Talk:John Pelham (soldier)

Labeling Confederates as traitors?

I know some people may have a problem with it and want to make USMA grads who went to the CSA on the right side of history, but technically, even USMA cadets had sworn an oath to the United States as had grads so, they were traitors. I mean, if some people have a hard time with it, they are in line with the Lost Cause and Neo-Confederate traditions. You cannot justify removing the label of traitor by saying, "he wasn't a traitor." If someone says, "well, does that mean it's correct to label all CSA USMA grads as traitors? Stop rewriting history." I mean, they were. Boo Boo (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, anyone who disagrees with labeling the Confederates as traitors must be a "Neo-Confederate Lost Cause" boogey man. Perhaps, take a moment to consider that the Lost Cause is the correct interpretation. TheSecondBattleOfManassas (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

But it is not.Boo Boo (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they decisively lost. I will give them that much. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Refs/Notes

I made an edit that was reverted, so we should discuss it here. When you use footnotes that cite a book, you need to include the page numbers. That is the reason I generally use the References section for listing the authors, titles, ISBN's, etc. (like a printed bibliography) and use the Notes section to refer to the author and page number range for each citation (such as "Hassler, pp. 122-23.") I understand that some editors prefer to use a common References section to include both reference/bibliography and citations, particularly when most of the citations are to websites or have only one instance in the article, and you are welcome to do so, but I suggest that it becomes cumbersome when you have multiple citations from an individual book, as you do here. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I have one minor qualm with this line: "Pelham was involved in every military engagement of Stuart's cavalry from the First Battle of Bull Run to Kelly's Ford, more than 60 encounters." On its face, this statement is incorrect, because Pelham's horse artillery was not present during three of the four fall/winter raids of Stuart's cavalry in 1862. Specifically, his artillery was not present during Hampton's first raid beginning November 27, 1862; Hampton's second raid beginning December 10, 1862; or Hampton's third raid beginning December 17, 1862. Pelham and four guns were present with the larger raid beginning December 26, 1862 and he was mentioned in dispatches for successfully crossing Selectman's Ford over the Occoquan River, which was considered impassable for vehicles. It is possible that Pelham was present during Hampton's raids without his artillery, as he was a de facto member of Stuart's staff, but if he was I find no mention of it in D. S. Freeman's Lee's Lieutenants vol. 2 pp. 397-405 from which the above references are given. Perhaps changing the sentence to read "every major military engagement" would allow some room for the doubt I have, and I will do that now. Sofa King (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Pelham (officer). 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.loc.gov/chroniclingamerica/ndnp%3A2114146/display.html?n=0&scope=fulltext&pageNum=1&currentSort=&mode=list
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060203171208/http://gallantpelham.org/ to http://www.gallantpelham.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Nine-year WikiHoax!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pelham_(officer)&diff=prev&oldid=247185843 Anmccaff (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

'Rebel traitor'

Starting a section about that phrase in the opening sentence, in order to prevent an edit war. I agree with the description but have nothing further to say on it. Please discuss the wording here if you would like Stephanie921 (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that all U.S. military officers who betrayed their oaths were traitors. That's my opinion. But a Wikipedia has to summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. So, unless a preponderance of reliable sources devoting significant coverage to Pelham call him a traitor, then neither should this Wikipedia biography. Our role as Wikipedia editors is to summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. No more and no less. Our opinions do not belong in articles. Cullen328 (talk) 04:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Is that really an opinion? Or is the apprehension to call it so a product of the Lost Cause Myth? Boo Boo (talk) 04:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hhfjbaker, the role of Wikipedia editors is to summarize what reliable sources say about the topic and to include those sources as references in the article. So please tell me which references in the article call him a "rebel traitor"? The purpose of the lead section of an article is to briefly summarize what the body of the article say about the topic. Where does referenced content in the body of the article describe him as a "rebel traitor"? Cullen328 (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

So, omn Wikipedia, one cannot call US Army personnel who left to fight for the CSA traitors without a source? Will references to his act of leaving USMA suffice? Boo Boo (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hhfjbaker, the standard is quite clear. If reliable sources discussing Pelham call him a traitor, then that can be included in the article. If they don't, then it cannot be included. A Wikipedia editor cannot look at the circumstances of his departure from West Point and enlistment in the Confederate Army and conclude on their own that "hey, this guy must have been a traitor". That is original research which is simply not permitted. Cullen328 (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

