Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Little Blue River

Article promoted by Parsecboy (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Battle of Little Blue River
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

There's a little bit of everything here. A military invasion designed to affect a presidential election, recalcitrant militiamen, a governor interfering in military actions, a burning bridge, intentionally firing blanks at the enemy, and dead bodies strewn all the way to Independence. Hog Farm Bacon 17:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Images are freely licensed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Source review—pass
 * Sources all appear to meet WP:RS (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Do you need any scans of pages of print books for spotchecking? Only Collins and the ABPP report are online sources, so I can see that this is one where that would be appreciated. Hog Farm Bacon 05:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I am able to access at least a few of the print sources. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Langsdorf appears to have been originally published in 1964 in The Kansas Historical Quarterly https://www.kshs.org/publicat/khq/1964/1964autumn_langsdorf.pdf . The earlier version has different pagination but is open access. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * - Changed over to the other edition. Different pagination, different publishing date, different journal, but the same article. Hog Farm Bacon 05:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Source checks: no issues whatsoever
 * Gerteis: verified
 * American Battlefield Protection Program: verified (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Collins: Since the pages in this source are very long and used to cite big chunks of text, I did not verify all the info cited to it, but what I checked was accurate. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:05, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed
Lead Background Prelude I'm up to the the Battle section now, more to come. Zawed (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Overall, the lead seems a little lengthy given the relative size of the article.
 * I've trimmed the first two paragraphs of the lead pretty heavily and combined them. Is this enough, or do I need to do some more reductionary work?
 * The Confederates then began... the word then is used in the previous sentence as well, suggest: "Instead, the Confederates began..."
 * Dealt with in the trimming of the lead
 * Blunt formed a line... suggest "Afterwards, Blunt..." to make clear this is separate to the Lexington engagement.
 * Dealt with in the trimming of the lead
 * The Union soldiers later fell back to the Big Blue River. So presumably Indepedence was abandoned?
 * Yes, clarified.
 * The last sentence could be split, the word study is used twice.
 * Split, and rephrased away the second usage of study.
 * ...by the end of the year, Price and the MSG... Both Price and MSG are mentioned twice in the same sentence. Could another term be used on the second mention - may be secessionists?
 * Went with secessionist forces
 * The delays caused by this slow progress enabled Union forces... suggest: "The slow progress of the Confederates enabled Union forces..."
 * Done
 * ...were withdrawn from their role in fights against the Cheyenne; I'm not crazy about this wording. Would "were withdrawn from their role in suppressing the Cheyenne" be straying too far from the source?
 * Done
 * ...was appointed as the militia's general-in-chief,... militia is used three times in this sentence. Suggest for this instance: "...was appointed as it's general-in-chief,..."
 * Done
 * Started replies, but it's late enough where I am that I'm calling it a night at this point. Hog Farm Bacon 06:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ready for the rest of it when you are. Hog Farm Bacon 15:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Coming back to this now, apologies for the delay.

Battle
 * Other fords closer to the bridge...: this kinda needs some sort of contrasting statement. E.g., "Despite these defensive precautions..."
 * Added
 * with Union skirmishers, but the Union soldiers...: Union repeated twice in close succession. Given the context, I think the first mention could be dropped without loss of clarity.
 * Went with with Union skirmishers, who were eventually driven across the bridge.
 * the Union soldiers at the bridge: suggest replacing Union soldiers with "defenders". Keeps usage of Union to minimum in this section.
 * Done.
 * Clark, in turn, ordered the rest of his brigade to cross behind the 10th Missouri Cavalry...: Does this rest of the brigade include the 4th Missouri? The following sentence mentions a Union company isolated to the south so presumably it didn't come into contact with the 4th?
 * Rephrased, as the rest of implies the inclusion of the 4th, which did not join that action. The 4th seems to have just hung around the flank, as the sources don't really discuss further actions from the unit, and maps of the battle show the unit stationary to the south of the main fighitng
 * Missouri Cavalry pursued uphill: "pursued them uphill?
 * Done
 * The Union troops holding the bridge also retreated,...: may want to remind readers that the bridge has been destroyed by this point.
 * Done
 * Instead, the Confederate cannoneers...: You could probably drop the Confederate here, the context is pretty clear.
 * Done
 * responsibility with Ford. Ford's men...: close usage of Ford here, suggest rephrasing.
 * Done

Aftermath and preservation
 * The next day, Price...: this is me being a bit pedantic, but we say something like "The day after the battle, Price..."
 * Done. Agree it reads better that way
 * None of the battlefield is listed...: suggest "The battlefield is not listed..."
 * Done

