Talk:Battle of Lucas Bend

A suggestion and a question
This article looks like it already has someone who cares about it, so I hate to try to "fix" it, but I do have some input.

Suggestion: "In the network of the Mississippi and the Ohio rivers, the Union river gunboats sought to infiltrate and attack the Confederate positions in Tennessee under Admiral Andrew Hull Foote and General Ulysses S. Grant." That's confusing. The two commanders' names are so far from "gunboats" and so much closer to "positions" that for a moment I thought that the author thought Grant was on the Confederate side. I suggest "In the network of the Mississippi and the Ohio rivers, the Union river gunboats under Admiral Andrew Hull Foote and General Ulysses S. Grant sought to infiltrate and attack the Confederate positions in Tennessee."

Question: In two places there are links relating to "Columbus" where a Confederate battalion or battery (or both) was located, and to which the Confederate gunboats withdrew. The link is to Columbus, Mississippi, but how can that be right? It's very far distant from the Ohio or Tennessee rivers. You'd have to cross all of Kentucky and Tennessee and most of Mississippi to get there. There is a Columbus, Kentucky but it's on the Mississippi river. And I can't find any information on the location of Lucas Bend, or even which specific river it's on. Please check your geographical information, and supplement it if possible. It may be that the "Columbus" to which the Confederates withdrew no longer exists. I doubt it's the one in Mississippi. 71.86.122.57 (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as a Brit, I am unsure as to where all these places are and the sources are pretty confusing. If you know better, please feel free to fix it. I am planning to ask at WT:MILHIST for someone to check for me anyway. Cheers, S.G.(GH) ping! 11:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for acting on my suggestions. I notice that one link now goes to Columbus, Kentucky and the other still to Columbus, Mississippi; I guess if either of them is correct, they are both covered. I am grateful for this article; it seems unfair that a Brit is having to write our US history for us, considering you have so much history of your own to keep track of, but I'm glad you're doing it.

I have tried to research this, and haven't found anything definitive, but I do find something interesting. Might Lucas Bend (and hence the location of the battle) be on the Mississippi River (not the Tennessee, or the Cumberland, or a tributary of the Tennessee, or any of the other rivers rather confusingly referred to in the text)?? In that case, Columbus, Kentucky makes PERFECT sense. I invite you to look at this website http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=18493 and scroll down to the paragraph that starts "Much of the action seen by both forts involved river boats." The second engagement appears to be the Battle of Lucas Bend. Now scroll down to Location, and use the Click for Map link. If you zoom out and pan some, you can easily see Cairo, Illinois just up river, and Columbus, Kentucky a ways down river. Does this fit the narrative of the battle better than locating it on some other river? I know this does not meet standards of scholarship, but it's all I have to offer. 71.86.122.57 (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds fair. Still all a bit confusing for me, but I have asked a couple of people to weigh in. S.G.(GH) ping! 10:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that Lucas Bend is just into Missouri on the Tennessee River, but Columbus is in Kentucky. S.G.(GH) ping! 21:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be contradictory when you are trying so hard and with such good intention, but one thing that absolutely cannot be true is that Lucas Bend is "just into Missouri on the Tennessee River," because no part of the Tennessee River is in Missouri or on the border of Missouri. I offer two maps, one from Wikipedia and one from the Tennessee Valley Authority. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Tennessee_watershed.png/300px-Tennessee_watershed.png http://www.tva.gov/river/navigation/images/rivermap.gif As you can see, the Tennessee empties into the Ohio in Kentucky, and from there (moving upstream) passes through Kentucky, Tennessee, maybe just a corner of Mississippi, Alabama, maybe just a corner of Georgia, and back into Tenneesee. But (referring to the TVA map) it's never near Missouri, which along with Arkansas are on the WEST bank of the Mississippi River, while Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi are on the east bank. If Lucas Bend is in Missouri, it's probably a bend of the Mississippi River, which is the same river that Columbus, Kentucky is on. Missouri and Kentucky are right across the river from each other, from Illinois south to Tennessee -- but they're across the Mississippi River. I hope some better source than I can help you with this. 71.86.122.57 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships is wrong then - I take it it would be in Kentucky? S.G.(GH) ping! 09:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think the DANFS IS wrong, in this case, which is disappointing and surprising. I tried to send them a request for clarification, but the message would not transmit; I received an error message. If I manage to contact them I'll let you know. Until then I guess nothing more can be done. 71.86.122.57 (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha, while I have been waiting to hear back from DANFS (which I have not, and may never), you did much the same research I did, and figured out where Lucas Bend was, and that it no longer exists (but is still "marked" by the seemingly illogical state border between Missouri and Kentucky). I agree with your conclusions. I see only one remaining problem; the article still includes the wording "On the day of the battle, the Union ironclads Essex and St Louis, transporting troops down the Tennessee River in fog ..." Is this straight from DANFS, so you don't feel able to change it even though it now contradicts the entire rest of the article? Or is it one last place the original confusion has not been corrected? In any case, I'm sorry I caused so much trouble, but I think you have it straight now. It's a mixed blessing having "your" article featured on the "front page" -- it attracts a lot of attention, but also a lot of scrutiny.71.86.122.57 (talk) 12:07, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it was an error unchanged, I have fixed it now. Fear not, no one owns an article on Wikipedia - people can edit it constructively as much as they like, see WP:BOLD. Cheers, S.G.(GH) ping! 16:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Some comments
1. Style. The use of the pronouns "it" and "she" to refer to ships was roughly 50-50, so I changed all to "she" (or "her," if appropriate), in keeping with Wikipedia manual of style, which allows either but not both. If you prefer "it," you may reedit my alterations, so long as the form is consistent throughout the article.

