Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Corydon

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Corydon

Promoted --Eurocopter (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

• Featured article candidates/Battle of Corydon/archive1

I have spent a couple weeks working on this article along with help from other editors. It is comprehensive now and I believe should pass an A class review. I am working towards FA class and am hoping to identify any remaining content problems with the article. Detailed sources on the battle are few, although there are many which give a brief mention of it. The two sources I have relied on the most, Funk and Conway, are both the work of the local historical society or the Corydon area. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Initial comments Support. Looks good! Cool3 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cool3

Is it relevant in the first sentence to state that Corydon is the former capital of Indiana. This leads to the (incorrect) assumption that Corydon was the capital at the time of the battle. "It is the last battle that occured within Indiana" This doesn't read right to me (style-wise). The phrasing also seems to suggest that it was the "battle to end all battles" so to speak (i.e., that no future battles will occur). I'd recommend changing this to something like "No battles have occurred in Indiana since" I'd recommend linking "and launched an unsuccessful flanking movement against the Legion's works" to Flanking maneuver. "northward from the Confederacy." This is awfully vague. The Confederacy was a big place. Where exactly? "but to not cross the Ohio River into Union territory." In my opinion, this would read better as "but not to cross." Also, why didn't Bragg want Morgan to cross? "the Federal government had put a regiment regular cavalry troops in Harrison County for defensive purposes, but they had been withdrawn in March leaving only the local militia for defense." Why was the federal cavalry withdrawn? "Morgan had his men tap the Union telegraph lines and sent conflicting reports about his strength and destination and most officials believed his target was Louisville, Kentucky." I'd suggest breaking this into two sentence. At the very least, you need a comma after destination. "He did not find the support he was looking for, and had been pursued by the elements of the 6th and 8th Regiment of the Indiana Legion who killed three of his men and captured several others before the remainder escaped back into Kentucky." Did this incident have a name? Also, was it not a battle? "and requiring the Confederates secure ships to transport their men across" Should read "requiring that" "Indiana militia leaders learned of Morgan's occupation of Brandenburg, ten miles south of Corydon, and his intent to cross into Indiana." Did they have an inside source for his intentions or was this merely an inference? "the third one hitting the upper deck of the McComb and " Shoulnd't this be McCombs? "and the second shot land just short of the cannon" should be landed. "With the resistance seemingly at and end, Morgan began crossing his men" I assume this means on the two steamships, but that should probably be made explicit. "Once the landing was completed, the Alice Dean was set ablaze and sunk in the river between Morvin's landing and Mauckport." Any idea why? Which side of the river was Hobson on? It seems that it was the Kentucky side, but it would be better to make this clear. In the sentence "he learned that Union forces of Brig. Gen. Edward H. Hobson with a force of 4,000 cavalry were advancing on his position." just tacking on where Hobson was advancing from would be quite helpful "In the house Morgan stayed in" would read better as "in the house where Morgan stayed" "a nearby house were they assumed the shot had came from" would read better as "from which they assumed the shot had come" "Corydon was the county seat of Harrison County and the former capitol of State of Indiana" I think it would be helpful to state the years during which it was the capital of Indiana "the 3rd Regiment Kentucky Calvary, the advance elements of the Confederate forces under the command of Col. Stovepipe Johnson, were sighted moving north along the Mauckport Road towards Corydon. " The subject and verb don't agree ("regiment" and "were"). This should probably read "the 3rd Regiment Kentucky Calvary, the advance element of the Confederate forces under the command of Col. Stovepipe Johnson, was sighted moving north along the Mauckport Road towards Corydon." "Capt. George Lahue, a veteran of the Mexican-American War, was in command of the east wing. Most of the men behind the works had never seen battle." This would perhaps read better as "Although their commanders were experienced, most of the men behind the works had never seen battle," but I suppose that's a personal style choice. "Morgan’s artillery could have quickly dispersed the four hundred farmers-turned-soldiers," According to whom? "crossing the river in his rear in the night." would read better as "during the night" "Morgan’s main body was still en route" How far away were they? "and it was decided that the Legion should be engaged by the advance forces." Who made this decision? "At about noon, the Confederates were in position to attack the works" Does this just mean that they had arrived there? Or was there some other way in which they had prepared? "Morgan threatened to torch three local mills, and demanded amounts ranging from $700 to $1,000 from each to save them from destruction." Does this mean $700 to $1000 to save each mill? If so I would rephrase "from $700 to $1000 to save each of them from destruction." The from is, IMO, confusing. "stealing things ranging from" Is there a better word than "things" that could be used here? Perhaps items? "learned of the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg, two blows from which the Confederacy could not recover." This needs better citation/attribution. It is certainly a majority view among scholars today that those two events were crucial turning points in the war, but I wouldn't present them as just simple facts. Also is there any evidence that Morgan thought at the time that the battles were "blows from which the Confederacy could not recover"? Many Southern leaders at the time did not necessarily consider the defeats catastrophic. "began to formulate plans for a safe return to the south." I'd make this "formulate new plans" I think the placement of the paragraph on casualties is strange. I would tend to either place it at the very beginning of the Aftermath section or even at the end of the section above. "ten–twelve wounded" this should probably be written out as "ten to twelve". "Additionally, two civilians were also killed" I don't think you should say both "additionally" and "also" "Because Corydon was the former capitol of Indiana the defeat was symbolic and many people saw the attack as an assault on the state's pride." This doesn't flow particularly well from the previous sentence. Also who is "many people"? "He then turned his force east towards Ohio as his raid turned into flight. He continued his raid eastward into Ohio" You say the raid turned into flight and