Sources That's it for me. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't think it is necessary to state Castel is the paperback edition. Same for Sinisi.
 * I personally am more comfortable leaving this in there. I haven't compared hardcover vs paperback editions pagination, so unless I know for sure the pagination is the same, I would like it to be obvious exactly where I'm getting my page numbers from.
 * - I've got most of these fixed, but it'll probably be about a week before I can get to the rest. Hog Farm Bacon 03:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * - All comments above replied to. Hog Farm Bacon 20:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that all looks good. I have added my support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by PM
Will have a crack at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Sorry to pester, but is there any update on this? Hog Farm Talk 03:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * G’day Hog Farm, I will take a look in the next couple of days. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry HF, RW stuff has been getting on top of me. Once you've dealt with ARs comments, ping me and I'll dedicate some some to review. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'm ready to respond whenever you get the time to review; no rush though. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, sorry about the delay. The RW is mad at present. A few comments: Struggling to stay focussed. Will try to look earlier in the day tomorrow. BRB. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Starting again at the top of Prelude with more detailed points: More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC) That's it. Again, apologies about the time it has taken to get to this. I'm going to have to take a break from reviewing until RW stuff gets under control. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Background and Prelude
 * suggest "leaving the Missouri State Militia to be as the state's primary defensive force"
 * Done
 * the command statuses of Blunt and Curtis aren't clear early enough in the second para of the Prelude. Also, if Curtis commanded Blunt, who had three brigades, what other troops were directly under Curtis' command, if any?
 * Is the new version better? Blunt was under Curtis, who commanded Blunt and then
 * "Blunt's volunteers"? This isn't clear earlier enough either, perhaps mention at the top of the para
 * I've rephrased this. It was a clunky way of trying to contrast Blunt's regular forces to the militia
 * "Additionally, he Blunt/Moonlight learned"
 * Blunt. Clarified
 * wasn't it already clear that the KSM couldn't cross the river?
 * I've removed the statement in the first paragraph of the battle section that Curtis's men could not cross the river; I think that's what you're referring to
 * Guerilla warfare is duplinked
 * Corrected
 * in general, I would say that it would be helpful to identify the commanders of all brigades as early as possible (ie in the Prelude section). For example, we later learn that Moonlight is one of Blunt's brigade commanders, but who were the others? More detail about the forces under Price's and Curtis' command would also be good early. What sort of troops were Blunt's? How many infantry regiments and how many cavalry, how many guns?
 * Done for Blunt and Price. The KSM really only plays a supporting role here, so I don't think a breakdown of their order of battle is particularly helpful.
 * - I've made rough draft attempts to address these initial comments; are the preliminary changes effective or do I need to work on it? The phrasing could probably be somewhat improved. Hog Farm Talk 17:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * how was Price's force structured? As a division and into brigades? Could you add how many cavalry and infantry regiments and cannon he had?
 * I've actually got the Price's force structure at the end of the Background section. I thought it was most logical to have the detail where I introduce Price's force.  The beginning of the Prelude section contains the number of men, that it was a cavalry force, and that there were 14 cannons.  I've also rephrased the description of Price's force to clarify that it was broken into divisions that were further divided into brigades.  Unfortunately, it is not really feasible to state how many regiments Price had.  As his army picked up men in Missouri, new units were created such as Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment.  Since the number of regiments fluctuated throughout the campaign, any single regiment count would have to be couched with a date, and the sources just don't really provide a detailed enough day-by-day breakdown for that.  Collins actually briefly mentions in a footnote that this is a very hard campaign to provide a detailed OOB for.
 * same question re: Rosecrans' force
 * I've tried as I can. This one is a bit of a weird one - Rosecrans wasn't divisions or brigades.  Rather, there were districts and subdistricts throughout the state which men were assigned to and each district guarded its local area.  The result was a lot of dispersion.  I've tried to explain this, but I'm not sure if I've quite got it to your satisfaction.
 * more clarity needed about the structure of Curtis' and Blunt's forces
 * I've tried to clarify the relationship between Curtis, Blunt, and Dietzler. I hope that this is a little more comprehensible.  It is known that the KSM used a brigade alignment, but the primary sources are so vague that it is difficult to get much more detailed than that, so I've added that statement to explain why the KSM structure explanation is very vague.
 * the Kansas militia info is confusing. It seems that Dietzler and his militia were directly under Curtis' command, as was Blunt, but Blunt had a brigade of Kansas militia? Then "Curtis moved the Kansas militiamen to Kansas City" but which ones? Dietzler's or Blunt's? Then Blunt sends his militia brigade to Kansas City, but Curtis has already sent Kansas militia there?
 * Blunt had some too. I've tried to explain this a little better that Dietzler had most of the militia but Blunt had a little.  And that the militia under Blunt tried to keep their old structure and at times tried to report to a militia officer rather than their proper commander.  The force moving to Kansas City was most of the non-Blunt militia, I've stated this directly.
 * when the Big Blue River is introduced, say where is in terms of its distance from the Kansas-Missouri border, as it is in Missouri and the militia were Kansans who were only supposed to protect Kansas. The map isn't very helpful, I would ask for someone to make a new one before taking this to FAC.
