Talk:Second Battle of Bull Run

Early discussions
I'll be working on this page - any help most appreciated. bob

--- The description of the actual battle (summary) is pretty well done - depending on how much detail is actually needed - some background and description of events leading up to the battle should be added. bob

--- I could write an order of battle if you'd like, but it would be huge... maybe just down to brigade sizes, if you want? ugen64

you can also put a map on this thing stupid it would help student that are trying to find info on the second battle of bull run .and important info also smart one........

A nice touch might be to include the famous regimental historian's summary of Pope's defeat:

"...had been kicked, cuffed, hustled about, knocked down, run over and trodden upon as rarely happens in the history of war. His communications had been cut; his headquarters pillaged; a corps had marched into his rear and had encamped with ease upon the railroad by which he received his supplies; he had been beaten or foiled in every attempt he made to 'bag' those defiant intruders; and in the end he was glad to find a refuge in the entrenchments of Washington, from which he had sallied forth, six weeks before, breathing out threatenings and slaughter."

See http://www.vectorsite.net/twcw_26.html for an online citation.

Name
The battle is called both Second Battle of Bull Run and the Second Battle of Manassas, but the first appears to be more widely known and used. Please don't move the page without discussion. Jonathunder 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The correct name for this battle is the @nd battle of manassas, as the naming convention is governed by the victor of the battle. The NPS offical name is the 2nd Battle of Manassas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.109.238 (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The naming convention used in Wikipedia is to select the name most widely used by the public, to facilitate readers finding an article. We generally do use the NPS names for battles, but this is one (along with the 1861 battle) in which an exception was made after numerous discussions over the years achieved consensus. If you look at popular histories of the war, the name Bull Run is more prominent. Civil War buffs (including myself) generally call it Manassas, but these articles are written for the general public. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I live on the west coast and have never heard the battle referred to as 'Bull Run' outside of a handful of overtly pro-northern sources, which, with a few exceptions, were borderline propaganda. The NPS refers to the battle as First or Second Manassas and most the general public refer to the battles as "Manassas." Or is it Wikipedia's new policy to use the most esoteric names possible for its pages? If that's the case, I motion we change the name of the article referencing the "Sea of Japan" to "East Sea" and the articles referencing Istanbul/Constantinople should be united under "New Rome". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.42.4.210 (talk) 23:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Common name rule puts it at Manassas http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Second+Bull+Run%2C+Second+Manassas%2C+2nd+Bull+Run%2C+2nd+Manassas%2CBattle+of+Second+Manassas%2CBattle+of+Second+Bull+Run&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3&share= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgeapg (talk • contribs) 10:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  13:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ...but has it as Bull Run being the most common for the first battle as you can see. I don't believe that it would make sense to change this one in view of that, right?


 * please take another look at the chart you provided it supports my claim that manassas is the common name. it shows First Manassas as the most common name Georgeapg (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Jackson late and ineffective
Stonewall Jackson's lengthy quote about his stalwart actions on the third day of the battle are in contradiction with J. Hennessy's thorough history of the battle, Return to Bull Run: the Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas. According to Hennessy, Jackson was uncharacteristically unresponsive to Lee's order to attack Pope's retreating Yankees that day. Longstreet was indeed very effective in destroying Pope's left flank, but Jackson's tardiness robbed Lee of what he wanted most, total destruction of Pope's army.

From Hennessy: "That it took two hours for the Confederate units north of the turnpike, most of them Jackson's, to move forward stands as one of the most significant Confederate failures on the field of Manassas. The delay greatly reduced the value of Jackson's advance. What an hour before might have been a movement that changed decisively the magnitude of the Confederate victory now amounted to a glancing blow against Yankee troops already headed rearward." (427)

--The failure lies mainly with Lee. His lack of action on the 29th and the morning of the 30th in ordering Longstreet to attack is to blame. If Lee had ordered the attack sooner, before Reynolds showed up on the left flank, we most certainly would have captured Henry House Hill and been able to sweep the turnpike and approaches to Stone Bridge.

I'm new here, so I'll leave the editions to someone who knows what he's (or she's) doing.

