Talk:Turning point of the American Civil War

message: Discuss impending edit to the page: I will clean up Gary123's entry on Chattanooga, but delete his other about Grant's Overland Campaign. The OC, which lasted from May-June 84, not 84-85, was essentially an inconclusive series of battles. It led to the Siege of Petersburg--true--but there was almost another year of siege to go and more influential events (Atlanta) would happen while Grant and Lee were stalemated. If his point is that Grant had a strategy of attrition and this was the turning point, you could make the argument that his appointment as general-in-chief was the TP.
The point I made in writing this page is to look at inevitable forces. The OC was not one of them. Without other things happening, the Siege of Petersburg might have simply dragged on long enough for the North to get sick of matters and give up. Hal Jespersen 13:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Overland Campaign?

message: I removed the comment that Atlanta was the South's largest city. The 1860 census shows Richmond  at 37,910 people and Atlanta at only 9,554. By 1870, Richmond totaled 51,038 people with Atlanta still trailing at 21,789. Atlanta was an important rail center, but trailed a number of Southern cities in population throughout the war.
New Orleans was the CSA's largest city.
Cameron Nedland 02:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlanta 

message: I think this page has become too much personal pov, it is influebnced by what the authors consider decisive battles and not reputable historians. For example one of the most famous military historians from a purely military point of view makes a compeeling case on why Chattanooga was the decisive battle fo the Civil War, but that section was completely removed. Another problem is that some battles are included for changing the "nature of the war" while others are excluded becasue they did not make union victory inevitable. there ought to be a strict gudeline on what battles are included and excluded and reputable historians should be behind each battle listed.--Gary123 23:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a References sections, which was neglected in my early days of Wikipedianism. I believe the algorithm for inclusion is explained in the article. Chattanooga was added by someone to the original article, but since I recall no mention of the works of "one of the most famous military historians" in the edit, it carried little weight beyond "one of my favorite battles," which others have used implicitly in proposing changes. The reason I don't think it's a TP is that it should be subsumed by the logically following Atlanta Campaign. (I didn't originally include Atlanta either because it ought to be subsumed by the 1864 Election, but didn't feel like fighting that one.) The reason "nature of the war" is a legitimate issue is that each change caused more of the Union's unique advantages (all-out determination to win with superior manpower and economy, emancipation as a goal, etc.) to be introduced, advantages they had been reluctant or unable to employ earlier. Hal Jespersen 01:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The reason this page was written was that there is enormous historical and popular treatment of the topic. You cannot pick up a book about Gettysburg without seeing it mentioned. (That's pretty much true about Midway in WWII, also, but that, rightly or wrongly, is not a controversial statement, whereas Gettysburg certainly is.) I have mostly resisted additions of "favorite battles" and if you think something here should be omitted, state your reasons. I do not recall the discussion of Chattanooga after all this time, but if you would like to reintroduce it, state your case. If you believe the opening paragraphs do not correctly describe what a turning point is or how to measure one, have a whack at that, too. If you have additional references on this subject that contradict the two listed, bring them forward. Hal Jespersen 15:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historians

message: On my to-do list: add citations/footnotes. (This was a very early article for me on Wikipedia and footnotes were relatively uncommon at that time. Since this article consists primarily of opinions, it needs to be pointed at secondary sources.) Hal Jespersen 22:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: 168.9.82.3 21:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  southern states often threatened to_____?____ laws that they opposed. 

message: Wouldn't that be a sub-turning point, with the seige of Petersburg being the actual turning point, which is not even listed here as a turning point? Just seems not quite significant enough. Have there been other historians propose this? Civil Engineer III 17:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant's crossing 

message: I think this article has good potential, although it needs to be cleaned up.  An article that deals with the implications of major battles is important in understanding the course of the war, with all it's ups and downs.
However, the current definition of the phrase "turning point", as used in this article, is not accurate.  That is, 
:The idea of a turning point is an event after which most observers would agree that the eventual outcome was inevitable."
The above definition is subject greatly to POV, and should thus not be used.  Therefore, the first thing that needs to be done is to define "turning point".  According to Webster's Online Dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turning%20point), a turning point is defined as:
:a point at which a significant change occurs
With the above definition in mind, the title of this article needs to be changed to Turning Points of the American Civil War.  Then, each of the events in the article can be referenced by reliable sources.  Suggestions, anyone?   Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Value of This Article 

message: This article REALLY needs to be more balanced. Completely omitting the arguments AGAINST each battle or action makes this article one-sided. For example, Meade failed to decisively destroy Lee's army at Gettysburg. He also failed to take the initiative in the aftermath, partly because the Army of the Potomac wasn't in much better shape at the end of the battle to aggressively pursue Lee on his withdrawal, an action which could have conceivably brought the war to a close significantly earlier. Ambaryer (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments Against

message: The Battle of Glorieta Pass is considered the Gettysburg of the west, it should be featured here.--$1LENCE D00600D (talk) 03:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: While an important part of the New Mexico Campaign, considering the small size of the battle (about 1000 combatants on each side) it wasn't one of the important engagements of the war as a whole. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Glorieta Pass

message: The article currently mis-describes the First Confiscation Act.  This act did not free the slaves.  It merely declared that if a slave owner used his slaves to support the Confederacy he forfeited his rights.  The status of the slaves was itself ambiguous, many of whom were held as war contraband until the Emancipation Proclamation.  Emperor001 (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Confiscation Act of 1861