Talk:Battle of Shiloh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Etymology

Yikes, I wish I could edit change notes. I should have said "etymological" instead of "entymological" (if indeed it should have been noted as such at all.) As I can't edit that note in the article history, I had to mention somewhere that I know better than that! -- Kbh3rd 18:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Johnny Clem

I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention Johnny Clem - or rather, that Wikipedia doesn't mention it at all. Johnny Clem was the 12-year-old drummer boy in this war, but his drum was destroyed in battle. He picked up a gun and started shooting, and was promoted to sergeant and decorated for his bravery.

Source: School textbook.

--Ian Weller _{(t) (c)} @ 19:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Modern scholarship indicates that it is highly unlikely that John Clem was present at the battle of Shiloh, and his exploits at Chickamauga are also likely exaggerated. The strongest scholarship indicates that Clem served with the 22nd Michigan Regiment, which had not yet been raised at the time of the Battle of Shiloh. He did not appear on the rolls of said regiment until May of 1863, over a year after the battle. The claims of his participation at Shiloh were made by Clem himself, years after the war, and detail a period before he was specifically famous. The story of the drummer boy had several claimants, none of whom have been convincingly proven. -- Iol 03:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Johnny Clem's story goes amaizingly further than that. He made it through the war coming out with 2 purple hearts. After the war he applied to West Point but was rejected. President Grant heard about this and gave him a comission in the United States Army anyways and he served until right before the first World War and retired as either Brig. Gen. or Maj. Gen. (forget which the speaker said). He retired in 1916. Source: Civil War Era class lecture: Radford University 2007, May 29.

Battle April 7

I've been reading this and it still isn't making sense to me. Can someone explain it to me?

Lew Wallace's division was the first to see action, at the extreme right of the Union line, crossing Tilghman Branch around 7 a.m. and driving back to brigade of Col. Preston Pond.

You found a typo. Thanks, I fixed it. "to brigade" --> "the brigade". Hal Jespersen 23:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah! Well then it makes sense now! Thank you so much! Tirronan 00:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV + Unencyclopedic dispute

• "his most consequential lack of such concern"
• ""Yes," he replied, followed by a puff. "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though.""

I do think that such sentences do not belong, and they are only examples of others. The first seems to voice opinion and the second reads like some sort of war storys. Useful citations notwithstanding, I don't think that this helps the article in any way. If nobody minds, I'll try to correct that in a week.

Martin

Well, I have no idea what your problem with the first phrase is. He displayed a lack of concern about security issues and it was the most consequential example of such. Edit it if you like. As to the second, I suppose it could be removed, but it is a very famous anecdote about Grant that demonstrates his attitude about setbacks and his focus on offense, so removing it would not "help the article in any way." As to the other unnamed examples, I have no opinion. Perhaps others can weigh in. As a general rule, however, it would have been polite of you to raise your concerns on this page prior to plastering the pejorative warning box on the article page and then saying you want a week to work on your proposed improvements. Hal Jespersen 22:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm ... historical figures are permitted to have biases and points of view, and it is very encyclopedic indeed to quote historical figures. This is a very contrived "dispute". --Kbh3^rdtalk 04:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I just have taken out the "Unencyclopedic" notice and agree that that might have been impolite. Nevertheless I don't think that my points raised are "contrived". At least the anecdote/quote should be marked as such, if it really needs to stay (what I oppose). Martin

[You can sign your comments by typing four ~s, BTW.] Thanks for your cooperation on the warning box. I have updated the article to indicate it's a historic anecdote and provided a citation. (I could represent the entire sequence as a quoted passage from any number of books, but question the necessity of that.) If you have other stylistic grievances, I invite you to describe them here and I'll address them. Hal Jespersen 15:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hal, since you seem to be the article owner I suggest that that the phrase "most consequential lack of concern" be changed and amended with a footnote stating a paragraph from Grant's memoirs, because I see this more as a matter of decision than as of disinterestedness:

"The criticism has often been made that the Union troops should have been intrenched at Shiloh. Up to that time the pick and spade had been but little resorted to at the West. I had, however, taken this subject under consideration soon after re-assuming command in the field, and, as already stated, my only military engineer reported unfavorably. Besides this, the troops with me, officers and men, needed discipline and drill more than they did experience with the pick, shovel and axe. Reinforcements were arriving almost daily, composed of troops that had been hastily thrown together into companies and regiments — fragments of incomplete organizations, the men and officers strangers to each other. Under all these circumstances I concluded that drill and discipline were worth more to our men than fortifications."

