User talk:TwoScars/sandbox6

Sources

Ann S. Stephens' "Pictorial History of the War for the Union..." has a section that describes Stoneman's December expedition, and it matches (word for word) a newspaper article (Stoneman) on page 2 of the January 6, 1865, edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer. TwoScars (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Walker, in "The War in Southwest Virginia, 1861-65" on page 146, says Burbridge took a force of over 1,000 men that started flanking Breckinridge' left early in the morning on December 18—and Gillem is not mentioned. This conflicts with all other sources, which say: Gillem was sent to Saltville, a messenger called him back, and he arrived at Breckenridge's left near the end of the day. Walker also says on page 147, that over 100 (187 or 143, depending on the source) Union soldiers lay dead in front of Duke's battle line. This disagrees with Dyer's Compendium. TwoScars (talk) 16:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In John S. Salmon's "The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide", on page 390, he writes "...Breckinridge decided to retreat to Mount Airy, North Carolina." On page 391 he says that Breckinridge "found his way blocked by Col. Harvey M. Buckley's 54th Kentucky Mounted Infantry and therefore turned away from North Carolina toward Wytheville." This disagrees with other sources, which say that Breckinridge retreated south toward North Carolina, but then moved northeast to Mount Airy, Virginia. In Stoneman's report, he thought Breckinridge went to North Carolina. Buckley's brigade would have prevented Breckinridge from moving back to Saltville. TwoScars (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Sources

The following sources have issues and should be used with caution. I don't have any problem using them to describe the location, weather, or list the regimental commander. I do have a problem with using some of them to describe a situation in a battle that could be exaggerated or misleading. If the sources are used, it helps to use them in combination with other sources. In some cases, a criticism of a source is noted to prevent someone from "correcting" facts with doubtful sources.

Colonel Ben E. Caudill Camp No. 1629, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2013). 13th Kentucky Cavalry, CSA: "Caudill's Army". This book is useful for the purpose of listing the units that were part of "Duke's Cavalry". It mentions the 11th Michigan Cavalry as the unit chasing Witcher back to Marion, which conflicts with the Mason version that states it was the 12th Ohio Cavalry and the 11th Kentucky Cavalry. It also gives credit to Colonel Caudill for capturing the strong hilltop position with Giltner's Brigade helping, which could be correct, but another source says gives credit to Duke. (Caudill was in Duke's cavalry.)
Mason, Frank Holcomb (1871). The Twelfth Ohio Cavalry; A Record of its Organization, and Services in the War of the Rebellion, Together with a Complete Roster of the Regiment. This book discusses (on page 86) a colonel from a different regiment deferring to a major from the the 12th Ohio Cavalry—that could have some exaggeration.
Scott, Samuel W.; Angel, Samuel P. (1903). History of the Thirteenth Regiment, Tennessee Volunteer Cavalry, U.S.A.,... Like any regimental history, one must use caution when using a source that may be portraying itself better than it should be.
Trowbridge, Luther S. (1905). A Brief History of the Tenth Michigan Cavalry. This source is used only one time, and that is to mention that only 50 men went on Stoneman's Raid, and they were his personal guard.
Walker, Gary C. (1985). The War in Southwest Virginia, 1861-65. Walker (on page 146) says Burbridge took a force of over 1,000 men that started flanking Breckinridge's left early in the morning on December 18. Gillem is not mentioned. This conflicts with all other sources, which say: Gillem was sent to Saltville, a messenger called him back, and he arrived at Breckenridge's left near the end of the day. Walker also says on page 147, that 187, mostly colored troops, lay dead in front of his line before the day was over" and that the official Union count was 143". This disagrees significantly with Dyer's Compendium, which lists Union casualties for Marion as 18 killed and 58 wounded. A newspaper with an assistant surgeon's report says the 5th U.S. Colored Cavalry had one killed and seven wounded on the entire excursion. In the Report of the Adjutant General of the State of Kentucky, Volume 2, it is difficult to find any deaths for the 5th or 6th U.S. Colored Cavalry that occurred in December 1864. Walker's book provides plenty of information, but perhaps some of his sources made some exaggerations.