 * - I'm not sure what the best way to approach this is. The sources I have on me right now - Collins, Sinisi, Kennedy, and a copy of The Collapse of Price's Raid that I just bought earlier this month (the Lause book ought to be enough to bring this up to WP:FACR 1c) don't give an explicit distance from the Big Blue to the Kansas line, possibly because the Big Blue runs in a diagonal from the Missouri River and actually enters Kansas at one point, so the distance is dependent on where you're measuring from.  A decent workaround might be to Google Maps the distance between the Big Blue Battlefield Park, which is at a site on the Union line and a point on the Kansas state line.  The Big Blue Battlefield Park is kinda in the middle of the Union line and marks where the Confederates attacked the Union line at the Big Blue the day after this battle.  But still, that's a little OR-ish.  What do you think?  These orbat replies will take awhile to perfect - as Collins says in a footnote, this is a very hard campaign to order of battle for a variety of reasons. In fact, this article would be very hard to FAC due to the incredibly confusing and somewhat ad hoc natures of the command structures in this campaign. Hog Farm Talk 06:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would File:"Map No. 1" "Showing Position of Forces in morning of October 22d" from- The Battle of Westport, (IA battleofwestport00jenk) (page 67 crop).jpg be a better map? It shows a zoom-in on the Big Blue line and shows its relation to the KS/MO state line, with a scale. Hog Farm Talk 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Both the militia and Blunt's volunteers" does this mean the militia that first went to Kansas City or the militia brigade under Blunt's command? And does "volunteers" mean the other two brigades of Blunt's division?
 * I'll address this one tomorrow - I have to work in the morning and it's already pretty late in my time zone. Hog Farm Talk 06:04, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'm not finding this phrase in the article anymore, so I must have rephrased it at some point. Which specific point are you referring to, as I'm not sure anymore. Hog Farm Talk 22:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * at the end of the Prelude section, "the political authorities in Kansas would not allow him to send militiamen to Curtis", but where was Curtis?
 * This one's an embarassing error on my part. Should have been "to Blunt" not "to Curtis".
 * Battle
 * "to the main Union body" which was where? Kansas City, Missouri?
 * The Big Blue. Clarified
 * "Many of the militiamen did not want to serve outside Kansas,[1] and Carney would not allow them to be moved too far east into Missouri" this seems like a repeat of earlier info. Perhaps "Blunt requested reinforcements from Curtis, but the restrictions on the movement of the Kansan militia meant that Blunt could not be reinforced at the Little Blue River as it was too far into Missouri. Curtis therefore ordered Blunt to leave a holding force at the Little Blue River and fall back to the main Union body at Kansas City (or wherever they were)"
 * Rephrased, pretty close to as you suggested
 * suggest "The 11th Kansas Cavalry Regiment, supported by four cannons, was left behind"
 * Done
 * "The remainder of the 11th Kansas Cavalry" remind the reader how many companies this was
 * Collins and Sinisi don't state the number of companies, neither does Lause my new source I need to add. I don't have Kirkman or Monnett with me at the moment, so I can't check them for that detail today.
 * were the cannons at the bridge?
 * Yes. Clarified
 * "The northward Union company was outflanked and retreated" weren't they more "cut off from the main body of the regiment"?
 * They rejoined the regiment, which I've added.
 * "The 11th Kansas Cavalry Regiment counterattacked with 600 men" but the strength of Moonlight's force varies, perhaps "The whole of Moonlight's force counterattacked"
 * Done
 * "not only the men who had accompanied him" what troops were these? My working assumption is that Blunt had only Jennison's brigade plus whatever elements of Moonlight's brigade that had not accompanied him to the Little Blue River. Could you be more specific?
 * Blunt's non-militia people.
 * what troops comprised James H. Ford's command? It appears from later information that it was the 2nd Colorado Cavalry Regiment? Or were these Kansan militia released from their restrictions, or others from one of Blunt's Union brigades?
 * The 2nd Colorado, part of a non-militia units and an artillery battery. The 2nd Colorado came to Curtis via Rosecrans, which I've added.  But the battery was also nonmilitia.  Which then raises the question as to where Curtis got it.  I'm working on that solution, but the battery just kinda pops up right before the battle in Collins, Sinisi, and Lause with none of them saying where it came from.  Still looking. Hog Farm Talk 23:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Update - Kinda have this dealt wiht.
 * suggest "Shelby's division committed to the fighting, as it was considered more reliable"
 * Done
 * which formation did the the 7th Missouri Cavalry Regiment and Davies's Missouri Cavalry Battalion come from?
 * Clark's. Added.
 * "made little offensive progress"
 * Done
 * to avoid a repetition of "pressing in successive sentences, how about "Thompson's men began pushing forward."
 * Done
 * suggest "Thompson pushing forward putting pressure on the Union centre"
 * Done
 * Aftermath and preservation
 * "the 3rd Missouri Cavalry Regiment combined for suffered 31 killed and wounded"
 * Done
 * which unit was Todd fighting with?
 * A group of guerillas. Added that as well as his cause of death.
 * According to his article, Todd was killed in the Second Battle of Independence? If true, perhaps move his death down to there.
 * Our article on Todd was incorrect. I corrected the error in the article.  On a related note, it seems to be related to a likely connected error in Second Battle of Independence. Our article on that battle conflates Second Independence and Little Blue River.  The conflation was added by  in 2008, but the secondary reliable sources such as Collins, Lause, Sinisi, Kennedy, Monnett, Kirkman, NPS, etc. all treat the two battles as separate actions. Hog Farm Talk 01:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "forced their way across a crossing of the Big Blue River"
 * Done
 * "visitors' center"
 * Done
 * - I've got a query RE the Big Blue to Kansas thing, but I think I've addressed everything besides that one. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This is looking good, support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Support by AustralianRupert
Comments: while I am conscious of a possible Antipodean bias in reviewers here, I will offer a few comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * in the lead, Meanwhile, Blunt had received permission from Curtis -- full name and position for Curtis?
 * Done
 * date format consistency: "24 October 2020" v. "October 21, 1864"
 * I think I've gotten this cleaned up
 * When it entered the state, Price's force: suggest trying to use a slightly different lead-in phrase here so that it doesn't repeat how the last section ended
 * Rephrased
 * many of whom were militiamen: suggest maybe drawing out why this was an "issue" -- were they tranined to a lower standard, more poorly equiped, or encumbered in some way (legally for instance) by their status as militiamen? Wouldn't need too much, as it becomes clearer later. For instance, "many of whom were state-controlled militiamen who were..."
 * I've explained this a little bit. The problem was the Kansas militia was state control, while the Missouri militia were sometimes badly armed and had only been in guerrilla warfare.
 * Shelby's men attacked the: full name on first mention in the body?
 * Oops, thought I'd linked him. Full name and ranked added
 * in the aftermath, between Davies's Battalion --> "between Davies's battalion" (not a proper noun?)
 * Done.