(but I don't know if it's too much text) MFacherzwirg 06:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

First, no one "owns" Wikipedia articles. My name is in the box on top of this page because I watch over it closely and am available for people who have inquiries about citations, etc. Others can add their names to that list, BTW. The quote you offer is not too long, but I'd like to hear what the problem is with the original sentence before correcting anything. The point of the sentence was to address Grant's almost chronic disinterest in security concerns for his own force, concentrating wholly on his plans for offensive action, as also happened at Belmont and Ft Donelson. And that this battle represented the most serious consequence of that attitude. Hal Jespersen 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The only point of interest here is that Grant and Sherman had no idea that there was a CSA force anywhere in the area. Sherman should have known better as there were some reports as to movement and one patrol was in contact. Entrenching would not have been common at that point anywhere to my knowledge, though it might have been common practice the 1st I read of trenching was the muleshoe on the eastern front I think in the Cold Harbor battle but I might be mistaken. However that no patrols were sent out was a fair breach of security anyway that you cut it. Scouts and patrols of the entire area should have been conducted throughout the time the army was encamped at Shiloh. Grant in my opinion is open to critism on that point as a breach of good military protocol in time of war. He didn't maintain operational awareness. Tirronan 00:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotect

I got sick of the non-stop IP vandals and requested protection we have semiprotect and hopefully this will be enough. Tirronan 04:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

fac

I've nominated this article for FAC status. I think it is among the very best out here. Tirronan 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

FAC outcome

We got more agreement than I thought for a 1st pass.

• I've got to read and source/cite a book on this subject and will do so.
• There has been a wish to see the photo galleries go perhaps a list of the relevent commanders at the bottom of the article?
• Some clean up and explaination of terms like rollup ect.

I think we are in pretty good shape but I want imput before I touch anything. Tirronan 19:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for replacing a gallery with an equivalent list of names. The names are already in the article. Every Civil War battle book published since 1970 has had collections of pictures of the generals. I chose the gallery format rather than individual thumbnails spread around the article because Wikipedia's image placement mechanisms are pretty crude and they get messed up conflicting with maps, battle boxes, etc. Hal Jespersen 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Its your call Hal, I won't do it if you disagree. Tirronan 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not my call, it's my opinion. Others may disagree, and if a consensus forms that I am wrong, we'll go with that consensus. However, the opinion of one featured article reviewer does not mean that a consensus has been reached. Hal Jespersen 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Date formats

I just reverted a change by mistake by pushing the wrong button -- I meant to revert it with a clarifying edit summary. The dates in those headers are not wiki links per se, they are date formats that allow users to specify the method by which dates are displayed in their browser. Some people prefer, for example, to see dates such as 7 April, others as April 7 (and there are other variations). Hal Jespersen 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

comment about sunken road

Moved from article: "(it has been debated if the road was 'sunken' or not, that is, the road is of lower elevation than surrounding ground, but having seen the site on 3-24-07 I can say the road is the same elevation as the rest of the ground; ruts in the road caused by wagons give the appearance of it being 'sunken' into the ground)." Hal Jespersen 19:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

