Talk:Battle of Chancellorsville/Archive 1

By the numbers?
I'm inclined to change the corps designators to the modern form (I Corps, II Corps, so forth); is that anachronistic? Also, there isn't an order of battle; should there be? Or a link to one? Trekphiler 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to the Confederate corps, we used the convention First, Second, etc., and reserve the Roman numeral nomenclature for the Union corps. (After all, there is no precedent for a "modern" Confederate corps designation. :-) ) Check out my little style guide. There is no order of battle because no one has bothered to type one in, but you are welcome to do so if you are interested. You will find that most of the OOBs for the larger battles follow the formatting conventions in, for instance, Gettysburg Union order of battle. Hal Jespersen 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraphs should say where the battle occurred but don't
It took too long to figure out where exactly the battle took place. I finally saw the summary on the right about Spotsylvania but it should also be in the opening of the text-- and where in Spotsylvania?

161.98.13.100 18:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. This is an interesting data point that indicates some people don't pay much attention to the battle boxes. Hal Jespersen 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Stonewall Jackson's Death
Only if he didn't die, things might have been different if Jackson didn't die. :(71.127.43.151 02:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

MoH
That list of Medal of Honor recipients is too much for a battle article. There is already a List of Medal of Honor recipients page that is suitable for tabular data of this kind. If some notable person in the article received the MoH (like Chamberlain in the various Gettysburg articles), it can be described in context of his actions, but just a list is too much. We don't list all the generals or units either. Hal Jespersen 14:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

One further thought: If you want to create a separate article, List of Medal of Honor recipients in the Battle of Chancellorsville, and put it into the See also section, I would not object to that. There is a precedent for putting the lengthy lists of order of battle (e.g., Nashville Union order of battle) into separate articles. Hal Jespersen 17:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I concer put List of Medal of Honor recipients in the Battle of Chancellorsville.Zginder 16:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Its hard to believe that the Confederates won, yet the casualties on both sides were almost the same. The Union lost only 3,000 more than the Confederates. Makes you wonder whether the commander of the Union forces had a brainl. An idiot could have won this battle.


 * An idiot? Lee could have seen his army decimated. He didn't. A lesser general would have. Trekphiler 18:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hooker's plan was plenty good enough to win. Even with his own mistakes, he would have likely won if either Sedgwick or Stoneham had done their jobs, or if Howard had simply obeyed his orders. Even with all of those failures, the odds against Lee were huge. An ordinary general, let alone an idiot, would not have won Chancellorsville. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

dates
I just added a footnote that describes the disparities of dates for the battle. In almost all cases, Wikipedia battle articles take their basic details--dates, names, results--from National Park Service battle descriptions. If deviations are required from those details, they need to be cited. If there are a lot of deviations, as in this case, it is appropriate to stick with the NPS for the main text and put the others into the footnote. Part of the problem for this battle is that the term "Battle of Chancellorsville" is often interchangeable with the "Chancellorsville Campaign". Some authors include all of the actions in early May, while others separate things into three battles: Chancellorsville, Second Fredericksburg, and Salem Church. Some could argue that Wikipedia should have a campaign article and then three battle articles, but since the main battle is so well known and so much more significant, it ended up the way that it did and it is probably not worth rewriting. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ethnicity of XIth Corps emphasized improperly
The way the paragraph on the XIth Corps reads, it makes it sound like there is something intrinsically inferior about the German immigrants' fighting prowess. While a unit's predominant ethnicity is interesting in itself, and deserves mention, it shouldn't imply that the unit was therefore somehow less effective. Even if many of the troops did not speak English fluently, they could still communicate with each other. Howard and staff and liasons would effectively communicate with the Army of the Potomac's HQ. Also, Howard's mistake in failing to protect his right flank was just that, a mistake. "Incompetent" seems too strongly worded.AaronCBurke (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I asume this paragraph is the one in question:


 * "But what led most of all to the impending Union disaster was the incompetent commander of the Union XI Corps, Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard. Howard, whose 11,000 men were posted at the far right of the Union line, failed to make any provision for his defense in case of a surprise attack, even though Hooker ordered him to do so. The Union right flank was not anchored on any natural obstacle, and the only defenses against a flank attack consisted of two cannons pointing out into the Wilderness. Also, the XI Corps was a poorly trained unit made up almost entirely of German immigrants, many of whom did not speak English."


