the convention of "Foo, Battle of", I fail to see how the Gettysburg Whatever can be considered a campaign rather than a battle. Neither side planned a major engagement at Gettysburg, which would take it into the level of operational art at which campaigns are fought.

The article speaks of a battle, lasting three days, but does not describe a specific operational-level objective that would make it a campaign, as were Vicksburg and Sherman's operations in Georgia. Technically, the Battle was a meeting engagement, with much tactical improvisation.

I believe this article would be more properly entitled "Battle of Gettysburg". Howard C. Berkowitz 11:09, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Well, the battle did result from Lee's invasion of the North, which did have a grand strategic goal - to show that the North could not protect its citizens, and to help with international recognition (IIRC). So I think the whole thing (the march North, the consolidation of the Confederate army units at Gettysburg, etc) could be termed a 'campaign', but you're right, I wouldn't use that term for the three days of fighting there alone. (Although perhaps it's intended to eventually have I see the article does already cover the manoeuvering beforehand, too.) J. Noel Chiappa 11:14, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

The article is about a month-long campaign. I agree with Noel that the three days of July 1-3 are incomprehensible except in the context of a campaign, including Lee's strategy ahead of time and, especially, the failed followup on the part of Meade. Apart from Luvas, all the chief historians (Coddington, Brown, Nofi, Woodworth, McPherson, Wertz, ) avoid "battle" in their titles and prefer instead the Gettysburg Campaign and we are following their lead. See especially James M. McPherson, "To Conquer a Peace? Lee's Goals in the Gettysburg Campaign." Civil War Times 2007 46(2): 26-33.Richard Jensen 12:05, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Aren't there two distinct issues here? And subjects? One is what the general layperson calls "The Battle of Gettysburg", by which he/she means the three-day battle. The other is the month-long "Gettysburg Campaign" to which Prof. Jensen refers. Why not do each?

• And, by the way, here is what Larry has to say over the Forums about a pretty closely related subject:

  Even historians refer to battles as "Battle of X." There is no excuse to title our articles "X, Battle of." Ostensibly, the reason for titling any article in Richard's comma format is to make them easier to find in alphabetical listings. Putting aside the fact that we have finessed that problem with the 'abc' field in our metadata, there is no reason to think people will be more likely to look for an article about the Battle of X under X than under Battle. This is, of course, because the proper names of those battles whose names are in the form "Battle of X" are, in fact, in that form, of course. If anyone refers to them, as it were, on a "first name basis" as "Shiloh" or "Gettysburg" or "Waterloo," it is because it is obvious that they're talking about the battle. This does not entail (of course!!!) that, in titling an encyclopedia article, one can do without the words "battle of." So let's use "Battle of X," please. I also think it is implausible that people are not interested battles per se but only in the places where the battles occur. With a few exceptions, most places where famous battles have taken place are famous only because they are the sites of famous battles. Would nearly as many of us have heard of Pearl Harbor, Hastings, or Waterloo without battles being fought there? In short, there is absolutely no good reason, Richard notwithstanding, not to follow our standard CZ naming conventions in this case. Therefore, let's do so. Please do rename the relevant "battle" articles as appropriate; if anyone gives you grief about it, let me know, and please, don't expect me to do this because you're intimidated by Richard. I have too much to do myself. Just be bold!  :-) I'm giving you the right!

As an aside, it seems to me that this discussion has dragged out because Richard has taken a counterintuitive stance and then proceeded to defend it--and, in my humble opinion, weakly. I see that so far, he has persuaded no one (and several have made extremely strong points in reply). So, in this case, since the person taking the stand is one of our few active History Editors, and he seems to have made up his mind and wishes to establish his opinion as our policy, I guess it is incumbent upon me to declare that I am overruling him, as Editor-in-Chief. (Sorry, Richard.) Generally, I try to give editors the benefit of the doubt, but sometimes I do have to overrule them, which I assure you I never like to do. (End of Larry's quote -- It's hard to format this correctly.)

Hayford Peirce 12:30, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

well you can either believe what historical experts says about history after doing lots of research or you can believe what non-historians think when they have done no research and use something they call "intuition". As for Gettysburg, no one in the last decade has put "Battle of Gettysburg" in a adult book title, and there is no reason CZ should go to some old discarded naming system in use decades ago. In this case the article is not merely about the battle of July 1-3 but about the month-long campaign. Historians, both professional and amateur, call it the Gettysburg Campaign.Richard Jensen 14:13, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

For pity's sake, Professor Jensen, you are *not* the only expert in the whole world! And your *opinion* is just that: an opinion. A Google search for "Battle of Gettysburg" returns 512,000 hits. For "Gettysburg Campaign" there are 126,000 hits. At Wikipedia, there is an article for "Gettysburg Campaign" AND there is a separate article for "Battle of Gettysburg". That's all that I'm suggesting here. Fine, you go ahead a write an article about the "Gettysburg Campaign". And then, if someone else wants to write an article about the "Battle of Gettysburg", kindly let them. Hayford Peirce 14:31, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Agreed, Hayford. I conclude based on the discussion above that there was a campaign and a battle that was part of it. Assuming that is correct, we can have an article about each. Richard, I would be much more inclined to respect your own dogmatic proclamations if they were not accompanied by rejections of my authority as Editor-in-Chief. That said, you might notice that I didn't rule on this particular question, but on your own idiosyncratic rejection of the words "battle of" from the names of history articles about battles.

