Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk)

Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Another article in my series of Missouri Confederate units. This one's been a tough one to work on, as there's not much in the way of sourcing to go by. A minor unit that was active in one campaign, it played a minor role in a few minor actions. The unit's role at the Second Battle of Lexington and the Battle of Little Blue River aren't as fleshed-out as I would like, but I can find nothing in reliable sources anywhere that I've looked online or in my print books that discuss this unit's role at those battles, except for a few sentences in McGhee's book cited in the article. Not even the Official Records deal with those details. The commander of the unit didn't even issue official reports. As a result, I'm pretty confident that I've included all of the detail that can be reasonably added on this subject. Hog Farm Bacon 05:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • No issues with the one map.
  • Are there any images that could be added? I looked at Slayback's bio and we don't seem to have an image of him
    • I can't find an image of Slayback quickly that's definitely PD, simply because first date of publishing isn't going to be recorded usually. However, I did find an image of Byram's Ford, which is a point in one of the battles.
      • I tracked down this book published by Slayback's wife in 1883 that has a portrait of him - it's not a great image, but it might be all we've got. Parsecboy (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • You may want to standardize ISBN formatting (https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter will convert from 9 to 13 and vice versa)
    • Converted all to ISBN 13
  • Footnotes and references are otherwise standardized
  • I had a look at McGhee and have no concerns with close paraphrasing
  • The sources used appear to be reliable, many are from academic publishers, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

Lead
  • suggest "Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment was a cavalry regiment that served in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War. Originally raised as Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Battalion, it consisted of men recruited in Missouri by <rank> Alonzo W. Slayback during Price's Raid in 1864."
    • Done
  • "The regimentbattalion's first action"
    • Done
  • "then at battalion size"
    • Done
  • "Probably around February 1865, the"
    • Done
  • "although at the time the men of the regiment"
    • Done
  • "On June 2, the Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department surrendered, although the men of the regiment were stationed at different points in Louisiana and Arkansas when they were paroled twelve days later, leading the historian James McGhee to believe that the regiment had disbanded before the surrender."
    • Done
Body
  • say the St. Louis riot was pro-secession
    • Done
  • "in charge of the unitcommand"
    • Done
  • "Price abandoned Missouri for Arkansas in the face of Union pressure"
    • Done
  • "giving the Union general control of Missouri", it sounds like you are talking about a Union general
    • Removed
  • "<rank> Alonzo W. Slayback"
    • Done
  • "The unit grew in strength over the course of Price's Raid, reaching battalion strength in October 1864. It was expanded to full regimental strength around February 1865." as it currently makes it seem that the Raid went on until Feb 65.
    • Done
  • "reported to have issued fromleft Jefferson City"
    • Changed the wording
  • "Collin's Missouri Battery"→"Collins' Missouri Battery"
    • Done
  • "under Thompson's command"
    • Done
  • "Collin's artillery"→"Collins' artillery"
    • Done
  • "with Slayback in the lead" literally Slackback, or his battalion?
    • Literally Slayback. I've thrown in a himself to make it clearer
  • "as was positioned to the left of the rest of Thompson's brigade while on detached duty" is confusing. Wasn't it part of Thompson's brigade? If so, perhaps "as was positioned on the left of Thompson's brigade"
    • Done
  • when were they furloughed?
  • "At an unknown date (probably in February 1865)"→"Probably around February 1865"
    • Done
  • "was disbanded before the surrender"
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Peacemaker67: - All addressed except for one. McGhee doesn't give an exact date for the furlough. I'm in the process of looking for a time frame of when Price was in Arkansas so I can give "in early November" or something like that. This was my concern about this article: there's just so much not recorded in sources that I've seen, so this article is limited in what can be said about the subject. Hog Farm Bacon 23:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, supporting. Sorry about the delay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

This article is in good shape, and provides interesting insights into this theatre of the US Civil War. I have the following comments:

