Talk:Overland Campaign

Corps?

The article cites six corps as being attached to Grant's command, but only lists five. Which was the sixth? Or were there only five? Susan Davis 18:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

You caught the equivalent of a typo. Please discuss such things in the Talk page prior to plastering big warning signs on the articles themselves. Thanks. Hal Jespersen 21:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuller's Thesys

J. F. C. Fuller ("The Generalship of U.S. Grant" and "Grant and Lee"), if I correctly understood, deffends the objective of Overland Campaign was simply to pin down Lee while Sherman executed a kind of giant turning movement. He strongly denies the intent to wear Lee through attrition. Does that version deserves credibility and should it be represented in the article?M.Campos (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it does, as this is the mainstream modern view of what Grant was trying to do. He wanted to turn Lee and expected Lee to mistakes that Lee did not make.battrules (talk) 8:40, 20 April 2011 (UCT).

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Overland Campaign. 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://archive.is/20120915122113/http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/Atlases/american_civil_war/Civil_war.html to http://www.dean.usma.edu/history/Atlases/american_civil_war/Civil_war.html

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) 06:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Union victory?

This description of the outcome of the Overland campaign is simplistic. If the article is asserting that the campaign ended in June 1864, then it is far from apparent this was a clear Union victory:

- The Union had suffered huge casualties. - The last engagements (particularly Cold Harbor) did not suggest a Union Victory. - Early's Corps had been detached from the Army of Northern Virginia and was threatening Washington. - Grant's assertion that he would "fight on this line if it takes all summer" had been thwarted and he changed tactics by shifting south of the James and starting the siege of Petersburg (after being unable to take it). - Northern political confidence in Lincoln and Grant's strategy was badly shaken.

On the other side, Confederate casualties were also massive and could not be absorbed the way Union casualties could.

However, the idea that as of June 1864 this was perceived, particularly at the time, to be a "Union Victory" is wrong.

A more accurate descrpition is:

- Union forces suffer more than 50,000 casualties; - Confederates suffer in excess of 30,000 casualties; - Grant shifts tactics and successfully deploys the Army of the Potomac south of the James River starting the siege of Petersburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this about the Aftermath section, or the results in the infobox? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Mostly about the description in the results section but the aftermath section feeds into it, I suppose.

If we are saying that the Overland campaign ends in June 1864, then the result "Union Victory" is insufficiently nuanced. For the reasons I suggest above, the Overland campaign is not a clear cut Union victory. I would agree that, in hindsight at least, it was a strategic success or victory but only for what it led to - which was a successful outcome of the subsequent Siege of Petersburg. To suggest that, by itself, it is a clear cut victory for the Union is, I believe, wrong in that it conflates the outcome of the Siege of Petersburg with the Overland campaign itself. I would argue that they are two distinct events.

Grant's objective in the spring and summer of 1864 was to take Richmond. He not only failed to do so, he also failed to take Petersburg and instead was compelled to initiate a siege of that city. In that sense, even the term "Strategic Union Victory" isn't really correct in that the idea that the Overland campaign was a "victory" is dependent on the outcome of the subsequent Siege of Petersburg - an outcome which really wasn't an inevitable conclusion until Lincoln's victory in the November elections.

If you are using Rhea as the source for the argument that the Overland campaign is a "Union Victory" then the quote at the bottom of the article doesn't support that. A better quotation, with Rhea saying the Overland campaign was a victory for the Union in June of 1864 - even though nearly every battle up to that point was either inconclusive or a Confederate victory and even though Grant's objective to take Richmond (and even Petersburg) had failed - would be more convincing.

I agree that "Strategic Union Victory" is a better description of the outcome than just "Union Victory", but to be fully accurate the outcome is really that the Overland campaign brought Grant to the point where, after extremely heavy casualties, he was able to initiate a Siege of Petersburg (after failing to capture the city outright) and force Lee to lose freedom of manuever. It then took other events (the capture of Atlanta, the defeat of Early, the massive erosion of Lee's strength and Lincoln's re-election) to allow Grant to finally triumph at Petersburg and Richmond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

For the infobox, the guideline for the results allow for only "X victory" or "Inconclusive", not for any qualification of type of victory. (The result field is optional, so can be left out entirely, of course. That may be best for complicated or disputed cases.)

