Talk:Capture of New Orleans/Archive 1

Battle?
Why is the Capture of New Orleans called a battle on wikipedia?--Az81964444 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We started our ACW battle collection with articles from the National Park Service's American Battlefield Protection Program and the referenced article about New Orleans classifies it as a battle. Your tax dollars at work. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I am currently expanding content with history texts from my library. This is a difficult subject, considering the other "New Orleans" articles and the general weirdness of the political powder keg of occupied New Orleans being governed by a walking welding torch. Frank (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The additions are more or less complete. The article now has more information regarding the political complexities of governing occupied New Orleans, and is more linked in with the New Orleans general history and Civil War history articles. There are also more connections to battles forming the Union campaign to restore the Mississippi valley to the Union. Frank (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Siege?
I have not gotten involved with this article, but two need to be discussed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What definition of siege is being used? My definition is that an enemy force surrounds a city and blocks off all supplies so that it is eventually compelled to break out or surrender. There usually is a time element involved because sieges are protracted affairs. In this case the Union Navy sailed up and the city surrendered.
 * 2) There is a lot of detail in this article about activities that happened after the capture. Since there is another article entitled New Orleans in the American Civil War, that is probably the more appropriate place to discuss those issues.
 * I think that there is enough content here to support a separate article under its original title, "Capture of New Orleans." (Like you, Hal, I question the use of the descriptor "Siege.") What is pointed out is that the "capture" was an ongoing process. Farragut had taken the city, but Butler had to make it good, even with only 15000 troops or so. His policies exploited divisions in the class structure of the South so that New Orleans, and more generally Union-occupied Louisiana, provided its own means for defense. If you think that the two articles should be combined, I will not quibble, but there is certainly a lot here that is not in the other article. I would hate to see it abandoned. PKKloeppel (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A "Siege" is generally defined as a military action to surround and reduce a fortified or geographically secured position. Since no such action took place in respect to New Orleans in the American Civil War, the use of the word "Siege" in the title is not justified. The most significant aspect of the occupation of New Orleans by Federal forces in 1862 was General Butler's skillful political manipulation of the civilian population and continued occupation of the city with minimal military force. This use of force did not involve destruction of part or all of the city, the establishment of concentration camps, or the exile of large segments of the cities population. These factors are a unique aspect of the Butler occupation, and worthy of separate consideration in this article. Frank (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not volunteering to do any of the work, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but I think the large majority of this article should be moved to New Orleans in the American Civil War. The original intent of this article was to cover the material in http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/battles/la002.htm, the events of April 25–May 1, 1862. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This may be a good time to consider the "New Orleans in the American Civil War" article as an area for information regarding military strategy for defense/capture and it's contributions to the Confederacy, as apposed to the Siege/Capture article with its specialization in economic and political factors. Hanging on to New Orleans despite its unique vulnerabilities was a very significant and underrated goal in the history of the war.Frank (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Siege, renaming page
There was no siege at New Orleans during the civil war, there was a siege of the forts protecting New Orleans but that is it. Are we going to rename the Siege of Fort St. Philip article to the "Siege of New Orleans" because the fort is near New Orleans? No we are not so the same principle should be applied here. There is alot of other people who would agree, clearly. I am renaming this page "Capture of New Orleans" as that is the name used most often and is the most appropriate.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Mallory
Why is not Stephen Mallory mentioned at all on this page? After all, he was Secretary of the Navy during the time New Orleans was captured. He was even investigated by Congress for several months because he was in charge during this failure to defend New Orleans. Although it was found that there was "no evidence of wrongdoing on his part", I would think this was a notable circumstance, and Stephen Mallory should have been (or should now be) mentioned in this article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Mallory

Thank you,  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.16.212 (talk) 11:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)