  • "In July, anti-secession state legislators held a vote rejecting secession." - did only the legislators vote, or was this a more general referendum?
    • Only the legislators. The secession conventions in 1860 and 1861 were all just the state legislature
  • Can the number of men in the unit at various times be noted in the 'Organization' section? (importantly, was this unit ever genuinely at its full strength?)
    • @Nick-D: Only numerical strength I've seen anywhere is 300 in December 1864. I can move that from the service history to the organization. Sources kinda imply a very fluid strength, and Slayback didn't write official reports. This one's always been kinda borderline for ACR, just cause so much about the unit is unknown. Hog Farm Bacon 13:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest leaving that as it is then. I think that the coverage is fine for A-class, especially given the nature of this unit and the theatre of war (e.g. this seems to have been an a unit which was thrown together and operated in somewhat irregular ways in a third-tier theatre as the CSA collapsed, so it's not surprising that few records were created and/or survived). Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Service history' section would benefit from an introduction or similar noting the state of the war in the theatre where the regiment was deployed at this time (as I understand it, this was characterised by fairly small scale operations with neither side placing any priority on the area). At present it's unclear where exactly the unit was fighting, and what it was part of. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: - I've added a meaty paragraph at the beginning of the Service history section, explaining that the Trans-Mississippi Theater was an isolated backwater district, and giving the goals of Price's Raid, and why it started. Does this help any? Hog Farm Bacon 23:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's excellent, and a very interesting read. As my comments are now addressed, I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have done a little copy editing which you may wish to check.

  • "The origins of the Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment began when". Optional: It seems a little clumsy to have both "origins" and "began" in the same introduction to a sentence. Consider rephrasing more felicitously.
    • How about "Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment originated when "? Reads much better, at least to me
  • Not knowing off hand what the Confederate Army considered full strength for a cavalry company, battalion or regiment, I am left with no idea of the size of this formation at any stage of its existence, except when it returned from furlough. Any chance of some actual numbers? Even if they are informed guesses and/or based on nominal "full strength".
    • I honestly can't say. The records don't exist, and they probably never did, since Slayback didn't file reports. In an original research sense, I get the strong impression from my research into this that the strength of this unit was in constant flux. I've always been a little concerned the necessary details don't exist to get this one to A-Class, and I think getting this one to FA is impossible, since so many details are just unknown.
That's fair enough, but where you have "At full strength, the regiment contained ten companies" perhaps you could add something like 'which had a complement of XX men each'? I assume that the Confederate army had a standard complement for a cavalry company and that it is known?
@Gog the Mild: - Theoretically it did, but that almost never happened in this time and place. The Confederate Trans-Mississippi after Vicksburg fell in 1863 just kinda did whatever the hell it wanted to. Smith appointed generals without consulting anyone, discipline was almost nonexistent (see Poison Spring Massacre), and units were formed and unformed as officers desired, and Jo Shelby decided "screw this, let's go to Mexico". The collapse of Germany in 1945 is kinda a good analogy: it was falling apart so much that to compare it military regulations is misleading. I just don't have a good answer for this. Theoretically, if all companies were at full strength, it would have been in the area of 1,000 men; but that is incredibly unlikely for this time and place. Hog Farm Bacon 15:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I like the fall of Germany analogy. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who promoted an end to the war". Maybe → 'who promoted ending the war'?
    • Done
  • "A Union garrison defended small fortifications" I'm not sure about "small". Maybe 'improvised'?
    • After going back into the source, I think improvised is a better word, so changed
  • "However, the Confederate forces were forced to fall back". Suggest deleting "However".
    • Done
  • "to a stone fence". I don't think that a fence can be made of stone. 'wall'?
    • Oddly enough, the sources specifically refer to the men taking shelter behind "a string of stone fences"
How very odd. Ah well.
  • "Any specific casualties suffered by the unit". Delete "Any".
    • Done

That's all I have. A fine piece of prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: - I've replied to all of these as I can. Unfortunately, I have no good replies to one or two, as the basic records for this unit either no longer or never did exist. Hog Farm Bacon 15:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. Just a query on the unit's complement. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Slayback%27s_Missouri_Cavalry_Regiment&oldid=975471240"