Talk:Confederate States Navy

message: There are some pretty bold statements in the opening paragraph that either need to be cited or the introduction needs to be changed to something less dramatic.  In general, this whole entry seems very loaded with propaganda like statements that try to make the CSN did more than it really did.  Gcal1971 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues with introduction

message: The statement was made that Confederate privateers "sank many warships."  No they did not.  Confederate privateers captured a few merchant ships, but never sank any warships. See USS St. Lawrence vs. Privateer Petrel. The whole enterprise was abandoned in favor of commissioned warships.  Gcal1971 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Confederate privateers

message: I added a good bit of information today, in hopes of pulling this article out of its "stub" status. I've been working on it for a while though and really need a break. I'm just making it known that, while I have added a lot, there's still more I intend to do.
Robbiesqp 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I definitely need to see sources for this statement: "In early 1861, both the Confederate and Union navies were both unimpressive, but they were equal." In early 1861, the CSN had virtually no ships and the USN had ships, definitely not equal. When Virginia joined in April they got some ships and by then some civilian ships had been purchased, plus they gained a navy yard, but still. That was what Mallory always had to compete against (unequal footing) and why he decided to go the innovation route to try and achieve a balance. Some would argue they never did.... I can get sources-- am at work, but thought I'd put this out there. -plange 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two navies were definately NOT equal in early 1861.  The US Navy in 1860 consisted of 11 steam frigates and 15 steam sloops, in addition to 33 sailing frigates and sloops (a further 10 sailing ships-of-the-line were on the stocks or used as receiving ships, but not put into active commission).  Although the CS Navy did capture one of these frigates (USS Merrimac) and put it into service as the ironclad CSS Virginia, this in now way made up for its deficit with what the US Navy had in service.  (Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships: 1860-1905, New York: Mayflower Books, 1979.  Silverstone, Paul H.  Civil War Navies: 1855-1883. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2001.)  Nicholas F 20:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I thought!! Thanks for the cite! How should we re-word that sentence, would you say from that list of US assets that it would be wrong to say it was unimpressive? I do remember that they had a lot of old ships, but still.... plange 20:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already reworked the paragraph to emphasize that the CS Navy wasn't attempting to match the US Navy ship per ship but rather hoped to overcome its lack of ships through technological innovation.  Nicholas F 21:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw that, sounds good to me, is in line with what I remember. I mean, heck, as stated above, that's why Mallory went the innovative route. Should be mention Maury's "Mosquito fleet" idea? plange 21:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maury's gunboats are more of a footnote to the history of the CS Navy than part of the main story as Mallory quickly abandoned the concept for the ironclads.  Although one hundred of these gunboats were planned, only 15 were laid down and none ever entered service.  Nicholas F 21:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, I've always looked at it as a quirky sidenote to the CSN history...plange 21:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: USN and CSN equal in early 1861?

message: The existing article states "On April 20, 1861, the Union abandoned the Norfolk Navy Yard but did not burn the facility or ships." Many sources state that the Yard was set ablaze and the USS Merrimack burned to the waterline before sinking.  One citation would be DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY -- NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER 
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/merimak2.htm 
Another would be THE CONFEDERATE NAVY: A PICTORIAL HISTORY by Philip Van Doren Stern
   HermannTL (talk) 18:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History: Burning USS Merrimack and Norfolk Navy Yard

message: If you look at the Navy Department Seal that is shown in this article(right) you see the CSA flag on it(no big surprise there). However, look at the type of flag — yes — it is the 1865 flag. Thus, it must have been a very short lived navy seal and dated 1865. --SomeDudeWithAUserName (talk with me!) 04:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date for Navy Seal? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Confederate States Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150228023426/http://www.whenliverpoolwasdixie.org.uk/ to http://www.whenliverpoolwasdixie.org.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If anyone has a source, it would be interesting to know what happened to the ships of the CSN fleet following the defeat of the Confederate forces. Were they absorbed into the Union Navy? Sold off? Broken up? A paragraph on the topic would be great. Mobi Ditch (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-war disposition of ships 

message: Lots of problems with the Ranks section. The rank of Flag Officer, not Admiral, was immediately above Captain and was between Captain and Admiral. Flag Officer had the insignia of 4-stars on the shoulder passants and 4 stripes on the cuff. The rank of Admiral was higher than Flag Officer and only held by one person, Franklin Buchanan. Its insignia were 5 stars and 5 stripes on the shoulder and cuffs, respectively. In sum, on the chart/table, the rank of Admiral is missing and the rank of Flag Officer is mislabeled Admiral. There are a lot of sources for this, don't know where the current display would come from. Venqax (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you could dig up one or more of those sources that'd help. Mobi Ditch (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

text: The "Ranks" table was added by . Maybe they can recall what their sources were. I've added a "citation needed" tag. Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Here is a primary source that mentions "commodores" as a rank, but not "flag-officer". From my limited knowledge of military ranks, my understanding is that "flag officer" refers to a set of ranks that would command groups of ships. So maybe some sources about Barron use "commodore" and "flag officer" more or less interchangeably. The main Internet sources I'm finding look like one-person operations without any citations. For example: .  Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , I didn't create the table, simply copied across the table that was present on the page Ranks and insignia of the Confederate States, on that page the source for the table is the website you have found. I'll have a look through some books I have to see if any of them can provide citation. Cdjp1 (talk) 09:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi , it looks like Flag Officer was a rank, alongside the ranks of Flag Captain and Commodore, according to how people like Josiah Tattnall III and Franklin Buchanan are referred to in sources from the Library of Virginia, as well as the sources providing text for their wiki articles. Cdjp1 (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like the situation isn't cut-and-dried. Your edits , are a big improvement. Thanks! Mobi Ditch (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks