Talk:Henry Halleck

message: I have commented out part of a footnote that says "But there is room to question that conclusion. Halleck relieved Grant of field command of the expedition (but not his overall command) on March 4 (OR I-10-2-3). On March 9 and 10, Halleck advised Grant to prepare himself to take the field.  On March 10, the President and Secretary of War inquired about Grant's status, and on March 13, Halleck directed Grant to take the field.  See Halleck to Grant, March 9, 10, 13, 1862, OR I-10-2-22, 27, 32; Thomas to Halleck, March 10, 1862, OR I-7-683.  This sequence suggests that Halleck may have decided to restore Grant to field command before receiving Lincoln's inquiry." This is obvious original research, citing primary sources to reach conclusions. You need to cite secondary sources for conclusions of this type. The following sentence with the citation from Smith is a secondary source that supports the alternative conclusion you are trying to portray.
By the way, in the footnote that includes "Grant wrote Halleck privately that he considered his second-in-command position to be "anomylous," to constitute a "sensure," ...", are those two misspellings in the original source material? (Should they be marked [sic] or just corrected?) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOR 

message: Who is this "Brown" in the Notes? He's not in the References.HowardJWilk (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats. You found a six-year-old mistake that really had me scratching my head. I have corrected it. Thanks. Hal Jespersen (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Brown? 

message: I wonder what happened to his son, and whether he might have left some memoirs, as the old man unfortunately did not. 109.154.9.232 (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Jr.? 

message: Hello! The above phrase doesn't really make sense and certainly isn't standard English. It appears in a paragraph which starts, "Halleck's department performed well..." in the Civil War section. I think the sentence is fine without it, but I can see why some would like something similar there. I suggest the sentence should read as follows:
:Grant, at the time unaware of the political maneuvering behind his back, regarded Halleck as...
Or, a slightly different wording:
:Grant, not yet aware of the political maneuvering behind his back, regarded Halleck as...
I think the meaning of these is much clearer, and they have the benefit of being standard English too. What does everyone think? SomeFreakOnTheInternet (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "As of yet" 

message: '...alongside Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, Henry Halleck may be regarded as one of the fathers of modern warfare.'
:Even though this claim is referenced, it seems a bit over the top. Halleck endorsed successful strategies that were not his own, and proved an able administrator of military supply. But I don't think that makes him quite such a demigod. I've left it in, but perhaps an unbiased judge may see fit to remove it. Valetude (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father of modern warfare? 

message: Halleck... used the victory [Fort Donelson, Feb. 16th 1862] as an opportunity to request overall command in the Western Theater, which he currently shared with Maj. Gen. Don Carlos Buell, but which was not granted.
But then:
On March 11, 1862, Halleck's command was enlarged to include Ohio and Kansas, along with Buell's Army of the Ohio...
As this was before Shiloh, what caused the change of heart? Valetude (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending his command in the west