Jump to content

Talk:John S. Mosby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why I made the change

[edit]

One line initally said that on December 23, 1853 Mosby was pardoned "as a Christmas present." I removed the Christmas present comment because Christmas was not celebrated in the United States until 1870, when President Grant made it an official holiday.

You're joking, right? Christmas has been celebrated for many centuries. A federal holiday merely allows government workers a day off with pay and has no direct effect on the celebration of a religious holiday (which it was when Mosby was pardoned). Hal Jespersen 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you assuming it was a "Christmas present" or is there evidence that it was? As an historian I don't like assumptions. Not everyone celebrated Christmas. Puritans saw its origins and refused to celebrate it. There was (and still is) a lot of religious ferver in rural Virginia (where I live). If the govenor granted the pardon as a gift there must be some record. If not, please ask yourself it it is you assumption, if it is, you should remove that line. Assumption like this are what taint true histories. If it was in fact a "Christmas gift" then so be it, but there has to be evidence to support that claim. I'm just being a historical purist.

I find it odd that there is no mention of the fact that the guerilla outfit Mosby led was completely mounted. And another thing that was not mentionned in the article. Mosby's cavalry mainly used Colt revolvers instead of sabres or lances that were the primary weapons of other cavalry units at the time. 209.221.73.5 18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to investigate that about puritans not celebrating Christmas. I'm no expert but I'd say that it is quite probable they did not celebrate Christmas. Christ/mass would definitely have too many catholic overtones.

Prior to the Victorian era, Christmas in the United States was primarily a religious holiday observed by Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, and Lutherans. Its importance was often considered secondary to Epiphany and Easter.

As was the case with other Christian holidays, Christmas borrowed elements from pagan peoples, including yule logs, decorations such as candles, holly, and mistletoe. Christmas trees were sometimes seen as pagan in origin. Cited as proof is Jeremiah, 10:3-4, which states, "For the customs of the peoples are false: a tree from the forest is cut down, and worked with an ax by the hands of an artisan. People deck it with silver and gold they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move." The Advent period (originally a fasting period meant to point to the Second coming of Christ), and gift giving (invented by Martin Luther to counter St. Nicholas Day, 6th of December) were also often seen as pagan in origin.

During the various Protestant reformations, these (real or supposed) paganizing elements were a source of controversy. Some sects, such as the Puritans, rejected Christmas as an entirely pagan holiday. Others rejected certain aspects of Christmas as paganizing, but wanted to retain the "essence" of the holiday as a celebration of the Christ's birth. This tension put in motion an ongoing debate about the proper observance of Christmas. [1] 

--Jason1980athotmail (talk) 02:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True or Not True?

[edit]

I have read somewhere that Lewis Powell, the Lincoln assassin conspirator, was somehow affiliated with Mosby's Rangers. Any truth to this? Dr. Dan 16:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Release details?

[edit]

It says he was captured and imprisoned for ten days. Was he exchanged? Did he escape? Clarityfiend 21:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exchanged. Hal Jespersen 00:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executing Prisoners in Retalliation for Custer Killing Prisoners

[edit]

The History Channel had a special on him and mentioned that out of a large number of prisoners, seven were selected to die by passing a hat around with marked strips of paper. Some were to be shot, others hanged, in direct proportion to how Mosby's men died. Some of the ones who were shot survived and were allowed to return to Federal lines as a warning. This should probably be included. I didn't make the edit directly because I don't have all the facts marshalled together.

Reply: The above account was broadly confirmed by Ed Bearss (see Wikipedia article), the former Chief Historian of the National Park Service, who now conducts the Smithsonian's Civil War tours. I have edited this section of the article, which previously spoke of Mosby threatening retaliation but never carrying it out, directly in line with Bearss's commentary (three hanged, two shot but not killed, two escaped). Bearss, incidentally, questions whether the Union forces who had executed Mosby's men did in fact come from Custer's unit (though Mosby himself evidently believed this and held it against Custer).Nandt1 12:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Nandt1.[reply]

Addendum: Another contributor ("Virginian") subsequently changed the main article's discussion of these events to state that none of Mosby's prisoners was in the event executed following the "lottery of death". This version flatly contradicts Ed Bearss's account of these events (see above), a version that is also fully endorsed by the detailed scholarly article by Major William E. Boyle from Military Law Review, which I have now cited in the main article. If other contributors to Wikipedia wish to insert references to alternative theories of what happened, it is respectfully suggested that they provide scholarly citations for their rival accounts, explain their objections to the above version within these discussion pages, and acknowledge within the text of the main article that significant scholarly work supports the account that three men were hanged and two shot and left for dead. Nandt1. 4 January, 2007.

