Talk:Siege of Fort Pulaski

message: In the article on the Battle of Fort Pulaski, it does not square to address Confederate strategic success, since as argued elsewhere, in the event of Pulaski, the fort was lost. It is only in a larger, longer view that Confederates could advance their cause, so I listed some of those developments specifically, without characerizing them. 
The phrase objected to is withdrawn, the citation tag removed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confederate strategic goals - citation needed tag 

message: The article should present a web page with a magazine-like appearance. Editors have tried other alignments producing large white boxes of text requiring page-downs to find text. Please explain the effect sought after and its rationale before changing the format; prereview changes before saving them. 
Plastikspork, please help out here. What were you trying to do? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article format as web page. 

message: I have found in this study in the Civil War, as always, interesting and far-reaching stories of initiative, innovation, perseverance and courage on both sides. Some contemporary newspapers and post-war memoirs are less favorable than history, especially to some individual commanders.
In the Infobox, it matters that both sides were dealing with unheard of complexity and scope of operations between Army and Navy at the point of contact with the adversary. Hence citing multiple commanders. It matters that the naval force match-up favored the Union 15:3 warships, 36:2 transports; men under arms, 10,000:385; rifled guns, which at distance most mattered, 8:2. Napoleon is famously to have said, “God is on the side of the big battalions.” 
It is telling that experienced, respected senior officers on both sides expected the siege to be successful either by starvation in four months on one side, or faster by massive bloodletting of thousands in a 10,000 man assault under political pressure. The Confederates were able to mount an active defense by aggressive naval sorties and the fort’s own surprise long-range battery fire. Union approaches took 112 days from November 24 landing on Tybee Island until April 11 fort surrender. That is remarkable. 
The notable take-away from a military historical perspective is not that the fort fell, but that by the time it did, Savannah defenses had been so built up that it could not be taken by sea. The defense of Savannah by Flag Officer Tattnall and Colonel Olmstead under the command of General Robert E. Lee should be written up as a strategic Confederate success, notwithstanding the fall of Fort Pulaski in two days under innovative rifled cannon fires that were unexpected by senior officers of both sides.  It is just that the “battle” Infobox does not allow that, since the fort of the same name fell. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox information matters 

message: The article's expansion may now inform the earlier discussion whether to name the Union operation at Fort Pulaski a "Battle" or a "Siege". Unlike what may be gathered from contemporary southern newspapers, it was not a cursory two-day fusillade followed by an ignominious surrender. 
It was a 112-day investment including positions upriver from the fort, knowledgeably anticipated by Lee, witness his personal placement of unrifled armament to cover their placement. Confederate Government of Jefferson Davis directed defensive force withdrawal in Georgia and Florida to interior lines to protect the Georgia 'breadbasket' supply of food for the armies deployed northward. Hence the abandonment of Tybee Island, concentration of guns in the surrounding region into the immediate defense perimeter of Savannah, and the reduction of fort's garrison. 
That the operation was only 3-1/2 months was only due to the surprise effect of the innovative gunnery through the second day . The photographic evidence is dramatic. Source contributions from the 'Records of the Navies', supplementing the 'Records of the Armies', highlight the significance of the sea-based Army-Navy amphibious operations and the effectiveness of the Confederate resistance. The Lee mounted an active defense both by land (scorched-earth, raiders, Olmstead) and by sea (Tattnall). 
It is beyond romanticism to imagine that three Confederate side-wheeler gunboats could overmatch superior numbers, firepower and maneuverability of seven Union screw-driven gunboats within the confines of the Savannah River. An isolated 400 cannot be expected to hold 10,000 at bay for long. The competence and valor of the garrison is beyond question. Innovative positioning of guns and repeated gunboat sorties halted day-time Federal progress on upriver Union batteries and on Tybee Island. (The Union soldier cut in half, by a shot said to be aimed by Olmstead, would bring the Union death toll to two--still researching.) Under Union bombardment of shot and shell, Fort garrison re-activated silenced guns on both days, returning accurate fires during the battle that altered Union fire missions. Olmstead was allowed to keep his sword at surrender, a significant honor. 
The adverse critique would have it that three months should have been seven? 'Defense in depth' is actually a military term of art, one which requires some acquaintance with arms to appreciate. For clarity, Fort Pulaski can be compared to the Alamo: time was bought for military preparations against an invader of superior numbers. From a military perspective, Texas was not conquered by Santa Ana, Savannah was not taken from seaward. I would argue for "Siege of Fort Pulaski". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revisit "Siege" 

message: The Confederate flag flown at the time of the Battle of Fort Puaski was the Stars and Bars. Primary sources report the Blood Stained Banner was never seen in the field. It flew over Charleston Harbor in 1865 along with three others so as not to be taken as a sign of surrender, but that was before its adoption in CS Congress with most Representatives evacuated from the Confederate Capital. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  history article uses flag of history 

message: There are 10 links here that don't work on two different machines I've tried.  (They yield HTTP 404 errors).  These are all of the NPS links that start the URL with cr.nps rather than just nps.  Unfortunately, just deleting the cr. isn't working for most of them.  The directory paths have also changed...at least on ones I've been able to find again. Some add a "fopu" directory or an extra "history" directory.  Among these are several in the external links section:  Cockspur, Tybee, & St. Simons.  Sadly, some of the working NPS root pages still contain links to defunct cr.nps URL's or some broken search pages.   
I've had another editor tell me that one of these works for him, so I'm trying to figure out if others are seeing the same problem as me before I go Terminator on cr.nps addresses. Red Harvest (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've replaced all of these cr.nps addresses with either the new NPS addresses or external replacements if the NPS pages have been removed from the net. Red Harvest (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks. The source linking in Wikipedia articles is one of my favorite features, it is a key reason why the articles can be used in the classroom for an introduction to a subject, even with the periodic POV and vandalism each can suffer. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  cr.nps "link rot"