then refer again to a raid. I believe the second instance should be "continued his flight"? "In the official government records of the war, the Battle of Corydon and the Battle of Gettysburg are the only two battles that are recognized as occurring on Northern soil." What does this mean? Would you mind posting an exact quote from the source? More to follow, but those should give you something to chew on for now :). Cool3 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I've added a bit more. Great article. Cool3 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I think it is notable that Corydon was the former capitol of Indiana. It made the defeat more symbolic. I will add a note about that in the aftermath section. In regards to Hines reconnaissance mission: reconnaissance mission is linked to the Hines' Raid article. The incident itself is mentioned in that article. My sources do not give the action any name. Your final point regarding the intent to cross: They knew he had ships and was on their southern border and that his plan was to cross from the reports from the escapees from Brandenburg. I have addressed all your other concerns in the article. Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) In regards to gettysburg and vicksburg: I just removed that part. The primary point was, he realized he needed to get back to the south asap. I have placed the casualties where they are for chonology, it ends with Morgan leaving his wounded men in town, which carried well into the next section with his continued raid. I will try to rearrange a bit. In regards to being the one of two northern battles: I will get that exact quote when I arrive home later, that is where my book is. But the gist of it is that there were many skirmishes is the north, but only Corydon and Gettysburg were termed and listed as "Battles" in the offical war department records. I have addresed your other comments in the article. Thanks agains! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Heres the exact wording of my source regaurding the battle: The Battle of Corydon, registered by the War Department of the United States Government as an official battle of the Civil War, was one of only two such battles fought on northern soil.* The other battle was the most celebrated one of the war - The Battle of Gettysburg. However, the Corydon battle has been all but forgotten save by those who live the area. Hopefully this book will help the "almost forgotten" Civil War battle, fought on northern soil, to regain its rightful place in Civil War history. Within these pages the Battle of Corydon is relived. *There were various skirmishes in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, but only Gettysburg and Corydon were termed Official Battles by the War Department. That is introduction to the book by Conway. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 03:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Hmmm. I don't know quite how to treat this; in general I don't find the introduction of the book quite as "reliable" as the actual text. I think the problem here is that relies on definitions of both "battle" and "northern soil" that are neither intuitively obvious nor widely shared. If northern soil is taken as the soil of the Union, then battles like Antietam clearly qualify. Also, looking at the official union records [1], Corydon is referred to as a "Skirmish at Corydon, Ind." in just the same way as a number of other engagements in Morgan's raid. I'm inclined to say that the quote from the introduction is something along the lines of a flourish designed to sell books. Cool3 (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I see your point. I don't think it really would take anything away to remove that statement from the article. I will do that. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• • "a United States Navy ensign commandeered the tinclad Springfield , armed it with three 24-pound howitzers, and sped down river to stall the crossing" Did he actually commandeer it? Commandeering is an act whereby the military seizes private property. According to the article, USS Springfield (1862), the Navy already owned the steamer prior to the battle. Also, there should be no space between Springfield and the comma. Finally, it would be more appropriate to link to Union Navy rather than United States Navy
    • In regards to commandeering the steamer: that is the wording used by Conway. He indicates it was a private ship which a Navy Ensign who with the army command in Louisville took, then armed with three guns, and then took it downriver. I presume it is a different ship from the article that it is linked to. I had noted that earlier, but was unsure what to make of it. I tend to think they are different ships because the incident is not mentioned on the Springfield article, it is mentioned there as having six guns, while the boat in this article had three. But then again, why would a civilian boat be tinclad? I am going to see if I can cross reference this anywhere.
      • I believe I have addressed your remaining concerns, except for the Springfield. I have not been able to fully reconcile what is in my source to the USS Springfield article. I am quite certain now it is in fact the USS Springfield, but the discrepancy regarding the guns still makes me wonder a bit. I am going to go ahead and make it read as though it is the USS Springfield, and will footnote the possible discrepancy. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If you haven't already done so, you should probably look at this [2], which certainly seems to confirm that the Springfield was the boat involved; I still don't know what to make of the matter of the guns. Cool3 (talk) 04:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I had read that, but it does not specifically mention this incident, but is refering to salinville and buffington island. But.. given it was in the same area.. had the same name, it seem more than a coincidence, and they are likely the same ship. There is still a little doubt to me that possible they are differnt, but I am 90% sure they are in fact the same. I think at this point, the possibility warrents a note. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - no problems on my read-through save one; what is "paroled"? Is there something you could link to? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I have mispelled it, will attempt to find an article to link to. Parolled as in, he captured them, took their guns and broke them, then let them go on the promise they would not take up arms again for a given period of time. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps an interwiki link to wikt:parole? —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak support - the heavy reliance on one source might be a problem at FAC, because of the criteria that expects a wide range of literature YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Conway gave the msot detailed description of the battle and I actually removed alot of the other various refs and moved the sources into furhter reading, but I can certainly re-add more citations from the other books to beef it up. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.