Memoirs published shortly after the war, and the semi-official Civil War regimental history "43rd Battalion Virgnia Cavalry Mosby's Command" (1993) confirm that some were shot, and some were hanged. But one of those shot in the head miraculously survived (the bullet entered above his left cheekbone and exiting removed his right eye, so he looked killed, but he wasn't). I will check the memoirs and see about adding some detail to this paragraph.ElijahBosley (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anomaly

[edit]

Note: many sources state, to the contrary, that Mosby executed a comparable number of Custer's men -- this anomaly in the article needs to be resolved authoritatively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.25.157 (talk • contribs)

Reply: See note above. Nandt1 12:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Nandt1[reply]

Monuments & Memorials

[edit]

Mullhawk (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan or Regular?

[edit]

Please review the intro paragraph, which I've re-couched, and included a link to his Battalion command (the 43rd Virginia Cavalry). Mosby and his men were regulars in the Confederate Army, not partisans. His unit, the 43rd, did use guerilla or commando type tactics. It's a far stretch to say that he used "partisan" tactics, but I left that part in. It's also a far stretch to say that he used "ranger" tactics, but I left that in too, due to the fact of the nickname for the Battalion. But militarily speaking, he used purely commando tactics. It is incorrect to say that his Battalion was an actual partisan unit because a partisan unit is made up of ... partisans ... not regular forces enlisted properly the roll calls and records of the CS Army. Similarly today the SEALS, the Green Berets, Delta Force, the Marines, etc are not "partisan" forces even though they may employ either uncoventional methods, or conduct conduct commando-type raids. The British Marines use the correct title of Royal Commando for their units, for example. Anyway, for future contributors, please be aware of the differences.

Regards to all, Grayghost01 (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Escape of two prisoners

[edit]

A contributor recently suggested that the two Union prisoners who managed to escape execution at the hands of Mosby's men did so "presumably with the assistance of their would-be executioners". This presumption is, however, entirely speculative and not supported by Major Boyle's scholarly account. In one of the two cases, the executioner's pistol misfired, and the prisoner took advantage of the situation to strike his captor and run for it. No indication of collusion here. The other case is less well-explained ("at some point in the trek" it is reported, the prisoner escaped), but these is no indication of any collusion here either. On this basis, I have removed the speculative and unsupported statement from the Wikipedia article.Nandt1 (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott's Memoirs, and also the 43rd Regimental history, say Captain Mountjoy released two of the men who had drawn lots condemning them to execution becuase they were Masons, and substituted two of his own prisoners (for which Mosby rebuked him). Also, one prisoner who was shot did not die of the wound; another they intended to shoot surprised and attacked his captor and made good his escape. I put this in as succinctly as I could BUT, see comment below on balance.ElijahBosley (talk) 23:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mosby's Cave

[edit]

On the article on the Shenandoah River under Geography I posted an account of a cave on the banks of the river said to be where Mosby's raiders hid from pursuing Federals. My source was a book called Mosby's Raiders published in 1944, a footnote in which in turn cites a Union assistant surgeon who was there when the cave was discovered, quoted in an undated newspaper clipping in a private collection, which at this point is not traceable. The book is fairly specific with details about what the cave looked like, including a trap door entrance in a burnt-out house on the bluff above it (which makes sense since Mosby would never have trapped himself and his men underground in a place with only one narrow entrance). But--reading the 43rd Battalian Virginia Cavalry Mosby's Command regimental history (Lynchburg: H.E Howard 1993) I find no mention of any such cave. Instead it looks like after any raid in the Shenandoah Valley they rode back over the mountain to return to the farms around Middleburg and Upperville where they were welcomed, blending into the populace, each partisan to a farm where he would be safe. Reading some of the memoirs from which 43rd Battalian was drawn I find the same: mention of several secret closets or attics with hidden doors where rangers would hide, but no cave. One, a memoir by Major John Scott published in 1867 has charming interlineations in fading brown ink where apparently an ex-ranger reading about himself had corrected the author' account, inserted names, altered details. They were rpoud of their exploits, and I see no reason for them to suppress the story fo the cave, unless maybe they thoughtb the South Would Rise Again and they'd be back hiding out there. Doubtful. I think if there were a cave one of these memoirs would have said so. Any of you Mosby experts know about a cave? ElijahBosley (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More of Mosby's exploits needed

[edit]

