Talk:Joshua Chamberlain

message: Can someone find out what illness he had after the minor wound at Gettysburg? I believe Last Full Measure says malaria, but I want to be sure. ugen64 02:45, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)
* I was always under the impression that the redeployment of 20th Maine to the Stone Wall was a literary device employed by Michael Shaara in The Killer Angels.  Please provide a source for that detail other than the book or the movie.
:I have not yet found any information relating to the 20th being relocated to the Union center.  As far as my sources, I have yet to see any mention of the V Corps (which was where the 20th Maine was located) being transferred to the center at all.  If anyone has any additional information on this, please provide it. --Martin Osterman 02:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't a mere literary device; both Chamberlain's official report on the battle (which is in the Official Records) and his later writings (notably Through Blood and Fire) document the regiment being repositioned on the morning of the third to the extreme left of the brigade, which would place them to the right of the reserves for the center that received Picket's charge, though the regiment was not called forward.  Also, yes, it was malaria. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I deleted the last paragraph from a long list of excellent edits. It said:
:Chamberlain is remembered and honored today as one of the bravest, noblest, and capable officers of the Union army. Many historians believe that, had Chamberlain and his men not held Little Round Top, the Army of the Potomac may well have lost the Battle of Gettysburg, and perhaps the war.
The first sentence is simply over the top. Noblest? Let's keep a NPOV, please. And although the view of holding LRT meant winning the war has popular appeal, there are few reputable military historians who would say so. A brave engagement, but hardly one on which the entire battle or war rested. I could go into a lot of detail as to why, but perhaps you could cite two or three historians (or document "most historians") who have written this. Hal Jespersen 14:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: last paragraph

message: All sources I have seen point to the cause of death as being complications from his wounds recieved at Petersburg. See  and  -- I don't have any written sources, but I think that Hal or one of our other contributers probably does that will back this one up.  --Martin Osterman 12:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sourcing that. I've added that back into the text. // Pathoschild 12:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem!  I found it to be one of the most interesting Civil War-related facts I'd ever come across... and yes, it did make me do a double-take the first time I read it.  Of course, Chamberlain led a very remarkable and interesting life -- but, I think, so did other generals of the day. --Martin Osterman 12:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Perhaps this is something that could be researched a bit, then.  I do admit that my sources never specified what the actual cause of death was... which now makes me more interested than before. --Martin Osterman 16:47, 7 December 2005 
(UTC)
For what it's worth to you guys, the book Twentieth Maine says he was shot through both directions of his hips, shattering his pelvis, and causing bowel complications, and that is what he is supposed to have died of. --S. Gentry, 12 June 2006
*It's actually a pretty well documented subject and in fact is not "arguable," as stated above. The wound he received at Petersburg affected him for the rest of his life, and, yes, he actually did die from the wound, or complications arising from it (you might say a combination of the wound and old age) - purportedly making him the last veteran to die from wounds sustained in the war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.82.46 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wounds

message: Looks great! SimonATL 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate this, and I have taken the liberty of adding it to the article, with citation. --Dumarest 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks for recent edits HLJ

message: I would like to suggest the addition of a redirect to this article from a search of "Lawrence Chamberlain" because by reading Civil War novels such as Killer Angels, one would search Lawrence Chamberlain, and expect to find this page
: Done. Hal Jespersen 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: "The inspiration of a noble cause involving human interests wide and far enables men to do things that they did not dream themselves capable of before and which they were not capable of alone. The consciousness of belonging vitally to something beyond individuality, of being part of a personality that reaches we know not where in space and time, brightens the heart to the limit of the soul's ideal and builds out the supreme character." as quoted by Stephen Covey in the 8th Habit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.72.56 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might try looking over at wikiquote.  You can also try a google search on one of the more memorable parts of that quote.  My guess is that this isn't a real quote.  It doesn't feel like what quotes I have read by Chamberlain, and it feels like language of the 2000s more than of the 1860s.  GRBerry 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The actual speech was a product of Shaara's pen.  Chamberlain's records merely showed that he spoke to the men and offered to help them with their situation.  It should also be noted that the men of the 2nd were transferred to the 20th on 24 May rather than over a month later as Shaara wrote it, and that in the end all but two of the men ended up choosing to fight for the 20th.  As for those two men, they were court-martialed, but their sentences were remitted through the efforts of Colonel Chamberlain. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gettysburg movie quote