 * The page for the XI Corps does go into more detail about their leadership, numbers, and losses, and states "It contained 27 regiments of infantry, of which 13 were German regiments. The men of the XI Corps were good soldiers, for the most part tried and veteran troops, but their leadership let them down." If the word "incompetent" bothers you "poor perfomance" or such could be substituted, and the blame for their lack of training and preparation must be placed on their generals. What other wording would you suggest?
 * Kresock (talk) 02:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten this paragraph. Let me know what you think. Although the XI Corps page may refer to them as "veteran troops," they were generally not so at Chancellorsville. As to "incompetent," Stephen W. Sears describes (pp. 270-72) Howard (and Charles Devens, one of his division commanders):


 * Myopic indeed describes Charles Devens and Otis Howard in command that day. Neither personally investigated any of the reports of Rebel activity on their front, and Howard compounded his negligence by leaving his command for two critical hours. Neither sent anyone from their staffs to investigate the reports [of enemy activity to their front]. Devens, either through drink or intolerance of his lieutenants, failed in that most fundamental duty to protect his men from danger. Howard, having promised his superior that morning to take measures "to resist an attack from the west," took not one meaningful measure. A bitter Joe Hooker would charge that "my instructions were utterly and criminally disregarded."


 * Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thx! AaronCBurke (talk) 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo
There's a photo on this page showing Confederate dead at Marye's Heights. That photo should be associated with the Battle of Fredericksburg article instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.82.197 (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The photo was taken in 1863. If you look at the maps in the article, you'll see that Sedgwick's corps assaulted through Marye's Heights during the battle of Chancellorsville. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you need to tell the National Parks Service, who clearly identifies that picture w/ the late 1862 action. I was there today and distinctly remember that pic on an interpretive sign.  Twohlford (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the photo is from 1862. Perhaps a switch is in order. Keep in mind though, that the editor Hal Jespersen is also the very same editor who drew and added the maps.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, regardless of who drew the maps, all we can do is either defer to the National Archives and Records Administration, which clearly identifies the photograph with date and photographer name, or you can find a secondary source that explains why this official US government photograph is mislabeled. (There are a number of professional historians who have produced books that identify errors in Civil War photographs.) I will offer two opinions of why I think the former is correct: the National Park Service sometimes makes errors in signage and I would rank their signs relatively low as a source of definitive historical information; since this photograph was taken by a Union photographer, I do not know how he would have been able to reach Marye's Heights in the 1862 battle to take the photo. None of the Union soldiers got that far. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyrrhic?
I've yet to take a history class that didn't consider this Confederate Victory, while definitely still a victory, to come with grave costs to Lee's army. The article itself even says "But he paid a terrible price for it," referring to Lee. Furthermore, the article Pyrrhic Victory links here. It is not a stretch nor is it biased to consider losing 25% of your army a pyrrhic victory. It should remain like that, or the "Aftermath" section should be considerably reworded, and is so, the Pyrrhic Victory page should no longer link here. But I maintain that it should link here, and the battle's aftermath should be described as such. - Sestet