FA status

You may have noticed this article made FA status. I believe that a round of applause to Hal Jespersen is due. I wanted to congratulate all the editors. Tirronan 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good article and deserves its status. However, I don't think find it particularly constructive that Hal auto-reverted my recent removal of the galleries. It was specifically requested as a condition for the only two supports in the FAC. The galleries add absolutely nothing to the understanding of the battle. Mind the ownership.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No one own's an article here, I would hope that everyone understands that. That being said most of the article is Hal's work and good work should be applauded. Tirronan 23:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask for the article to be nominated (and in fact I asked for it not to be). Therefore, I don't consider that someone's "vote" gives them any greater control over the contents than I have or any other random reader has. If someone had deleted the galleries a week before this FA discussion took place, I would have reverted it in the same way (which was not an "auto" revert if I recall, although perhaps my finger slipped). Your personal opinion is that they add nothing, but mine is that they do. Virtually every modern book and magazine article about Civil War battles include pictures of the significant commanders, so most authors and readers think they add value, too. If you could demonstrate that the images detracted from the article, you'd have a better case for proposing that they be deleted. And if you feel that certain images do not "add ... to the understanding of the battle," you should probably find the dozens of photos that are of irrelevant things like battlefield monuments and remove them, too. But I would oppose that POV as well. Perhaps you object to the gallery layout, but I use that only because Wikipedia image placement is rather primitive and juggling a number of individual photos around the text, battle boxes, maps, and headings is very awkward. Hal Jespersen 02:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I am currently working through my second history on the Battle of Shiloh, what is becoming apparent to me is how much the leadership of both armies affected the battle. Although you can say that where any battle is concerned this one is a highlight of such effects. To the point that the CSA was in a win or starve position due to lack of logistical planning. Further to the point, the complete lack of attention given to one hell of a lot of clues that there was an army to the US Army front and nearby. The subsequent actions again show the highs and lows of the various commanders in the field. As such is the case I would sumbit that the gallerys provide context and quick reference to each of the major commanders to the battle. I do believe that it gives context to the battle. As to the FA status, I was the guilty party that submitted this article to the process. I asked that the article be withdrawn after consulting with Hal. It was decided to award FA status to the article anyway. Without the galleries the pictures would be strung out on the sides of the article and would not be as appealing. Tirronan 13:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes an FA article is decided by the community (through interpretation by Raul), not by the article author(s). You're welcome to complain about the attention, but I don't see how that makes it a better article. And I do think the galleries and just about all the portraits detract from the article or I wouldn't have objected to them in the FAC. Claiming that my standpoint is just opinion while hailing your own analysis as neutral isn't exactly a convincing argument.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I specifically stated that both views are personal opinions, although I cited some implicit corroborating opinions from historians and readers that mine is more mainstream. Perhaps you can cite a recent professional work on the Civil War in which photos of the major participants were removed by the editor to "improve understanding." If you would like to withdraw your conditional approval for the article or call for a re-review on this basis, go ahead. I did not really participate in the review, so did not present arguments that were evaluated by any other voters. There were only two, anyway, right? Seems like an odd process all around. Hal Jespersen 13:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

My opinion may not carry much weight, as I'm not a contributor to the article, but I felt I should at least offer the opinion that I think the commander galleries are a good touch to the article. They are illustrative of the commanders, they are free use and thus pose no copyright issues, and nicely group and wikilink together commanders from the same sides. I would toss it back at those that want them removed, and ask how, precisely, do they detract from the article? The flow of text is not damaged in any way, no formatting is disrupted, they aren't flashy or distracting. In the FAC, the only arguments raised were basically "Just click the link" and "They detract". These arguments are terribly vague. Take this as you will, but from my perspective, they do nothing but add to the value of the article, just as the battlefield maps do. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 12:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I've asked for and received a indefinate semi-protect on this page due to the amount of IP vandalism. Tirronan 17:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Death of Johnston & Forrest's escape

All I know about Shiloh (before reading this page) was Shelby Foote's account, & he has it that the wounded soldiers to whom Johnston sent his surgeon were Union casualties.

If true, the fact seems worth reporting; but I am suspicious of anything that bolsters Johnston's reputation for chivalry. Anyone able to confirm or deny that account?

Similarly, Foote reports that Forrest actually scooped up a Federal soldier and held him as a human shield to facilitate his escape. Any truth to that, you Forrest experts? --Andersonblog 13:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The wounded soldiers were from both sides, so it doesn't seem worth mentioning, at least in an encyclopedia article. The Forrest story was once in the article, but it was removed because it is likely apocryphal. In the Cunningham reference, footnote p. 375, the editors refer to that claim as a "propounded popular myth." Hal Jespersen 14:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Concur, Cunningham and McDougal both reported this as a myth, urban legends existed even in the Civil War. Tirronan 15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.69.103 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruggles' Batteries