What about the US Constitution's definition of traitor? Does that count as a reliable source? By that definition, all US citizens who fought for the CSA were traitors. I think Pelham, as one of the last, if not last to resign, definitely stands out. Boo Boo (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Pelham did not violate his oath. His oath still named his state which had left the Union. In 1861 the cadets were asked to sign a new oath of allegiance and he refused to do so. Meanwhile the cadet resigned, as was his right, and thus was free from any obligations and able to be commissioned elsewhere. Army officers could resign as well, though these resignations had to be accepted by the war department which however did so in most cases (though some were denied, dismissed and/or imprisoned) and thus cleared them from that as well (if there was no opposed action before the resignation). No treason there and without reliable sources saying so anyway it is not to appear here. ...GELongstreet (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Source, please? Boo Boo (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

For what specifically? ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That is a myth promoted by the Lost Cause. Here's the oath cadets took on entering USMA prior to the war:

"I, Robert E. Lee, a cadet born in the state of Virginia, aged 18 years and nine months, do hereby acknowledge to have this day voluntarily engaged with the consent of my mother to serve in Army of the United States for the period of five years, unless sooner discharged by proper authority. And I do promise upon honor that I will observe and obey the orders of the officers appointed over me, the rules and articles of war, and the regulations which have been or may hereafter be established for the government of the Military Academy" Freeman, D.S. R. E. Lee: A Biography, Vol 1, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1934 p. 51, Note 8 Boo Boo (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Being one of the last cadets to leave, April 17, 1861, he did so after hostilities started and then took up arms against the US. Boo Boo (talk) 19:24, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, that is inre him breaking his oath. As far as treason, it is defined in the Constitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. Boo Boo (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

To my knowledge he was neither charged with nor convicted of treason. Resigning means no longer being bound to related oaths. And coming back to sources, as far as I can see there is no respective material in the article to name him a traitor in the lead section and neither a source for treason in the whole article. ...GELongstreet (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he was killed in action. BTW, treason applies to all US citizens, not just military. Resignations have to be accepted. Also, if you are in the army when war breaks out, resign, and take up arms against it, you have committed treason. I think Pelham stands out for this label in that he was one of the last to resign. I buy your argument for those that resigned before hostilities, or had resigned their commission before the war, but not for after FT Sumter (April 12, 1861). Boo Boo (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no, but anyway. Some two-edit IP-user had added "and traitor" to the lead section. Something that numerous editors have taken issue with as no constructive edit; being not written in the main article, thus not summing up, and not being sourced. So basically an unsupported opinion. For some reason you keep readding it when others delete it. Kindly stop doing that and either leave it be or, considering the potential relevance for other articles, seek a wider concensus. ...GELongstreet (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll draft a section explaining why he was technically a traitor. Confederacy apologists have had too much influence on Wikipedia. The Lost Cause is still adhered to by too, too many editors. Boo Boo (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Boo Boo, I agree with you substantively, but think you're wrong on procedure here. We should define Pelham the way the sources do. "Rebel traitor" just strikes me as stylistically undesirable anyway. We give people the facts and let them draw the moral conclusions, which, for confederates, strike me as pretty self-evident. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Dumuzid, GELongstreet, Cullen328, and Stephanie921, okay, I concede your points. At some time in the future, I will write up a section on how he was one of the last to resign AFTER hostilities had started. I will explain the difference betwenn him and Beauregard vice Jackson and others who had resigned commissions long before the war. Boo Boo (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Boo Boo I'd like to clarify that I'm not and have never been part of this conversation and have never cast my vote on how I think it should read. I simply started this section cos I saw everyone had a dispute, so I thought it'd be constructive to open this topic so you could all hash it out.

Roger that. Thanks. Boo Boo (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome :) @Boo Boo Stephanie921 (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The Lost Cause had a terrible effect on the recording, interpretation and teaching of history. It is one of the reasons that over 150 years later some issues and tensions still aren´t resolved. Luckily more modern historiography has gotten away from that stuff (though that doesn´t make older material useless), despite backlash from the usual suspects and the expected political spectrum. But shouting "Traitor!" left and right isn´t helping. Also this is wikipedia (not US-pedia) and we have to work with the policies and sources we got. I know you´re doing good editing on wiki but I think working yourself up on this issue isn´t doing any good (and for me surely takes time and nerves that I´d like to spend with other stuff). ...GELongstreet (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Va bene. I take your points. Thanks for the feedback. Boo Boo (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)