 * Due to the limitations of the one phrase allowed in these summary boxes, we generally avoid the use of adjectives modifying "victory" that require any sort of explanation. I have no objection to describing a Pyrrhic victory and what it means in the Aftermath section, but would prefer to avoid it in the summary box. The reason that Pyrrhic should be considered POV is that there is no objective measurement that describes it. You are suggesting that 25% qualifies, but that is your opinion, which might not be shared by someone else. Furthermore, the historical roots of Pyrrhic victories are in a series of losses that cumulatively mean the destruction of your army, and setting that into context of the Confederate campaigns requires additional explanation, which is inappropriate for the summary box. Hal Jespersen 00:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure it's my opinion, but it's also in the article. Paying a "terrible price", in this case losing 25% of a force, seems to support my "opinion" that 25% loses would be judged as considerable. I would agree the summary box is probably an inappropriate place to link to Pyrrhic Victory now, but surely it could be mentioned under "Aftermath." - Sestet —Preceding comment was added at 23:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't say that 25% losses are not "considerable." I said that the label Pyrrhic Victory has no measurable standard (and is more correctly applied to one of a series of such battles, but I will waive that point). I have no objection to a textual description going into the Aftermath section (only) in context, although I would ask you to provide a citation from a secondary source that uses that term, rather than interpreting the definition yourself. Hal Jespersen 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's why I did not edit it in myself. I'm sure an expert on Civil War articles has such a secondary source on hand. I do not. If anyone has such information readily available, and I'm sure some reputable academic source has used the term Pyrrhic Victory in reference to this battle before, I invite its included mention in the aftermath section. - Sestet —Preceding comment was added at 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Lee lost a very large proportion of his men, relative to the number engaged, but it was not a victory that disabled his army in any way. In fact, he took the offensive within weeks of winning the battle and advanced more than 150 miles before meeting a check. You would have more of a justification in calling Gettysburg a Pyrrhic Union victory. (I don't endorse that assessment, but it's a stronger case than here.) The Army of the Potomac suffered massive casualties at Gettysburg and declined to even contemplate battle again until November, in the abortive Mine Run campaign. Chancellorsville: 1) compelled the Union army to abandon a campaign; 2) resulted in the loss of initiative to its foe; 3) emboldened the Confederate leadership to strike deep into Union territory; and 4) created a crisis of leadership in the defeated force.
 * Hardly a Pyrrhic victory. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I wouldnt say Pyrrhic victory. While the battle certainly came at a devastating cost to Lee's Army, and percentage wise he lost more of his army than the Union soldiers did, forgive me if my history here is a bit hazy, but was the Union aim of the Chancellorsville campaign to directly threaten the Confederate Capital? If so, then the battle was hardly pyrrhic as it saved the Confederate capital. However, it wasnt decisive in that sense, as the Union Army could still fight if it wanted, and it still vastly outnumbered their Confederate opponents. Maybe Confederate victory is fitting, as it was an enormously successful tactical feat (dividing an army in the face of an opponent with a 2:1 advantage), and successfully defending the capital. (Trip Johnson (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC))

Characterization of General Oliver. O. Howard
I'm concerned with the phrasing used in the May 1-2 sub-section of the Battle section. In the seventh paragraph, then Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard, commander of the Union XI Corps, is said to be the "incompetent commander". I feel that it reflects unfairly on the Major General, I understand we're not here to editorialize but my concern comes from the fact that the term incompetent brands the Major General's entire career rather than his actions in this particular battle. While his defeat was significant and he suffered a similar defeat at the Battle of Gettysburg, he later served with great distinction in the last part of the Battle of Gettysburg, the Battle of Chattanooga, the Atlanta Campaign, Sherman's March to the Sea, the Carolinas Campaign, and then in the Indian Wars. In fact, in the Battle of Gettysburg despite once again being routed and forced to retreat he had wisely left infantry and artillery on Cemetery Ridge. Not only was this a good strategic decision to create a place where his forces could withdraw to if necessary, it would serve as a key piece of the Union line in the battle to come. I feel that the term "incompetent commander" used to describe Maj. Gen. Howard isn't appropriate. Some editing might reword this paragraph to highlight instead his carelessness, naivete, or some other term or phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FieldMarshalH (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In Wikipedia you are encouraged to edit articles responsibly yourself, but in this case I have reworded it. See if that change is satisfactory. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Context
I enjoyed this article very much. Very readable, clear descriptions, helpful images. The main thing it lacks, it seems to me, is a general overview of the context of the battle. Even very basic things are only hinted at: mainly that this was a serious threat to the Confederate capitol of Richmond and that it allowed Lee to stage a reasonably successful offensive. Basically, the role this battle played in the war as a whole. I would do it myself but I just exhausted my knowledge on that subject in one sentence above. Someone better versed could do it more justice. I think this could merit a section of its own or maybe a reworking of the "aftermath" section? - Jieagles (talk) 07:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I provided a background section. See if that is appropriate. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stephen W Sears
Stephen W Sears, in his book Chancellorsville (Mariner Books, 1996 ISBN 0-395-63417-2) argues quite persuasively that Hooker's supposed statement "For the first time I lost faith in Hooker" is a myth. Sears: Nothing has been more damaging to General Joseph Hooker's military reputation than this, from John Bigelowe's The Campaign of Chancellorsville (1910) "A couple of months later...Hooker was asked by General Doubleday:'Hooker, what was the matter with you at Chancellorsville?...Hooker answered frankly...'Doubleday...For once I lost confidence in Hooker". (p.504)