message: I think the statement that Chamberlain was "informed that of all the officers in the Federal Army, General Grant had selected Chamberlain to preside over the ceremony of surrender and parole of the Confederate infantry . . . ." is incorrect. By the time of the surrender ceremony the "Official Records" indicate that only the Fifth Corps was at Appomattox, so the pool of officers was reduced, and according the Warner's "Generals in Blue," Chamberlain's division commander, General Bartlett, received the "stacked arms" of the Confederates. Chamberlain said he commanded the "parade." Furthermore Grant didn't mention Chamberlain in his report in the Official Records or in his memoirs. Is there any original source that supports Chamberlain's claim that he was either chosen by Grant or that Grant approved General Griffin's choice?
Levelpuddle039 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some adjustments and added some citations. Feel free to make modifications.  Hal Jespersen 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that Warner does not give any citation for his claim about General Bartlett, nor do the Official Records show any specific duty which he was to be performing that day.  Indeed, despite frequent claims to the contrary, there doesn't seem to be any record anywhere that Joseph Bartlett was anything but an observer to the surrender ceremony.  If he was to receive the "stacked arms", then one must remember that the stacking of those arms was an integral part of the surrender itself and happened under the authority of General Chamberlain.  Any receipt of those arms was, by necessity, merely a clerical function after the fact, similar to filling out paroles for Confederate personnel.  As for who chose Chamberlain to accept the formal surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, Chamberlain himself was never actually sure whether it was Griffin, Gibbon, and Merritt (who were Grant's chosen commissioners), or if Grant himself had suggested it.  While he was under the impression that Grant had made the ultimate decision, he also "had reason to believe that General Griffin had something to do with General Grant's kind remembrance." (JLC: Passing of the Armies) IcarusPhoenix (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Confederate Surrender

message: Hi. An editor took out this ext link: Under Chamberlain's Flag - “The Story of the 198th P.A. and 185th N.Y. Volunteers" - it's dead, after all. I've put it back in and marked it dead, which is what I think is policy. I've also undertaken to look for an archive copy at the Wayback Machine, as it's not there (yet?). On the other hand, the book is not exactly all over the internet - though you can get copies (at a hefty price) on Amazon and Abebooks. It may have been a self-published work, though I do not know if this is relevant or to what extent. All in all, I don't know if it's a link that should have been in in the first place or is worth preserving, and I don't have the expertise to be able to assess this, though my default position would be to err on the side of inclusion. Do you have a view please? Thanks DBaK (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice is to delete it. An external links bears the burden of proof that it is reliable and if you cannot even access it, that proof is impossible. I have no idea from the name of the link whether it is an information site, a book review, a merchandising site for a book, the text of a book, or a blog. At least three of those categories would be ineligible for listing here at all. If this were a well-known site that was temporarily off-line, the dead link template makes sense, but in this case it is the equivalent of litter on the side of the road. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you: I have zapped it having read that very clear statement. It's there in the edit history if anyone needs to get back to it. I was I think perhaps overzealous in rescuing it! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Under Chamberlain's Flag ext link advice please?

message: How did Chamberlain receive the Medal of Honor?  I thought commissioned officers were not allowed to receive it until 1915.  Emperor001 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite a number of commissioned officers received the medal in the 1890s. According to http://www.cmohs.org/medal-history.php, Congress passed a law on March 3, 1863, that allowed the practice, modifying the 1862 law that originated the medal. As far as I am aware, it was not considered appropriate to award them to officers during the war because for the most part they received brevet promotions for gallant (and sometimes not so gallant) service. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, he recieved the Medal of Honor for his actions on Little Round Top. He ordered his men to charge down the hill and swept the opposing force back. Although it must be mentioned that the criteria for recieving a MOH were not as stringent then as they are today. They were basically giving them away during that war. I can't complain though. My Great Great Grandfather recieved one as well.Jojhutton (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Medal of Honor

message: I have removed a parenthetical statement regarding General Chamberlain's battlefield promotion by General Grant which state that this promotion was "the only one he ever made".  In addition to being unsourced, this is also incorrect.  Emory Upton had previously received the same honor at Spotsylvania Court House, though Chamberlain's commission was delivered to him with somewhat more alacrity.
It is worth noting that Grant's statement in his Memoirs about this incident ("...I promoted him on the spot") was very likely the last thing he added to the book, at least according to Bruce Catton, who examined the original manuscript some decades ago.  Grant dies only a few days later.
--IcarusPhoenix (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlefield Promotion 