--Dansato 23:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think this is a particularly well-written article and I have it on my to do list for refurbishment, but it is not high in priority sequence, so I would encourage you to make bold changes in the meantime. I would be happy to assist you in making sure that the editing/formatting is done correctly after you have taken your best shot. Welcome aboard. Hal Jespersen 00:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What is with the naming convention in Wikipedia?
Gents: I hate to break the bad news, but if/when anyone cares to drive down to my homestate of Virginia, you will not see the words "Battle of Bull Run" on any sign, pamphlet, literature, highway marker, tourist center, or anything else except perhaps in some war records in the Library of Congress or in some history books collecting dust on the shelves of Harvard. Here in Virginia these were the Battles of Manassas, and ALL ... that is every single sign and tourist literature for miles in all directions only refers to this sacred battle ground site by it's Virginia names. Please, for the love of God, give deference to the right of a State to choose to call it's battlefields what it will. We, here in Virginia, do not take it upon ourselves to go into Maryland or Kentucky or New York City or Pennsylvania and name their battlefields for them. Therefore please respect the Host of the Civil War, Virginia, in her God-given right to remember her history as she sees fit. These were the Battles of Manassas. Please change the titles of these pages accordingly.

In honor of Col. JS Mosby, I return as the Grayghost01 05:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I quote: "...by it's Virginia names...." and "...it's battlefields...."  Maybe this is the reason why some people prefer not to use Southern spelling for these Civil War battles.JGC1010 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name that the U.S. government and the U.S. Park Service calls the sights and battlefields. If people say that Wikipedia should use the northern names because the union won the war than they should rename the battle of Shiloh the battle of Pittsburg Landing because this was the nothern name. And in reference to the idea that the name Bull Run is the most popular name, I live in the actually city of Manassas and work in right in front of the battlefield park off the mair road and meet many of the tourist to the park. People from all over, even from northern states New York, Ney Jersey, and Maine call it the battle of Manassas. The people form Pennsylvania and Mass. call it Bull Run. James


 * This has been discussed many times over the past 4 years (although more frequently for the first battle). Although we almost always use the NPS name for a battle, in this case the collective judgment of the Wikipedia editors was that it is much more frequently known to the general public as Bull Run, and Wikipedia tends to gravitate to the most common names. These are the only two battles in which we frequently give both names when referring to them in other articles. I am a Civil War buff myself and often refer to these battles as Manassas, but the non-buff general public does not. BTW, Pittsburg Landing is not a commonly used name for the battle after 1862. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

update
I am in the process of doing a major update on this article, expanding all of the sections and adding new maps. If I am lucky, I will finish within a week and will post another notice here when I'm done. Hal Jespersen 01:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Status: Wow, I really underestimated the work involved! It's done except for the August 30 maps. Watch this space... Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Brawner's Farm
I have cleaned up some edits over the last few days. The name Brawner's Farm is by far the most common usage for this engagement despite some citations that were added. The footnote indicates the alternative names and it is fine to include Gainesville in here, but Wikipedia articles generally use the most common names for battles, not necessarily the ones with the oldest historical references. The citation that indicated that Alan Nolan was the first to use Brawner's Farm was anecdotal, not definitive. Also, the first footnote was used primarily to describe the dates of the main battle, not the alternative names for August 28, so there was no reason to go into excessive detail on citing alternative names. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

image
An image of suspicious validity has replaced the one in the infobox. Since the user doing this edit just attempted to add a copyrighted photo to Battle of Chancellorsville, I think we need to understand the source of this painting prior to allowing its use in this article. Who painted it and when? What is the source of the image--where was it copied from? (The file description page says that it is the public domain work of the uploader, but I tend to doubt that.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's the image in question: File:Gandg2.jpg, along with its two duplicates from Commons: File:Gandg2battle.jpg and File:Gandg2.jpg. I shot the uploader (Mercucio61) a welcome message with the basic rules, including copyright info & links. Hope this helps, and if the uploader reads this discussion they really should check out the related policies here. Kresock (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

illustration, December 13
I have reverted the addition of an odd illustration of a house ("Ston house"?). It is unclear where this house is supposed to be or whether a composed illustration of it is accurate--the description file for the image gives no details. In these Civil War articles, we generally limit ourselves to historical or modern photographs. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok sorry Hal Jespersen. This must be what you are talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stone_House_Animated!!!.jpg


 * It was supposed to be a computerized image of the stone house as it would have a appeared in the 1860s.