The tale was told by E P Halstead, who was on the staff of Doubleday's First Corps Division. Sears concludes: "It can only be concluded that forty years after the event, elderly ex-staff officer Halstead was at best retailing some vaguely remembered campfire tale, and at worst manufacturing a role for himself in histories of the campaign...Whatever Joe Hooker's failings at Chancellorsville, he did not publically confess them. (p.505)"

Much as I enjoy Shelby Foote's wonderful narratives, in this case I wonder if it would be better to consider using Sears as a source worth using; after all, Hooker is an historical personality, and if he didn't say this, shouldn't that be mentioned as well? Minorhistorian (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that there isn't some official explanation, by Hooker, as to what exactly happened. However, I still think that there may be a lot of truth to the statement by Halstead (that Hooker simply lost his nerve). According to the Wiki article on Hooker:


 * "While standing on the porch of his headquarters, the missile struck a wooden column the general was leaning against, knocking him senseless and putting him out of action for the rest of the day."

Speaking only for myself, if this happened to me, I would have a new, and perhaps exaggerated, sense of my own mortality - which is not conducive to the confidence necessary in directing a battle. So, although what Halstead may be reporting is not the whole truth, it seems to me to be pretty close.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is not whether he lost his nerve -- everyone agrees that he did -- it is whether he was quoted at the time admitting to such. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Halstead's statement is based on what he purports Hooker said to Doubleday during Gettysburg. However, Doubleday and Hooker were miles apart during the battle and clearly did not meet at all! A conversation reported at third hand (Bigelowe), between people who did not meet at the date and time suggested by the party quoted, should be counted as nothing more than (in this case) malicious gossip. As it is Sears' case against Hooker's statement being made is set out in the article... Minorhistorian (talk) 21:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...I guess I misread that. It seemed to me that Sears is saying that that he lost his nerve is a myth, and not that the quote itself is a myth.  Ok, but I find it hard to believe that Doubleday and Hooker were "dozens of miles apart during the Gettysburg Campaign".  The Gettysburg Campaign began 6/9/1863 and ended 7/23/1863.  According to the Chancellorsville article:


 * "There is no evidence that Hooker and Doubleday, who were dozens of miles apart during the Gettysburg Campaign, ever met, nor was there any chance of them meeting."


 * Is Sears saying that in this approximately 6 week period of time that Doubleday and Hooker were no closer than "dozens of miles"? Does Sears show the relative positions of Doubleday's division with respect to Hooker's HQ during this 6-week period?  Personally, I find that claim hard to believe without further evidence.


 * Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the context, it says "when Hooker crossed the Rappahannock with the Army of the Potomac in the Campaign of Gettysburg he was asked by General Doubleday..." which narrows it considerably below 6 weeks.


