Talk:Braxton Bragg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email)

Contents 1 Olivia 2 Brother-in-law? 3 Pro/Con 4 May 22 edit 5 June 18 edit 6 Army Names 7 Edits of March 23

[edit] Olivia

Hi! My name is Olivia. I am doing a research paper on Braxton Bragg. If anyone has any information on his personal life, please email me at: emailoliviapleez@yahoo.com

Thank You!!

[edit] Brother-in-law?

Is it certain that Braxton Bragg was brother-in-law to Don Carlos Buell? How reliable are the sources you have for this? Because James M. McPherson assures in Battle Cry of Freedom that this was slander. Peterbr 18:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Eicher reference cited states this. Where specifically in BCoF does the discussion of slander occur? I couldn't find it in an online copy I checked. (I admit, I haven't found other corroborations yet, so perhaps it's an error.) Hal Jespersen 19:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't find it back now. I'm sure it occurred in a discussion about troops restive about their commander (either Bragg or Buell). Peterbr 20:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Some more info: According to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v019/v019p014.html and "Don Carlos Buell: Most Promising of All (Civil War America)" by Stephen D. Engle, Buell was married to Elizabeth Margaret Mason, born Hunter or Turner, widow of general Richard Barnes Mason. Peterbr 11:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Braxton Bragg was married to Eliza (Elise) Brooks Ellis in 1856 according to http://www.mohistory.org/content/LibraryAndResearch/DownloadFiles/Bragg.pdf and other sources. Enough evidence, it seems to me, that Bragg and Buell were no brothers-in-law. Peterbr 11:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

And I found again the "slander" reference; it wasn't in McPherson's book, but on a Web page: http://www.geocities.com/ovi26th/onehundredfortyyearsago3.html :

Morale was very low, as the foot soldier was losing any support or loyalty to General Buell, whom they blamed for the seeming continued retreat from Alabama, with no provision for their well being. Rumors even began that he was a traitor or even the brother-in-law of General Bragg. Peterbr 11:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro/Con

I have done two edits to make adjustments to the recent flurry of edits on this article. The overwhelming consensus of historians is that Bragg was an unpleasant man and an unsuccessful general. The recent edits added in a few pro-Bragg references and attempted to balance all of the negative statements with positive ones. I have watered down some of those overly positive statements ("brilliant", etc.) and added some quotations from other historians that represent more widely held views. To the anonymous editor, I would ask that if you decide to restore any of the strongly positive statements, such as that Bragg "consistently impressed his superiors," that you provide actual citations for such assertions. Hal Jespersen 01:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

147.174.150.163 11:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)Sean C.

My changes were added to balance out the common negative view. I used your article during a paper for date confirmation. I decided to edit because it seemed incomplete. I am no fan of Bragg, finding him along with Hood and Holmes to be among the worst field commanders but he was a brilliant organizer, a skill under utilized. My opinions and information mostly come from McWhiney and Hallock’s balanced accounts as opposed to the negative and shallow view of McPherson or the apologetic writings of Woodworth and Seitz. All my information can be cited. I did not cite because nothing in the article was cited when I edited it. I didn’t sign my name to the earlier question because I was only just informed of wikipedia protocol.

Wikipedia articles often omit citations when there are only a few References from which they are written. (Printed encyclopedias are the same, although they often have a single, named author listed as responsible.) However, when there are conflicting Refs or there is controversy about a subject, that's when we start adding the [foot]notes so that readers have a guide to who said what. When articles become formally acknowledged as "featured article" they go through a process in which the number of Notes increases dramatically. I have answered your Talk page note to me on that page since I don't know where yours is. By the way, McPherson won the Pulitzer Prize for the work I quoted, so you may wish to reconsider your judgment of him vs. McWhiney and Hallock. I could roll out a dozen first-rate historians who agree with him. Hal Jespersen 23:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I know of McPherson's qualifications and have read his work. I agree his work is solid especially his discription of the political build up to the war. He is only human and there is only so much that can be written in a book of that size. I just found his comments on the Army of Tennessee to be shallow, not taking into account the full depth of the command crisis within the army and simply taking the easy approach of blaming Bragg. I’ve read many that agree with him such as Wiley Sword. Cozzens on the other hand is fair in assigning blame. For every dozen who see only Bragg’s failures there are a dozen who see his good points along with the bad. Pulitzers do not make us infallible but I fully admit a bias for Catton’s three volumes over McPherson’s one. 147.174.150.24 10:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Sean C.