message: The external link showing the Battle of Gettysburg, a section of which is devoted to Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top, cannot be considered linkspam. The Gettysburg engagement is frequently associated with Chamberlain throughout the entry. The link has been rephrased to more closely indicate Little Round Top is a section of the animation, if not the entire subject matter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAnth (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the previous editor that this link adds nothing of substance to the entry on Chamberlain, and I have removed it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to disagree with your definition of substance. It details his actions on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, an act which he is most famous for in his own personal history. The Battle of Gettysburg is also mentioned repeatedly throughout the article. There are no advertisements on the page, so it really can't be considered linkspam due to it's lack of financial gain via clickthrough from the wiki article.SuperAnth (talk• contribs)    —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAnth (talk ) 18:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't say it was linkspam. However, it's a very glancing treatment of the subject, with hardly a mention of Chamberlain. It doesn't belong in his bio, and given the lack of gravitas, doesn't belong in an entry on the battle either. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to confess I"m curious; what do you mean by "gravitas"?
--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the comments of MarmadukePercy. His judgment about gravitas was probably prompted by the use of the tiny toy soldier icons to represent large units, rather than the more traditional battle lines and unit identifications that are more widely used in maps and animations. The very first animation shows what purports to be a detailed approach of units to the battlefield, but contains a number of inaccuracies. (You can see what I mean by looking at the campaign map in the battle article.) The actions on July 1 are not correct in unit movement and time sequence. (I did not bother to watch much more.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to agree that the Little Round Top animation is buried deeper than I'd expected. Especially because both Maraduke and Hal are in agreement about it. 
--24.91.154.25 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation concerning the Battle of Gettysburg is not linkspam 

message: I've reverted the reference to William R. Forstchen's "Lost Regiment" series. The main character is an homage by Forstchen, and it no more faint and tangential than Tim Owen's song about Chamberlain; in neither work are their names mentioned. The Lost Regiment article specifically references Chamberlain and the 20th Maine as well. SuperAnth (talk
::I've replaced the Lost Regiment reference. "citation needed" tags don't mean an entry expires after a set time period; if you think an information reference needs a citation, you may need to find it on your own. Isn't putting a time period on a needed citation arbitrary? The Chamberlain connection is valid and referenced in the "The Lost Regiment" wiki article as well.--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost Regiment 

message: The term "Bloody Chamberlain"   Can someone add a citation for this?  I have never come across this term except for on this site.  Is this possibly from a novel or is this based from some source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzenatale (talk • contribs) 06:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen it either, so I'll probably excise it the edit.  The whole section in which it falls is a complete mess anyway, and I've long been planning a complete overhaul of the article, so when I finally get around to that part, it's likely the "Bloody Chamberlain" reference will vanish. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloody Chamberlain 

message: The book "Gods and Generals" said he was born Lawrence Joshua Chamberlain, but he then switched them because he thought is sounded more formal, but he preferred to be called Lawrence as most of his family did.  Was this true or was it one of those things that Shaara improvised on?  If true, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article?  Emperor001 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed true, though if added to the article one should reference Trulock or Pullen rather than Shaara of course. --IcarusPhoenix (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: All - two recent edits have removed remarks that Chamberlain had "no earlier education in military strategies" and was "not trained in military science," ostensibly because military science did not exist while Chamberlain was alive.  Clausewitz, Jomini, and West Point were already extant in warfare during the Civil War, so I have to disagree that military science was not a matter of study.  I propose to put the descriptions back, but seek consensus first.  user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits removing remarks about Chamberlain being unschooled in military strategies and science 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joshua Chamberlain. 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/20060201231747/http://www.joshua.lurker00.com/ to http://www.joshua.lurker00.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228133938/http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/articles/chamberlain1.aspx to http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/articles/chamberlain1.aspx
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) 23:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Joshua Chamberlain. 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/20080219012927/http://www.wickedgoodmaine.com/facts/history/chamberlain.shtml to http://www.wickedgoodmaine.com/facts/history/chamberlain.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814010747/http://community.curtislibrary.com/pejepscot.htm to http://community.curtislibrary.com/pejepscot.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) 00:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There was a reference without explanation before the first word of this article, so here is it:  
SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref 

message: Samuel Chamberlain and Joshua Chamberlain were second cousins.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Chamberlain
http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI286.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chamberlain
http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI570.html
Their fathers were first cousins:
http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI284.html
http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI493.html
and their grandfathers were brothers:
http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI283.html
http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI485.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.69 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Cousin of Samuel Chamberlain 

message: It should be mentioned that Joshua Chamberlain was single-handedly responsible for the Allied victory in WWII as explained by Andy Andrews in his book The Butterfly Effect.
- AAEexecutive (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Butterfly Effect