I could be mistaken, but just having been down to Shiloh (again) a few weeks ago, I have this number in my head for the number of cannon in Ruggles' batteries (those brought up to oppose the Hornets' Nest) as ~66. Admittedly, this IS >50, and trying to get that specific may be too nitpicky... but I was wondering if anyone else had seen/knew of this number, and if so, whether it would be at least slightly more accurate to change the sentence to say "more than 60 cannon". --Umrguy42 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This is covered by footnote #30, isn't it? If you have other secondary sources for higher numbers, they can be included in the note, but the higher numbers seem to reflect older scholarship. Hal Jespersen (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

December 26, 2008 Rickrolling

Brilliant. Someone should have caught this earlier. Let it stand —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.28.225 (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool book for young folk

While not worthy of the Further Reading section of the WP article, this one seems like a great link for young readers who want to learn about Shiloh...(No GGhost, you can not use it as a source...☻...)

• Hama, Wagner, Moore. Surprise Attack!: Battle of Shiloh, Osprey Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-84603-050-1.
  

⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

CONGRATULATIONS:

From a non-expert reader, congratulations to all who contributed to this article. Well done. Don —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.28.99 (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Plea for help??

I removed this edit from the page: "can someone tell me what happened bacuse of this battle." I assume what you're asking is the results of the battle, which is nicely summarized in the 'Aftermath' section of the article. Here are some highlights:

Grant is now nationally known, but heavily criticized for his performance and Lincoln is under enormous pressure to relieve him; Sherman (and to a lesser extent Buell and Halleck) is made a Northern hero; further control of the Mississippi River is gained, and both the Corinth Campaign and Vicksburg Campaign are now possible; Bragg is appointed commander of the main western army and leads it to Battle of Perryville; Conf. A.S. Johnston is dead, probably the general most respected and valued by Jefferson Davis at that time; and the casualties, oh the casualties, the worst at that time in the war and a greater total than the U.S. wars up to that point combined together.

Hope this and the links all answer any questions out there. Kresock (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture of old Shiloh church

I've been to the battlefield a few times over the last 10-12 years, and the old log church building pictured in the article was not there at the beginning of my visits. Does anyone know the provenance of that structure? I don't recall seeing any explanatory sign or plaque for it, though one could be there that I've missed. Is the pictured structure:

1. A modern reproduction? (The timbers look too aged for all-new construction.)
2. An unrelated old log structure relocated to the site as a stand-in for a long-demolished original?
3. The original recreated from its original timbers that were in storage elsewhere?
4. Some other possibility that I haven't thought of yet?

The picture is not critical or dominant in the article, but it would be nice to have it properly captioned so as not to mislead. I bring this up here rather than on the image talk page because article discussion pages are viewed much more frequently, and by people with a knowlege and interest in the subject. --Kbh3^rdtalk 22:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I updated the caption. I don't know the source of the timbers, but it's unlikely they are original. Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, fast service! Thanks. --Kbh3^rdtalk 03:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

corries cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.83.118 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Errors in article

I respectfully suggest that the following info in the article contains several errors and is in need of attention: "Because of professional and personal animosity toward Grant, Halleck initially designated Grant's subordinate, Maj. Gen. C.F. Smith, to lead the expedition, while Grant sat idly at Fort Henry. After President Abraham Lincoln intervened with Halleck and Smith was injured, Grant was restored to full command." Citations: Nevin, p. 104; Woodworth, Nothing but Victory, pp. 128–31, 141–42; Smith, pp. 173–79; Cunningham, pp. 72–74.

First, Smith was given field command only. Grant remained in overall command. Second, Grant was not idle; he was busy organizing the expedition and giving orders to Smith. Third, Smith's injury had nothing to do with Grant's rstoration. It occured on March 12 and neither Halleck nor Grant knew of the injury when Halleck instructed Grant to take the field on March 13. Fourth, it is questionable whether Lincoln's intervention was of consequence. Lincoln inquired about Grant on March 10; Halleck had already told Grant to prepare to take the field on March 9, indicating that he intended to restore Grant to field command before Lincoln took any action. Fifth, Hallecks supposed motivation of "professional and personal animosity toward Grant" is stated too confidently. Perhaps he was a superior officer who saw shortcomings in a subordinate's performance.