I’m adding a few comments on Bragg’s penchant to blame others for failure in a few days. I’m not a registered user so I’ll sign all comments Sean C.147.174.150.24 10:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)Sean C.

Citation on POlk's incompotence: Woodworth 29-30. Davis's lack of support: Woodworth 309. Sean C.

[edit] May 22 edit

I have edited in the citations and cleaned up some more. Sean, since it takes about 30 seconds to register on Wikipedia, I don't understand why you can't do so. The remaining citation or elaboration that I'd like you to provide, although I didn't bother to flag it, is the sentence "...Bragg was able to impress on occasion his superiors, such as Taylor, Davis, Beauregard, and Sidney Johnston." What did Beauregard, in particular, have to say? (I presume the others promoted him, which must demonstrate admiration.) Hal Jespersen 14:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] June 18 edit

I made some corrections to the edits today and would reply directly to the author, but he does not seem to have a User page. The style of writing in which someone attempts to balance every assertion with counter arguments, sentence by sentence, is tedious for the reader. "The general lost the battle. But it was not an important battle. And he only allegedly lost it. And lots of other people were to blame." I have cleaned this up a little bit, but in general we like to write these articles so that the most widely held opinion of an historical figure comes through as the main point and counter argumentscan be centered in section such as Controversy legacy, where quotes by historians argue the merits of alternative viewpoints. I also believe that you cannot place too much blame on a subordinate's actions because the overall commander is ultimately responsible for those actions. The other major theme in the editing I did was to clean up links. The style in this article, and in most articles about the American Civil War, is not to use multiple links to the same article in the same paragraph, section, or sometimes even the entire article. It is not necessary to say that Leonidas Polk did this and Leonidas Polk did that and Leonidas Polk did something else. Even the repetition of his first name is unnecessary when the instances come close together and his name is uniquely identifiable. If there were two General Smiths in a battle I could understand the need for it. Hal Jespersen 22:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Update on June 19: the reason I keep making changes is that as more detail is added, I want to ensure that it is formatted correctly and that vague statements such as "some subordinates" are documented correctly. I would suggest that making changes to an article and promising later documentation is not the optimal way of doing things on Wikipedia. As to some specific edits, William J. Hardee was cited by Woodworth in the footnote for that sentence. If you believe that to be incorrect, provide a second opinion with a footnote. McCown was inexperienced, as documented in the Battle of Stones River article as well as the Cozzens reference. (I think it is a generally poor approach to make controversial assertions about battles within biography articles unless those assertions agree with the battle articles.) And the reason the word partially was restored is that it is impossible for an army commander to escape blame 100% due to the actions of subordinates. Any modern military commander would be fired immediately for making the claim that he was not fully responsible for the actions and the inactions of his subordinates. Hal Jespersen 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army Names

I edited some sections referring to the "Army of Mississippi" and "Army of Tennessee". These armies were erroneously named in the article after the rivers instead of the states. Bragg, a Confederate general, was never in command of the "Army of the Tennessee" because it was a Union army. I don't think an "Army of the Mississippi" ever existed. In general, Confederate armies and battle site names come from place names; Union armies and battle site names come from body of water names. Another well-known example of this is the Battle of Manassas or alternatively the Battle of Bull Run Creek.

I added a footnote on the Mississippi name. At the Shiloh battlefield, you'll see that all the NPS signs refer to the "Army of the Mississippi" despite the general rule we've all heard about rivers. Another exception to that rule is the Army of the Potomac (Confederate). And then there's Army of the Shenandoah (Confederate), which is a river and a valley! Hal Jespersen 23:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits of March 23

I have restored a number of text passages that were deleted in the recent round of edits by an anonymous editor. Many of these are cited in the references and there is no justification for simply deleting them. If some of these quotations or anecdotes are wrong, the appropriate way to deal with that is by adding detail to the footnotes and provide sources denying them. Hal Jespersen 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)