 * Would the person who made the above comment please sign it. Thanks.  I'll follow my own advice and sign my comment too.  :)  [Sign previous comment]  Also, when did Hooker cross the Rappahannock?  After the Battle of Chancellorsville?  That would mean some time after the Battle of Gettysburg, which would make Sears' claim much more likely to be true.


 * Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So why didn't Doubleday, who supposedly had direct contact with Hooker, not mention this conversation in his book? Simply accepting a conversation recorded at third hand (Doubleday, via Halstead via Bigelowe) as fact without any other evidence is hardly conclusive. Based on such paltry "evidence" it is possible to say anything about anybody; pretty poor foundations for historical research. BTW Sears does mention that he did look into the records of the Gettysburg Campaign and could find no evidence about Hooker and Doubleday meeting. Perhaps you should take it up with him? Minorhistorian (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not the one making the claim that the quote is a myth.  Sears is doing that.  All I'm asking for is that if Sears doubts that the conversation ever took place, then the Wiki article should show the evidence. Sears bases his conclusion (according to this Wiki article) on two things:


 * 1. In the 6-week Gettysburg campaign, Doubleday was no closer than "dozens of miles". Does he have evidence of this?  I find this hard to believe, so I think it is highly likely that he doesn't.  If he does, what is it?  Now, if the quote was supposedly made during the Battle of Gettysburg, then that's a completely different thing, and Sears' claim, in this instance, has a much better foundation.


 * 2. The supposed conversation was not mentioned in Doubleday's book. Perhaps he didn't mention it because it was obvious that Hooker lost his nerve.  I don't know.  That, however, is an argument from silence and, as such, is weak evidence.  Also, just because there was no formal, or official, record of a Doubleday/Hooker meeting, doesn't mean there wasn't an "informal" or "chance" meeting.


 * You said, "Based on such paltry "evidence" it is possible to say anything about anybody; pretty poor foundations for historical research." Yes, that is very true, but it's not the point.  I'm happy to concede that the quote is a myth or a rumor, based on what you said above, not because of Sears' "evidence", which I find lacking IMHO.


 * Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Folks, let's not get into analysis here. We reported a story and then, in the spirit of WP:NPOV, reported a reputable historian who challenged it. Presenting balanced views from secondary sources is what we do here. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think I'll have to pick up Sears' book and see for myself what his evidence is for the claim of being "dozens of miles apart". If he doesn't supply any, I'll continue with this discussion.  If he does, I'll let you all know.


 * Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, I looked at Sears' book and he doesn't go into any details about the movements of Doubleday and Hooker, although he provides a footnote. The only possible time that they could have met (and it was an [allegedly] informal meeting, apparently) is narrowed down to sometime between June 25th and June 27th, but they were dozens of miles apart at the time.  I still think it's possible that Hooker said it, but it DOES seem very unlikey.  I'll shut up now.  :)


 * One more thing. I added [actually, the Potomac] in the quote that appears in the quote in the Aftermath section, since that is what appears in Sears' book.


 * Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

uncited additions
I have reverted a couple of rounds of material being added by anonymous editors to cited paragraphs without adjusting the citations. I feel bad about doing this because the added material looks reasonably good, but I am not in the position of volunteering to research other peoples' work who are not willing to provide their citations. If you would like to add material to this article, you have two choices when you are adding to or modifying paragraphs that are fully cited: (1) add the appropriate citations in Wikipedia format, in the style currently used by the article; (2) provide text-only versions of the citation information, either in line (parenthetically after each) or here in the talk page, stating which book or magazine article you used, including the page numbers, and I will volunteer to format the citations correctly for you. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Grand Division
Why were the Grand Divisions ineffective? It reads like an comined arms approach. Provided the troops are trained the right way, this is normally very effective.--109.91.78.75 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have modified the article to clarify this. One of Hooker's concerns was that in his general reorganization--Burnside was transferred, Franklin and Sumner were relieved--he did not have sufficient senior subordinates who could be given this level of responsibility, so he abolished all of those positions. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Infobox image
I reverted a change of image for the infobox for two reasons: Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We always use the Kurz and Allison lithographs for the boxes when they are available for a battle. Nice continuity.
 * 2) The proposed replacement had no info on the origin of the image. Is it a painting? (Hard to tell at the small size.) If so, we need the artist's name and year of the work, as with all other similar artwork. If it's actually a photo, we need info on when/where it was taken. Give either of those, using it later in the article will be fine.