Hartfelt (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

If you will provide citations from secondary sources for these claims, I will make the proper adjustments. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest that the following info in the article contains several errors and is in need of attention: "Because of professional and personal animosity toward Grant, Halleck initially designated Grant's subordinate, Maj. Gen. C.F. Smith, to lead the expedition, while Grant sat idly at Fort Henry. After President Abraham Lincoln intervened with Halleck and Smith was injured, Grant was restored to full command." Citations: Nevin, p. 104; Woodworth, Nothing but Victory, pp. 128–31, 141–42; Smith, pp. 173–79; Cunningham, pp. 72–74.

First, Smith was given field command only. Grant remained in overall command.

My support:

Sword, Shiloh, p. 6: "[Grant] suddenly was replaced as field commander on March 4 because of alleged neglect and inefficiency."

Conger, Rise of US Grant, p. 211: Grant "was never relieved of his command." Halleck saved Grant's prestige by directing him to "send Smith."

Second, Grant was not idle; he was busy organizing the expedition and giving orders to Smith.

My support: Bruce Catton, Grant Moves South, p. 202 discusses the activities Grant was conducting at Fort Henry, noting that Halleck's directives to him show that he had duties to perform and was not in virtual arrest.

Plus see volume 4, Papers of US Grant, pp.321-56 for correspondence reflecting Grant's activities between March 5 and March 13. See, e.g., March 5 to Charles Smith: "I will remain at Fort Henry and throw forward all the troops that can be provided with transportation." PUSG 4:324. March 6 to BG Stephen A. Hurlbut: "Embark your forces on the transports now awaiting you as rapidly as possible." PUSG 4:329. Hardly idle, no matter what some erroneous secondary authority may say.

Third, Smith's injury had nothing to do with Grant's restoration. It occurred on March 12 and neither Halleck nor Grant knew of the injury when Halleck instructed Grant to take the field on March 13.

My support: I am not aware of any secondary source that proves this negative, but the documentary record seems to leave no room for doubt.

March 9 -- Halleck told Grant "you will hold yourself in readiness to take the [field] command." OR-I-7-22.

March 10 -- Halleck again told Grant to "ready yourself to take the general command." OR-I-7-27.

March 13 -- Halleck told Grant "I wish you as soon as your new army is in the field to assume the immediate command and lead it on to new victories." OR-I-7-32.

March 14 -- Grant wrote to Halleck: "The first word received from Gen. Smith today. He has debarked at Savannah. Sent me no report . . . ." OR-I-10-2-35.

March 14 -- Smith wrote to Grant to report that he had injured himself on March 12. PUSG 4:343. This was a letter, because there was no telegraph line to Savannah at that time, so it clearly would have been impossible for Halleck and Grant to know of Smith's injury before March 13, no matter what some secondary sources may say.

Fourth, it is questionable whether Lincoln's intervention was of consequence. Lincoln inquired about Grant on March 10; Halleck had already told Grant to prepare to take the field on March 9, indicating that he intended to restore Grant to field command before Lincoln took any action.

My support: Smith, Grant, p. 177, states that, on March 9, Halleck told Grant to "'hold yourself in readiness to take the command.'" On p. 178, Smith says: "Halleck's timely reinstatement of Grant preceded by one day the bombshell that landed on his desk" from Lincoln [the March 10 telegram from Lorenzo Thomas inquiring about Grant on Lincoln's behalf]." Plus, of course, the dates reflected in the underlying documentary record.

Fifth, Halleck's supposed motivation of "professional and personal animosity toward Grant" is stated too confidently. Perhaps he was a superior officer who saw shortcomings in a subordinate's performance. My support:

Marzalek, Henry W. Halleck, p. 119: "[Halleck] was not jealous of Grant's success so much as he was angry about his administrative failings."

Simpson, Triumph over Adversity, pp. 124-25, states that several people informed Congressman Washburne that "personal jealousy was at the root of Halleck's behavior. . . . But there were also solid reasons for the mishap including erratic communications and the intercepted messages." Further, Grant "heeded Halleck's criticisms. He reorganized his staff and specified each officer's responsibilities."

Similarly, Bruce Catton, Grant Moves South, p. 198 states "It may even be that the experience was a useful step in Grant's military education."