As a reasonable compromise, I would suggest that someone move the discussion of the battle to Battle of Gettysburg, leaving discussion of the larger campaign on this page; of course, there should be prominent linkage from the former to the latter. --Larry Sanger 15:18, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

As a final footnote to this discussion (maybe!), I just did an amateurish search of the Library of Congress: it turned up 201 items for "Battle of Gettysburg" and 46 for "Gettysburg Campaign". Hayford Peirce 15:34, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Check the dates--historians do not use the title in recent years. (The LC books are children's books.) I just did an article search and was surprised to see there was indeed a hit on "Battle of Gettysburg" in the leading journal, Civil War History. SO I read it: Mark Grimsley, "The Continuing Battle of Gettysburg," Civil War History 49.2 (2003) 181-187. Grinmsley is writing about the battle among historians! Richard Jensen 15:54, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

First, I still don't grant your premise. See this search within .edu websites, then this one.

But suppose we grant your premise that the titles are as you say they are. Your argument is essentially an appeal to authority. As a logic teacher, I county myself as an authority (at least for present purposes) in instructing you on what a cogent argument from authority would look like. So let me see if I can make this clear. You are attempting to argue for the conclusion that battle names are not properly in the form "Battle of X." For this conclusion, you want to say that the usage of historians establishes what the proper form of battle names is. This is not a completely unexceptionable principle, but I'll grant it for present purposes.

So, you have to argue that historians generally would not agree that "Battle of X" is the proper form of battle articles. To establish this, however, the only thing you offer us is (1) your own personal opinion about what the proper use is, and (2) the alleged fact that "Battle of Gettysburg" is not used in recent academic article and book titles. Given your own track record, forgive us if (1) is no longer so persuasive for us. As to (2), the fact that the exact phrase "Battle of Gettysburg" does not appear in the title of publications by historians obviously proves absolutely nothing. It's like arguing that Descartes should not be called "Rene Descartes" because one can find few articles or books by philosophers that use the full name "Rene Descartes." Of course you can't; you can't, not because philosophers don't think his name is Rene Descartes, but because experts don't feel a need to use "Rene." It's understood. Similarly with "Battle of." The failure to use "Battle of" in many titles obviously doesn't imply that the proper name of battles, according to historians, are generally in the form "Battle of X." It probably implies only that historians know they're talking about the battle when they say "Antietam" or whatever.

For you to make a cogent appeal to authority, what you could provide us with is evidence that other historians really do think that "Battle of Gettysburg" is somehow old-fashioned as a name (or other names in the form "Battle of X"). You could have shut us up in the beginning if you provided us some such proof. How articles and books are titled doesn't make your case, and this is a fact about logical cogency, not about history. --Larry Sanger 21:37, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

Not daring to follow that number of colons without a colonoscope...

It would be perfectly appropriate to discuss, as a campaign, Lee's 1863 plans for the Army of Northern Virginia, but neither the lead nor the first section frames the activities in terms of a campaign. Clearly, Stuart failed if his mission were purely screening, which is a common perception. Lee and Stuart may have had an operational level plan for an independent cavalry operation, but these are not brought out. Presumably there would be other forces in a campaign, and, at a strategic level, perhaps pressure in other Confederate departments/theaters.

Some of Lee's thinking does come out in the "Operations" section, although "fantasy" does seem an apt description of Lee's ideas, which sound like a WWII Imperial Japanese Navy plan for a "decisive battle", at which all the barbarians' ships would conveniently sink. I had had the impression that Marse Robert was, if not a teetotaler, abstemious; those fantasies seem more appropriate for one indulging in psychoactive substances not readily available for a century. Given the Confederacy changed its cryptographic key only four times during the Late Unpleasantness Between the States (the term used by the docent at the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond), the South did not seem overly obsessed with security. Was there no one in the CSA to observe that if that reflected Lee's thinking, a switch to Grant's brand of booze might be appropriate? I confess here that I have long thought of Lee as a good tactician, an inspirational leader, and a fine human being, but have never been impressed with his operational or strategic brilliance.

Again, using simplistic names, Vicksburg and the March to the Sea had operational thinking behind them; Sherman's operations in Georgia could well be at the strategic level. Johnston's defense of the railroad showed much more operational thinking than anything in or around Gettysburg.

The maneuvering immediately beforehand was not intended to force a decisive battle at Gettysburg, nor did "rebels, who had entered Gettysburg looking for a warehouse of shoes"--if "the Rebels" implied a major force. In reality, the only reason anything happened there was that a Confederate division commander, Henry Heth, heard that Gettysburg had a storehouse of much-needed shoes, and obtained permission to raid the town in search of those critical transportation resources.

Seriously, if the article is to be about a campaign, the material in this section needs to move much nearer the beginning. I agree with Hayford that the average reader is going to be looking for the Three Days. Somewhere in a pile of books here, I have a volume entitled Why the Confederacy Lost, which contains an interview with George Pickett, a very straightforward man. The interviewer asked if Gettysburg failed due to Stuart's lack of focus, or Longstreet's lack of enthusiasm for a frontal attack. Pickett scratched his head and said "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

Having spent 40 or so years in the DC area, "Army of Northern Virginia" sounds like massed irritated commuters in SUVs. Meade wouldn't have had a chance. :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 12:52, 15 June 2008 (CDT)

A comment here was deleted by The Constabulary on grounds of making complaints about fellow Citizens. If you have a complaint about the behavior of another Citizen, e-mail constables@citizendium.org. It is contrary to Citizendium policy to air your complaints on the wiki. See also CZ:Professionalism.

Map problems

Maps 3 and 4 are animated gifs (from a government agency; so not copyright) that seem to upload ok and work well on their upload pages, but don't work here???? Richard Jensen 16:26, 15 June 2008 (CDT)