Talk:Philip Kearny

message: At first I thought the posthumous promotion reference may be a mistake, confusing him with Isaac Stevens who was also killed at the Battle of Chantilly, as several descriptions of that battle have Kearny as a Major General during the action.  But the 1911 Encyclopedia does mention him not receiving his commission by the time he died, so I looked around some more and came across this documentation in an old biography of Kearny:
MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your note of the 2d instant, I have had the records examined, and find the following answers for your questions in relation to General KEARNY:
#When General KEARNY was appointed Major-General of Volunteers, he stood number six on the list of Brigadier-Generals.
#His commission as Brigadier-General of Vols. was dated 7 Aug., 1861, to rank from 17 May, 1861.
#He was appointed, during the recess of the Senate, Major-General of Vols.; the letter of appointment was dated July 25, 1862, to rank from July 4,1862. His commission, prepared after his death, bears date of March 13, 1863. The records do not show that the services, on account of which the rank of Major-General was conferred were stated in either the letter of appointment or the commission.
#At the date of his death, he stood number thirty on the list of Major-Generals of Vols. GEN'L:DEPEYSTER, Tivoli, N. Y.
Very truly yours, E. D. TOWNSEND,
then Asst. Adjt.-General, now Adjt.-General U. S. A.
Philip Kearny was not confirmed as Major-General of Volunteers until March 9th, 1863, nor was the order, says Brevet-Maj. G. E.H ~ —, announcing his promotion as Major-General, received by his old, then Birney's division, until November, 1862.
I certainly don't know enough of the technicalities of rank promotion to say... was he in fact promoted to Major General in July 1862 and not posthumously (just with the details not complete), or does that in fact mean he was not promoted until after his death? Carl Lindberg 07:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One of the reasons that Wikipedia promotes the use of secondary sources is so that we do not have to be involved in the minutiae of such matters. The Eicher reference, which is used by many of the ACW generals' bios, states that he was promoted posthumously. If there are alternative secondary sources that make claims about dates (rather than printing verbatim letters from the War Department without comment), those sources should be included. We also generally do not take notice of Senate confirmation for promotions unless they are denied, nor of the detailed difference between dates of commission versus dates of rank. Hal Jespersen 15:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Your arguments are persuasive. In my (relatively limited) library, I could find no references to a posthumous promotion other than Eicher. I have modified the article with a footnote that highlights this discrepancy. Thanks for your diligence. Hal Jespersen 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem, and thanks for making the change.  The footnote is a very good way to handle it. Carl Lindberg 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion to major general 

message: I can buy the idea of a rider holding the reins in his teeth, but the bridle?  Literal application of that description raises a quizzical picture--if the general had the bridle in his mouth, what did the horse have?
Terry J. Carter (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a little web search and was amazed to find that well over a dozen sites accessible by Google are using this exact same phrase, presumably copied from the Wikipedia article. The quotation originally came from either Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography or De Peyster's Personal and Military History of Philip Kearny, Major-general United States Volunteers, both 19th century works and you would assume that people in that era knew more about tack than that. Since there is an earlier reference in the same article about reins in the teeth, I deleted this quotation. Thanks for catching. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tack Terminology 

message: Phil is listed as having the same parents as Stephen W. Kearnyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_W._Kearny, but Stephen is said to be his granduncle. This needs to be cleared up.Ealtram (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parentage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Philip Kearny. 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/20031205205830/http://philkearny.vcn.com/ to http://philkearny.vcn.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031204222739/http://wyoparks.state.wy.us/kearny1.htm to http://wyoparks.state.wy.us/kearny1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040613173248/http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/kearny.htm to http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/nsh/kearny.htm
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) 19:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This needs a bit of re-writing due to lacking correct chronology.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:682B:8AD6:2419:55AD (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demise and disposition of the body 

message: I am a little concerned about the statement in the article that at the time Kearny died "there were rumors in Washington that President Abraham Lincoln was contemplating replacing George B. McClellan" with Kearny (I am assuming this means as Commander of the Army of the Potomac. There are two issues here. 1) There is a lack of a citation for this claim 2) Even if this was a rumor does it have any relevance? The problem as I see it is the story seems questionable, in so far as  it seems a bit implausible that a Division Commander would be promoted to head the Union's main army over the heads of several corps commanders. Of course if it is the case that Lincoln did not seriously make such a consideration, this does not mean there was not such a rumor, but it does considerably alter its context. As it reads at the moment (to me at any rate) it looks like there was a serious possibility Kearny was about to succeed McClellan. If this was not the case, but there was still a rumor, then I think this needs to be made clear, and also justification for the rumor being included as such speculation would not usually be seen as encyclopedic. For instance if it is being argued that the rumor showed that Kearny was held in high regard by the Northern public and press then it is obviously worth including, but this should be made clear. Dunarc (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command of the Army of the Potomac claim