2. "Admiral" Foote. At the date of the battle, the US Navy did not have the rank of admiral. The senior officer in charge of a squadron or flotilla, who was actually a captain, was accorded the courtesy title of "flag officer."

3. CSS New Orleans. I believe that the armament given for the floating battery New Orleans is incorrect, although it is taken from DANFS. Apropos of the discussion above, this will not be the first time that DANFS is wrong. According to Tucker (p. 134), she had nine guns, and this agrees with other sources that are not at hand right now. I have not altered the text yet, but will do so as soon as I can find confirmation of Tucker's numbers. Unless of course you beat me to it.

By the way, I found this to be an interesting article about an incident that was more significant than I had thought. PKKloeppel (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks buddy, it's not my first area of expertise. I in fact only have one book on the US Civil War amid my hundreds of history books. S.G.(GH) ping! 20:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Armament of the floating battery
The nature of the armament of the floating battery CSS New Orleans is, in a word, obscure. You may or may not be interested in a reliable description, but let me present here some of the results of my effort to find out.

We can contrast the unadorned statement in DANFS that she carried 18 guns with the more detailed accounts in Tucker and Daniel and Bock. The latter seem to present a better case, and justify their statements with citations, something missing in DANFS. Once we try to make use of the citations, however, things become really murky. First of all, Tucker and Daniel and Bock are writing of the Battle of Island No. 10, and the armament apparently was not fixed, so what was true in early April 1862 may not have been true the previous January. Even in the context of the battle, however, the number of guns seems rather slippery; two casual comments imply that the floating battery had ten guns, and (Union) General John Pope reported that when the scuttled (in shallow water) floating battery was recovered by his victorious soldiers, she had fourteen guns. Probably neither of these numbers should be accepted; on the one hand, the "ten guns" may have been merely a rough approximation, and on the other, John Pope was widely known to indulge in what we can refer to charitably as exaggeration. My guess is that the number that most historians have accepted for the armament at the time of the battle, 9, is probably valid.

That still leaves open the question of the number of guns in her earlier history. Daniel and Bock assert that when she was towed up to Columbus in January, she carried only six guns. If that is true, it renders the DANFS number, 18, even less likely. That is not the way I wanted this line of investigation to go, so I looked up one of the references cited by Daniel and Bock: Charles Dufour's Night the War Was Lost. Aha! There, Dufour asserts that the floating battery was fitted with, get this, not 6, or 9, or 10, or 14, or 18, but 20 (read it, TWENTY) guns.

About this time, I pretty much gave up. I read in the Official Records (search on "floating battery" for the relevant material) that guns were forever being taken off or put on, and it appears to be impossible to say with absolute assurance just how she was armed at a particular time. My head hurts.

So anyway, this missive may explain why I have deleted the information concerning the armament. If someone else wants to take a stab at it, I will not stand in his or her way. But I will say that he/she has been warned.

PKKloeppel (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the name of the Captain of the Essex from David D. Porter to his brother William D. Porter. As for the rest, it seems to confuse an earlier skirmish off Lucas Bend on 10 Sept. 61 with another skirmish on 11 January 62. In the first, John Rodgers, the former head of the Western Flotilla, on board the Lexington, and along with the Conestoga, were attacked by the Jackson which had sailed up from New Orleans in Hollin's first move north on the river. (cite: O.R.N. and DANFS) The January skirmish was fought by the Essex and St. Louis against three ships. These have been variously listed as the Ivy, Jackson, Grampus, or Jeff Davis. Hollin's second move north brought up the floating drydock New Orleans which had several guns, army field pieces, placed on her. It is doubtful he had it towed above Columbus Kentucky. Foote reported on the same day that the ships traded fire for an hour before the Confederates withdrew to the safety of the high bluff batteries at Columbus. (cite: O.R.N.) Porter's official report two days later states that he drove the enemy to the bluffs and "complete defeat of the enemy's boats, superior in size and number of guns to the Essex and St. Louis." (cite: O.R.N.) Porter was noted for his hyperbole. Hollins never had any ship superior in size to the Essex. The New Orleans was sunk at end of the Island NO. 10 battle. Porter also does not state that he was wounded. I have not read Smith's book so I do not know if he has mistaken information or has been misquoted here. But as I noted in my comment to read about the battle of Plum Run, wooden ships could still do damage to the ironclads. (cite: O.R.N.) signed Siriuswerke 26 August 2014 user: siriuswerke 26 august 2014  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siriuswerke (talk • contribs) 06:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Lucas Bend. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206005646/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa5/jackson.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa5/jackson.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081001182554/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa4/general_polk.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa4/general_polk.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060905152206/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa7/new_orleans.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa7/new_orleans.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111206005646/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa5/jackson.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/cfa5/jackson.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:34, 16 July 2017 (UTC)