Other comments:

Burbridge, Stephen G. (1902). "Reports of Bvt. Maj. Gen. Stephen G. Burbridge, U.S. Army". In Ainsworth, Fred C.; Kirkley, Joseph W. (eds.). The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Additions and Corrections to Series I Volume XLV. Burbridge "tended to exaggerate the size and strength of Confederate forces" according to page 61 of the book "The Most Hated Man in Kentucky: The Lost Cause and the Legacy of Union General Stephen Burbridge" by Brad Asher. Burbridge's glowing reports contrast with Stoneman, who mentioned (on page 812 of his report) that he (Stoneman) had to take over for Burbridge at Marion and "spent the fore part of the night getting things straightened out."
In John S. Salmon's "The Official Virginia Civil War Battlefield Guide", on page 390, he writes "...Breckinridge decided to retreat to Mount Airy, North Carolina." Mount Airy, North Carolina is about 75 miles from Marion using today's highway miles! On page 391 he says that Breckinridge "found his way blocked by Col. Harvey M. Buckley's 54th Kentucky Mounted Infantry and therefore turned away from North Carolina toward Wytheville." This disagrees with other sources, which say that Breckinridge retreated south toward North Carolina, but then moved northeast to Mount Airy, Virginia. Stoneman's thought Breckinridge went to North Carolina. Buckley's brigade would have prevented Breckinridge from moving back to Saltville. This source has not been used.
Stephens, Ann S. (1867). Pictorial History of the War for the Union: A Complete and Reliable History of the War from its Commencement to its Close ... Together with a Complete Chronological Analysis of the War. This book has a section that describes Stoneman's December expedition, and it matches (word for word) a newspaper article (Stoneman) on page 2 of the January 6, 1865, edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer. This is not to say her/the newspaper report information at the time is incorrect.

Suggested changes / improvements

The lead I would rewrite perhaps personal taste or interpretation as to what is important, I would focus less in the lead over the course of the battle other sentences could be summarised in much less words.

> The objective of the raid was to destroy Virginia's Confederate–controlled salt mines. Additional targets were lead mines located in adjacent Wythe County and the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad. The salt was used by for food preservation and the lead was used to make bullets. The railroad was used to transport both resources for the Confederacy, and it was also used to transport Confederate troops. Marion was located between the salt and lead mines, and the fight there occurred when Confederate troops tried to prevent Union cavalry from reaching the salt mines. Previous attacks on the mines and railroad infrastructure had been unsuccessful or caused minimal damage.

Could simply be;

>Y the aim of the raid was the destruction of economic and transport infrastructure - the salt in Marion and lead mines of the adjacent Wythe County and the Virginia and Tennessee Railroad that contributed to the Confederacies war effort.

--

On the body of the article;

#1

I like your use of notes to provide contextual geographic information I actually have changed my mind on some of this - the maps are less than ideal and notes sometimes can help walk a reader through the geography of the area.

Some notes are still unnecessary at least in part

Ynote 2; I would delete "204 miles (328 km) long"

Ynote 3 - omit in its entirety Chickamauga is now in union hands, note 2 and your geographic description make it clear enough that the confederacy could use the railroads to link the eastern and western theatre. Perhaps solicit a third opinion perhaps someone more civil war interested than me might think it a very important point to raise.

broadly I think the other notes appear to be necessary they convey information that's difficult to integrate into prose while showing where sources disagree or qualify stated figures e.g. for the combat strength of certain units.

#2

YI would include the expression sic in note 20 at the very least or simply not include it to avoid any questions of OR. Academic historical sources seem to do a better job supporting what union casualties were than one hasty and probably typo'd news report.

Broadly I think the article length is fine, no section appears overly long or is long for a reason other than some complication of the facts, disagreement in the sources or some such.

__

Sources I have no issues with any specific source it appears appropriate that you might use some primary sources given this is not an extensively covered and they are limited in what they are used for.

The only source I might not consider primary or good published historical work is the national parks service but its limited and not overly relied upon nor relied upon for outrageous claims.

Once you are happy with your sources I would suggest even just changing the article over, honestly copy editing at least I find a nightmare to do on work that I have written and rewritten myself many times. Perhaps even making a post on the guild of copy editors. But even if you don't the wonder of wiki I at least find is that once a change is made anyone can improve it! Or alternatively nominate it for peer review. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]