- Are these changes satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * G'day, your changes look good to me. I will take another look when PM has offered some comments. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

See his talk, Hog Farm has had a concussion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Sandy. Sorry to hear about this, HF. Head injuries are definitely very serious, so please take as long as you need. I have had several myself from football, cricket and a few incidents in the Army; I'd like to say my forgetfulness and overall low intelligence are as a result, but I probably can't back that up. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Continuing my review now that PM's comments have been addressed. Not much sticks out to me, just a couple of minor suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Each brigade was assigned an artillery battery; Blair's brigade was given an extra artillery section as well: if possible, I wonder if you could add the number of guns here. e.g. "Each brigade was assigned an artillery battery (x guns); Blair's brigade was given an extra artillery section (X guns) as well"? If not, no worries;
 * Added.
 * Blunt left part of his command under the command of Colonel Thomas Moonlight to: is there a way to avoid saying "command" twice in the sentence?
 * Rephrased
 * reventing a large scale crossing --> "large-scale"?
 * Done
 * battlefield was fragmented: not quite sure what this means -- does it mean that development has encroached on part of the battlefield?
 * I've added a footnote explaining how the study defined fragmented
 * - Sorry for the delay, I've addressed all of your comments so far. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for getting back to me. I made a minor tweak -- please check you are happy with that (I could have gone with the singular form of the sentence also, but was guessing based on the rest of the sentence that you were referring to the plural). Added my support above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)