Aha. Now I see where this image came from: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3286538496/tt0279111 is a copyrighted image and can't be used here. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the Kurz and Allison lithographs that much, as art they are better than Currier and Ives, but they tend to be unrealistic. This one of Chancellorsville is particularly bad as it shows Jackson being shot in the daytime, when it actually was at night by his own troops.  So some sort of change should happen here.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is arguable whether the lithograph is depicting night or day. Any details in a truly accurate nighttime painting would not be very easy to see, so artists take advantage of their "artistic license." But in any event, you are welcome to suggest alternative images that conform to the Wikipedia copyright policies. However, since these Kurz and Allison prints are used in most of our battle articles, a new infobox image would simply end up moving the lithograph to later in the article, not deleting it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Slocum or Sedgewick?
In the section where Hooker orders two moves in response to Jackson's flanking march it is not clear if the article implies that Hooker ordered Sedgewick to attack the army in front of him back at Fredricksburg or for Slocum, positioned next to Sickles near Chancellorsville, to advance on Lee's force near the Plank Road. If it is Sedgewick then perhaps someone should add "back at Fredricksburg" to the article to make it more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.246.219.13 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know how this could have been misinterpreted, but I have added "at Fredericksburg" in case people forgot where Sedgwick was. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Revere notable?
Is the loss of Joseph Warren Revere (general) notable? Hcobb (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * General officers are usually considered notable by Wikipedia guidelines, but I do not understand what you are referring to regarding his "loss." In a battle article of this length, notability probably yields to significance, and I do not believe the secondary sources consider his contributions to be significant. Sears, for example, mentions in an aside that he was court-martialed for incompetence, but does not bother to describe the circumstances. Furgurson doesn't mention him at all. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Standards for Citations
In comparing the article and the Sears book, Chancellorsville, I was struck by the following similar passages and wondered if a citation were not order?

Article Apart from gathering the usual sources of information from interrogating prisoners, deserters, "contrabands" (slaves), and refugees, the bureau for the first time coordinated intelligence from other sources including infantry and cavalry reconnaissance, signal stations, and an aerial balloon corps. Col. Sharpe also recruited scouts from the army and spies from the local population to infiltrate Lee's army and report directly back to the bureau.

p. 69-70 Sears "Beyond the usual sources of information about the enemy gathered by interrogating prisoners, deserters, contrabands, and refugees from the "other side." Sharpe's bureau would for the first time  coordinate intelligence from a variety of other sources,  including infantry and cavalry reconnaissance, signal stations, and  the aerial balloon corps.  Most important and most novel,  Sharpe set about recruiting scouts from the army  and spies from among the local population to infiltrate Lee's army and report directly on its position and strength."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.62.144 (talk) 23:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies. Somehow this talk page entry from February escaped my attention. I agree that the paragraph (which I did not write) was too similar to Sears, so I have rewritten it. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Conf dead chancellorsville edit1.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Conf dead chancellorsville edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on May 3, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-05-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Casualty numbers are reversed!
The numbers for Union and Confederate casualties are reversed. This is according to the sources cited. In addition, the number of Union missing should be 5,938, not 3,938 (a simple math check will verify this - or checking the cited sources). Also see for confirmation.

Mike Rock 4/29/2016 143.120.112.111 (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Stonewall Jackson
I added Category:Stonewall Jackson. I think that's justified, given that probably the single thing that said battle is most famous for is the death of Stonewall Jackson. Agreed?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)