I don't think speculative illustrations are appropriate for history articles unless they are developed by a secondary source, which is pretty unlikely in the first place. (What's Animated!!! about this picture anyway?) Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Maxcy Gregg's bayonet charge.
This was removed from my edit. The bayonet charge is mentioned in the Time-Life Civil War series for those who need a reference.

208.101.138.198 (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, everyone reading this needs a reference, not just me. Hennessy's book (citation at the end of the paragraph) has a lengthy description of the actions in Gregg's sector and I see nothing about a bayonet charge. The Time-Life series is pretty good, but often emphasizes colorful anecdotes that more thorough authors do not. If you can find another citation to back it up, we can discuss.


 * I see in your recent edit you removed one of the cn (Citation needed) templates without providing the requested citation. I've reverted that edit. Please pay attention to these citation requirements. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, it was a while ago that I read the TL series and my memory is vague. Next time I find a copy (antique shops and second hand bookstores often have them), I'll have to recheck that part. I remember it saying something about Gregg's brigade being out of ammunition and that they backed up onto a hillside, fixed bayonets, and charged down the hill, driving the attackers off.

208.101.138.198 (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I figured out what was going on here. Gregg sent a message to Hill saying that his ammunition was gone and that his men would try to hold on with their bayonets, but they didn't attempt any counterattack with them. This makes sense considering that the brigade was severely mauled during the fighting, with a casualty rate over 50%. It was in such bad shape that it was kept out of action on August 30. 208.101.138.198 (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I do have the complete Time-Life series and it does support the story about a bayonet charge, but my tendency is to use material from those books only when they do not contradict other more scholarly sources. The Wikipedia community prefers books that have footnotes, for a start. I consider Hennessy to be the definitive modern source on this battle. Hal Jespersen (talk) 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It almost seems like the TL authors took Gregg's message to Hill out of context and just assumed that his men performed a bayonet charge, while other sources make no mention of such an action. The only bayonet charge that seems to have happened at Second Bull Run was during Grover's attack on Ewell's division. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.138.198 (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct name? (again)
I am new to this page, but not new to Civil War history. Why is this battle referred to as "Bull Run" and not "Manassas". Everyone with even a small amount of knowledge of the Civil War and how HISTORIANS label battles knows this is "Manassas". Please note that I am not some pro-south sympathizer, but I do suspect a bit of anti-south bias here. Why are we not following the standards used by academic historians of the Civil War? Tneely (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The primary discussion for this is at Talk:First Battle of Bull Run. Our policy is to use the most common name used in published reliable sources. Which academic historians are you referring to? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  16:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

VALIDITY OF MAPS
The maps posted by Jespersen are inaccurate to say the least. Specifically, a major feature of the battlefield of 1861 and 1862, headquarters of General Sigel, as well as a Union hospital. This was not true of the Henry house, which was totally destroyed during Manassas I, but continues to appear on Jespersen's maps for Manassas II. Was the decision to use maps without the Robinson on them, which BTW appeared on most every map related to Manassas I & II produced before, during and after the battles, influenced by Jespersen's prejudice towards Black people, since it was the major landmark identified with Black people on the battlefields? In conclusion, these maps should be replaced, updated or otherwise fixed to include the Robinson House and the role of the house, as well as its inhabitants before, during and after the battle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkhemet (talk • contribs) 01:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * These maps were roughly based on the West Point Atlas maps of 1959. The Henry property appears there, and I retained it because it provides the rationale for the name of the hill on which it stands. The Robinson house is also on the West Point map, but not every house on the battlefield appears on this map. It is not mentioned in the article. I can add it the next time I refresh these maps. Thank you for bringing the problem to my attention. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