Hope this is helpful Hartfelt (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism/Fallen Timbers, April 8

"Yhr vhsthr produced a wild melee" sounds implausible. Unfortunately, I do not know what should take its place. 188.100.205.18 (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. We'll take care of it. umrguy42 00:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Casualty Comparison

The following (attributed) statement is made toward the end of the article:

This total of 23,746 men (counting both sides) represented more than the American battle-related casualties of the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War combined.

It is attributed to Smith (sidenote, the original citation seems to be lost and only the ibids remain. I assume this is Timothy Smith's "The Untold Story of Shiloh") and I have read it elsewhere (notably Shelby Foote). Unfortunately, this seems to be a fact substantiated only within the realm of Civil War historians. United States military casualties of war lists the Revolution alone as having more than twice as many combat deaths and 50% more wounded. Add in the War of 1812 and Mexican-American War and you have a even more decisive repudiation of this claim. Clearly, casualty counts for these conflicts are not 100% accurate, but I'd say Wikipedia should at least strive for internal consistency and not make claims that are contradicted on a separate page. Therefore, I recommend the sentence be removed, but I'll allow anyone to voice an objection before I do so. --Captkrob (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Smith referred to in the citation is the same Smith in the References section:

• Smith, Jean Edward. Grant. New York: Simon & Shuster, 2001. ISBN 0-684-84927-5.

(If Timothy Smith's work were cited too, instead of being in Further reading, I would have disambiguated the citation with a title or partial title.) Another citation you can use for this assertion is Daniel, p. 305:

• Daniel, Larry J. Shiloh: The Battle That Changed the Civil War. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. ISBN 0-684-80375-5.

That article United States military casualties of war presents wildly different amounts of casualties for the wars in question (as well as including non-combat deaths), as evidenced by the footnotes. Nevertheless, since the other Refs to this article do not make the same claim, it warrants watering down. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read Memoirs William T. Sherman

According to Sherman, he was aware of confederate forces about 5 miles to his front on April 4th, 1862. (see letter to Captain J. A. Rawlins, dated April 5, 1862, pg 218 of Memoirs William T. Sherman). So I find this information in the article hard to believe: "When an Ohio colonel warned Sherman that an attack was imminent, the general said, "Take your damned regiment back to Ohio. There is no enemy nearer than Corinth." This contradicts Sherman's eyewitness account and his official letters.

Also, Sherman's so called "negligence" in preparation for the battle might be in part due to the fact that he received no orders to fortify the camp (see pg 212 of Memoirs William T. Sherman).Erratum43 (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we leave it to the professional historians to read and evaluate primary sources such as personal memoirs. They then publish their judgments about all the evidence in their secondary sources, which we cite. The judgment of historians is that, despite Sherman's postwar writing, he did not acknowledge any significant enemy force to his front on April 5 and certainly took no action to prepare to meet it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument, however, if you all want to hold to this argument, you must remove all references to U. S. Grant's Memoirs in this article. If you decide to keep the referenced portions of his memoirs, know that he did endorse W. T. Sherman's Memoirs before his death and that both, Grant and Sherman, were questioning the so called "historians" in their day as to what really occurred during the Battle of Shiloh.Erratum43 (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Grant's memoirs are used here in three places. Two are relatively inconsequential footnotes. The third is essentially a quotation from Grant that addresses criticism he received after the battle, a viewpoint that is widely reported in all Grant biographies. The use of the quotation in this manner does not refute the judgment of the secondary sources. Also, Grant's book is one of the most significant of the 19th century, so we quote it somewhat frequently. If, on the other hand, we had said "Grant was criticized about his lack of entrenchments, but his actions were justified (footnote pointing to the memoirs)," this would be an improper use of a primary source to render a judgment. It would not be out of line to include a quotation from Sherman that defended himself in a manner similar to Grant, but it would be inappropriate to say that Sherman disagreed with most historians, so therefore the historians are incorrect. Hal Jespersen (talk) 23:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Naval support

Why no mention of the gunboats Lexington and Tyler?

Try looking again. Hal Jespersen (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

McClernand's claim?

When Grant was under criticism for being caught off-guard at Shiloh, McClernand claimed that his own brigade was the only one kept on full alert, and that this saved the day. Any references about this claim? 86.179.62.112 (talk) 13:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Since this is not mentioned in the article, no references are needed. Hal Jespersen (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)