Talk:Nathaniel P. Banks

Untitled
Erm, the article title is Nathaniel Prentiss Banks, but the article text claims this spelling is incorrect. Google searches for Nathaniel Prentiss Banks and Nathaniel Prentice Banks do not resolve the situation, though the former seems to be more frequent. Can anyone come up with an authoritative spelling? --Saforrest 15:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm moving it to Nathaniel PRENTICE Banks. The US Congress Biographical Database has that spelling, so we should probably go with that. --ScottyBoy900Q 04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference tag
I removed the refimprove tag. When an article gets to a certain stage, and has references, the Wikipedia practice is not to apply a vague blanket tag but to address an issue or issues. If there are particular issues please use or this talk page so particular improvements can be addressed. Otr500 (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Vague writing
Under the section Siege of Port Hudson there is vague and confusing writing. There may be some use of time specific language but any attempted interpretation would simply be conjecture. "When the Confederates reduced their garrison at Port Hudson, Louisiana, on the Mississippi, he invested that place in May 1863. Two attempts to carry the works by storm during the Siege of Port Hudson, as at Vicksburg, were dismal failures."
 * The information, "..he invested that place.." may be a misspelling to mean invaded? I have no idea what, "Two attempts to carry the works by storm..." actually means. If the contributing editor can not respond, with meaning and clarification, this will have to be removed. Otr500 (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't add the material in question, but Investment is in fact a military term, meaning to blockade and/or lay siege to. "Carry by storm", similarly, refers to an attempt to end the siege by assault.  That whole paragraph is written with sufficient archaicism that it may have been copied from a 19th century source.  Magic ♪piano 14:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Party affiliation
, if in 1855 Banks chaired the Republican National Convention, and in 1856 supported Fremont for president, couldn't we say that by 1855 he was no longer a Know Nothing? Thus, the dates for him as a Know Nothing would be given as (1854-1855).

Also, many Know Nothings, in fact probably the majority, never became Republicans. In the 1856 election Fillmore, the Know Nothing candidate, received most of his votes from the South, where the Republican Party was virtually nonexistent. A great many former Know Nothings supported Bell in 1860. By Reconstruction, they were nearly all Democrats. The Republicans picked off a few Know Nothings, like Banks and Thaddeus Stevens-but the rest generally considered the party too radical on abolitionism. Display name 99 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * This explanations are right but do not change the fact that in Banks' case a Know Nothing did become a Republican. ;) And the sourced phrase "When Know Nothing Governor Henry Gardner refused to join in the fusion, Banks carefully kept his options open, passively supporting the Republican effort but also avoiding criticism of Gardner in his speeches. Gardner was reelected." makes it impossible to say that he would not have been a Know Nothing anymore. He was a Know Nothing at least until 1856 and a potential Know Nothing presidential nominee, as well, just increasing his support for the Republicans and Frémont in the forefront of the presidential election in 1856.


 * Also, the 34th United States Congress from 1855 until 1857, the Congress which made Banks famous by electing him as the Speaker in 1856, shows a House with a total of 0 Republicans at the beginning and 1 at the end. So, I really don't think that Banks (stated as "Speaker: Nathaniel P. Banks (A)") could be exclusively put as a Republican – not while he "was, along with Wilson and Governor Henry J. Gardner, considered one of the political leaders of the Know Nothing movement", which does not seem realistic for only a short time from 1854 to 1855. I did not chose the year 1857, but as long as the article does not contradict it, I would not change this information from a previous editor. Finally, parties have not been what they are today, and both parties (American and Republican) had been absolutely new and loose, having been founded in 1855 and 1854 respectively. The example of the American party even shows it pretty well: It had been a loose movement since 1844, but only began to get political in 1855. The Republican had been a loose movement, as well. So, I don't see any problem in Banks supporting both and not having a clear party in that time. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I could have had it easier, actually. The List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives also states him as Speaker from the American Party between 1855 and 1857. So it really should be wrong to change the year of his "American" affiliation. It is absolutely correct, as far as I can see it. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright then. I'll leave it alone. Display name 99 (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I only wanted to correct the dates in order to fit with the article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Something About Book Citation
Excuse me, What is book citation "Harris" refer to? I can't find any author has last name "Harris" in section References. --金色黎明 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Fort Bisland/Irish Bend
I suggest mentioning at least in brief the battles of Irish Bend and Fort Bisland, both of which were Banks victories by default (because he held the battlefields at the end of the fighting). They are small battles, but they do have their own entries on Wikipedia; and Banks was actually there at the battles, leading personally, which was not always the case.

Skb8721 Skb8721 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)