The article seems to me to lack historical detail. I think more detail on the raids, chronologically by year would vastly improve it. They have entered the lexicon under names like "The Greeback Raid" and the "Great calico raid" and I think we need something on each major raid. As it stands the narrative dwells excessively on details like the tit-for-tat prisoner execution (to which I have contributed so I have only myself to blame). More facts about the raids will bring that incident back into proper perspective. Also, I would like to hear from a military historian on just exactly what good Mosby really did for the Confederate war effort? Did raiding supply wagons really bring in enough calico, needles, boots, cows and horses to make a material difference? Or was he just an irritating nuisance? There is a strong argument (made by Confederate generals at the time) that Mosby's Rangers were hurting Confederate morale, since the regular army didn't get to loot and keep the loot like they did, and discrediting the legitimacy of the Confederate war effort both in the North which regarded Mosby as a thief and plunderer, and among civilians who burdened with Union reprisals.ElijahBosley (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than just complain I've tried my hand at adding a paragraph on military effectiveness. If I can find the time I will also post some discussion of the raids, within the current chronological framework.ElijahBosley (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--and then countermanded myself. I saw there already is a page devoted to the 43rd Cavalry Battalion, and that is where both discussion of the individual raids, and of their military effectiveness belongs. So I moved all the stuff I added over there, and then here added a link to it "above the fold" as it were, since a neophyte would not know that the 43rd Battlaion was Mosby's Raiders.

Mosby's Rangers photo caption

[edit]
I honestly don't remember...I may have made a mistake :? You may be on to something :)
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 07:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"captured out of uniform"

[edit]

I'll leave this edit since the editor supplied a citation, but I think it oversimplified and misleading. There is a debate, with sound reasoning on both sides, about whether partisans who strike and then disappear into the civilan population should be treated honorably as soldiers and POWs, or dishonorably as criminals, killers and thieves. The question was debated on both sides during the Civil War: several of the more conventional Southern generals disapproved of Mosby's seemingly unsoldierly tactics and tried to get his unit dissolved, a recommendation which General Lee himself endorsed and forwarded to Richmond. The question "who is a legitimate soldier?" recurred in the Korean War when the North Koreans refused to recognize the legitimacy of American soldiers and denied them the protections of the Geneva Conventions, in Vietnam when the US did the same to the Viet Cong, in Iraq, and it recurs to this day with the controversial US decision not to treat so-called terrorists wherever they may be found (because they don't wear a uniform) as protected by the Geneva Conventions. The debate cannot be reduced to the simple thesis: without a uniform they deserve to be hanged.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing "misleading" or "oversimplified" here about Grant's order. The issue ElijahBosley raises is whether the order is acceptable in terms of the Geneva conventions made a century later. That is speculation & OR and forbidden by Wiki rules. Rjensen (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, editor Rjensen is right. The General Grant quote added to the article is a good addition and should stay. The quote sets up the conundrum of partisans "out of uniform" nicely, a conundrum which persists and indeed has gotten even more difficult in the modern era. I confess I had not read the rest of that section when I added my two cents' worth to this talk page, and I now see that the issue balances out nicely. Editor Rjensen deserves a pat on the back for adding the quote, and hereby gets one from me.ElijahBosley (talk ☞) 14:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks--it's good to see we are on the same wavelength. Rjensen (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on John S. Mosby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John S. Mosby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on John S. Mosby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

{{sourcecheck|checked=true]}

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John S. Mosby. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Family names

[edit]

I've added some material on Mosby's later career using a well-reviewed book published 30-some years ago, but don't have huge interest in/time for genealogical research. Still, basic facts involving Mosby's wife and children are IMHO important in an article such as this. In relating the incident in which President Jackson refused and General Grant granted Mrs. Mosby's request for documentation to reduce ongoing harassment of her paroled husband, Mosby says she was accompanied by his young son Revardy. This is actually a real boy's name in Virginia, but most sources give the child's name as Beverley (again a real boy's name in Virginia). Anyone willing to fill in an explanation, or do the research?Jweaver28 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John S. Mosby. 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:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Concerning the 1988 alternative history novel "Gray Victory," it is asserted that "In the novel, Skimin portrays Mosby as more pro-slavery than was the case historically."


This is uncited and should be removed unless CS can be cited.

Additionally, even if Mosby's real-life writings could be reasonably assumed to contradict the fictionalized character - the real-life Mosby owned a slave during years of the Civil War. Therefore, even if some of his writing disapproved of slavery, his actions did not. 2601:5CF:8000:6B60:4010:2BF9:AAE6:C475 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_S._Mosby&oldid=1248366768"