More subsections for section Battle
Currently, the only sub-divisions of the Battle section are the three respective days. This results in long tracts of contiguous text. To increase readability (and cater to a post-modern attention span), I suggest to introduce more subsections. Will add some some myself, soon, if noone disagrees. 2.247.240.35 (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  22:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  00:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you broke up cited material and left fragments looking uncited, I have reverted. The long tracts of text are from the respective sources. Breaking them up is messing them up. I suggest that you leave the headers alone, too.
 * I was trying to increase radability as per WP:Manual_of_Style/Layout. A constructive way to handle your concern of "fragments looking uncited" is to re-use existing references as per WP:Citing_sources.
 * "The long tracts of text are from the respective sources. Breaking them up is messing them up." Please explain what exactly hinders the introduction of more sub-sections (incl. headings, where appropriate) and paragraphs to increase readability as per MOS (see above)?
 * "I suggest that you leave the headers alone, too." I don't understand what you mean by that. What headers; why?
 * "I have reverted." So have I. 2.247.243.232 (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to leave cited material alone (you can be blocked for removing it) and not revert while it is being discussed. Your edit is breaking that. headers = headings. You don't have any consensus for your edits.
 * I'm not with you there. You are basically saying: "Once a citation is added, the corresponding block of text is blocked for further edits, specifically formatting ones.", which is nonsense. I did not remove any material and did not "bother" with existing headings, but instead added some new ones for sub-sections, to increase readability for the more casual reader.
 * Please explain your destructive reverts properly (based on established WP guidelines). 2.247.243.232 (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What's going on here? There's a difference between quoted material (which I agree cannot be changed) and material that is summarizing a source. The material summarizing a source can be rewritten, re-organized, and sub-headed but it's necessary to ensure, when done, that each part - at least to the subsection level and preferably to the paragraph level - has a specified source. may have been a bit blunt in reverting the proposed changes, but your making formatting changes to the text without preserving the referencing can't stand, regardless of how much better it may look.  — jmcgnh (talk)  (contribs) 03:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't appropriately add the correct citations at the time that you move the text then you are fouling up the sourcing. Notice that I restored four sources to a section of prose, "Hennessy, pp. 180–88; Eicher, p. 326; Greene, pp. 22–23; Salmon, p. 147." When you broke it up, it was without regard to correct sourcing at all and you left sections without being sourced. You aren't using the sources. Which facts are attributable to which source? You didn't know and you didn't care when you made changes.

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  03:55, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * So you would have left it your way and then someone hangs a citation needed tag where there isn't one...but had been. That isn't a good answer at all. I see that you improve articles but I don't see you adding any citations other than those translated from Deutsche wiki. Preserving the sourcing is more important than adding headers for readability. If you are going to try the latter then the former must be adhered to.
 * If you care about which facts are attributable to which source on a per paragraph or even per sentence base you are free to add inline citations. Especially as you seem to have the sources in question on hand, while I do not. That would be a constructive way of handling proposed improvements (here: to readability) in a collaborative spirit. A paragraph without inline citation, a citation needed tag, are those not part of a WP:work in progress that we can work on together? Reverting is just easier, I assume.
 * I might present a one-step proposal that does both add more subsections and paragraphs and repeat the existing inline citations, where appropriate. If I still feel like it. Have a nice weekend. 2.247.243.232 (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Time during aftermath
in "Pope relieved of command", I find:

"In 1878, a special commission under General John M. Schofield exonerated Porter by finding that his reluctance to attack Longstreet probably saved Pope's Army of Virginia from an even greater defeat. Eight years later, President Chester A. Arthur reversed Porter's sentence."

8 years after 1878 is 1886, which would be in Grover Cleveland's first term, off the end of Chester Arthur presidency. Something isn't right with what I quoted. Carlm0404 (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Just a little confusion...
Hi, was just confused. Is the battle's other name the Battle of Second Manassas, or the Second Battle of Manassas? Because the actual town is just called "Manassas" (in Virginia), not "Second Manassas," I wasn't quite sure. (This confusion also applies to the First Battle of Bull Run.) Thanks! 23.28.31.25 (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The National Park Service web page about this battle is captioned "Battle of Second Manassas (Second Bull Run)" John Hennessy's book about the battle is titled "Return to Bull Run: The Campaign and Battle of Second Manassas." I think the name of the town doesn't matter but Second Battle of Manassas seems like a marginally better title. Perhaps other sources title it that way but the research would not be worth the effort in view of the two cited items. Donner60 (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Fitz John Porter.jpg