For the Aftermath section, there's no limitation. We can go into as much description of any mix of results in time and space as may be helpful, and contrast differing viewpoints.

In either case, however, editors discussing opinions about these, however well reasoned, has no bearing. We go by sources, only. To change either is therefore a simple manner – present what the authoritative sources say. The article must follow what they say, and cannot say otherwise. Discussion about how to balance and incorporate them can then follow as needed. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have seen some pages for which the results summary simply says "See aftermath". That might be a good approach.

Essentially the outcome of the Overland campaign is:

- Union suffered more than 50,000 casualties - Confederates suffered in excess of 30,000 casualties - Grant shifted his strategy and successfully deployed the Army of the Potomac south of the James river leading to the Siege of Petersburg and causing Lee's Army of Northern Virginia to lose freedom of maneuver.

That outcome is probably better reflected in an aftermath section where a broader discussion is permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I kind of agree in general, but not in all the particulars. There are reliable sources that cover the aftermath of this subject. We should use them. Avoiding doing that and instead just stating a couple of specific facts is passing-off the job of determining the wider effects of the campaign to the reader. That's pretty much counter to the whole purpose of an encyclopedia.

Once we are satisfied with the statements in Aftermath, we can then better discuss how best to summarize this in the infobox results. (I'm not a big fan of "See Aftermath", but I could see where I might not bother to oppose it.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with always referencing sources and not just making unsupported statements. The aftermath section looks fairly comprehensive to me already, so I might just change the result to read: "See Aftermath" and then link to that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I wish the Aftermath section was a little better at summarizing the wider consequences, but okay. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I have made a change and also made some minor amendments to the aftermath section to try to improve the description. Please feel free to further improve the summary of that section if you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.98.230 (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Wilderness campaign?

Why is the article not at Wilderness campaign, which appears to be what it was called through the end of the 20th century? Has it been renamed for some reason?

I was investigating capitalization of campaign in sources. There's a recent rash of caps, most especially in the more specialized books – the ones with "Overland Campaign" in their titles:

21st century books with "Overland Campaign" (capped) in text:

• Young 2019
• Rhea 2017
• Mackowski 2016
• Hogan 2014
• Dunkerly 2014
• Young 2013
• Smith 2012
• Waugh 2009
• Bowery 2005

21st century books with "Overland campaign" (lowercase) in text:

• Sodergren 2017
• Gallagher 2015
• Mackowski 2013
• Gallagher 2012
• Hess 2011
• Hess 2011
• Rhea 2007
• Grimsley 2002 

The trajectories over the last 70 years are interesting, showing the emergence of "Overland campaign" and its capped version in the 1990s, and the dominance of "Wilderness campaign" in the 20th century.

Insights? Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Good detective work. I think "Overland" is current and best--as to C or c I lean to Cap. Rjensen (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

But why did the sources change usage when they did? Is there an influential work that caused the usage to change? BusterD (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

"Wilderness" came from Battle of the Wilderness, but the much longer campaign went to every kind of non-'wilderness' there was. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree. User:Dicklyon raised a reasonable question based on Ngrams about why the trajectory away from the usage of Wilderness and toward the usage of Overland. I, like Dicklyon, wonder why the demonstrated trajectory in RS? BusterD (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Overland is very old too, and n-grams does not give context - but it would make it rather more confusing to study and write about a campaign, and one of its battles, and use the same name for both. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's something as simple as editorial MOS changes and nothing more. Someone, somewhere in the printing process deciding that a word doesn't need to be capitalized (or needs to be capitalized). Intothatdarkness 13:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Undiscussed move undone

The undiscussed controversial move to change capitalization has been undone. Books and reliable web sites almost universally use the original title, now restored. In cases such as this when the move is not an obvious error, it should be submitted for discussion first, and not done based on the opinion of a single editor. If you disagree, please see WP:RM#CM and follow the guideline there for how to list this page for a move. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)