Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Olustee

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

Background

[edit]

Whoever stated in the Background section that General Beauregard initiated the dispatch of additional Confederate troops to Florida to counter the arrival of Union forces is correct. Often, people credit Finigan with requesting the troops. Not mentioned is the fact that Beauregard actually began sending troops even before the Union forces landed. He had kept an eye on the Union HQs at Hilton Head and when the transports left, heading south, he determined that Florida was the target. All I did in my edit was to further explain this timeline so it didn't look like Seymour was advancing toward Lake City and then Beauregard decided to send reinforcements. After all, he had to send them by rail all the way out to Alabama, when they then had to march to cross country to another railroad in western Florida and then journey to Lake City. This took considerable time. Also, Seymour initially sent troops out to north Central Florida, overran several Florida militia camps, and then pulled back. Later, he lead his main forces out again, but this time came up against the reinforced veteran troops at Olustee. If Seymour had kept going on his first thrust into Florida, the ending might well have been different. Trfasulo (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, this text was revised and I added text back in to convey the fact that Beauregard dispatched Colquitt to Florida before Seymour landed there. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confederate National Flag

[edit]

Since the battle took place on 20 February, 1864, the National Flag the Confederates would have fought under would be the "Second National" (1863), not the "Third National" (March 1865). Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third bloodiest battle

[edit]

This battle was the 3rd bloodiest battle for the Union, in regards to the ratio of casualties for the numbers involved - almost 40%. It was not the 3rd bloodiest battle of the war as others were far worse. This is why I undid a revision stating it to be the third bloodiest battle of the war. As far as the Confederate forces were concerned, despite 20% casualties at Olustee, I suspect that their bloodiest battles were Chancellorsville (30%), Franklin, Gettysburg, etc. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 19:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Agree with the above comments. You list this as "one of the bloodiest Union defeats", but with 200 killed and 1,000 wounded, this ranks far below Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, Cold Harbor, Spotsylvania, both Bull Runs. By Civil War standards, the losses here are no where near "the bloodiest". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.49.122.162 (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where was Beauregard

[edit]

Was General Beauregard in Charleston, S.C., or in Savannah, GA, when he ordered reinforcements to Florida? Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Union troops followed or not?

[edit]

"Finegan did not exploit the retreat, allowing most of the fleeing Union forces to reach Jacksonville. The Confederates did attempt to engage the rear element of Seymour's forces"

So the Confederates acted without orders or were ordered back by Finegan? Hcobb (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one who works on this page. I don't know who entered that text. The battle ended at nightfall, and often that is when the infantry broke off battle. In this case, the infantry on both side took heavy casualties and were probably happy the day ended. As for the cavalry... I suggest you visit the Battle of Olustee Web site, and under Confederate Order of Battle: Cavalry Brigade, see Colonel Caraway Smith's Report of the Battle and official correspondence regarding investigation into his actions. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

[edit]

"There is also considerable evidence from Confederate memoirs and letters that the high Union casualties were partially the result of Confederate troops murdering wounded and captured African-American Union soldiers"

Murdering the wounded or captured would not change number of casualties, as if one was already wounded or captured they would already be added to the casualty figure. I am changing it to "There is evidence from Confederate memoirs and letters that Confederate troops murdered wounded and captured African-American Union soldiers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillion3384 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ultimate result of this is that all mention of the Confederate murder of injured Black Union soldiers has been removed from this page. Shameful whitewashing.

Restored the massacre claims with backup citations.Voss749 (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect map orientation

[edit]

There's no compass rose on the battle map, so maybe rather than say it's "incorrect" I should say it's unspecified. But the map is oriented with West at the top, not North. In the absence of any indicator of north on the map, most viewers will assume that North is at the top, and that the battle took place to the southwest of Ocean Pond. In fact, the battle was southeast of Ocean Pond.

Basically, the map would be correct if it were rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise. You can see a properly-oriented (north at the top) historical map here.

It'd be nice if we could just use that map, but the site is operated by the Florida Department of State and its content is copyrighted.

So that leaves correcting the existing map (or creating a new one). Just rotating it is a bad idea -- it'll rotate the text labels as well, making it almost unreadable. I haven't got the software (or skills) to modify the .svg image to correct the labels after rotating the map. Any takers? Rob (talk) 19:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to fix it, but at least the comment could tell the correct direction. Perhaps contacting the uploader would help. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Olustee. 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}}).

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) 19:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Every few years the Florida State Park Service redoes its web sites on all its parks. And when it does so, it uses new URLs. Don't ask me why. I once posed that question and the Park Service didn't bother to reply. But as I am webmaster for the Battle of Olustee Citizen's Support Organization (CSO), this is a real "pain in the butt." Since I started the site for the CSO, I've had to take the trouble of finding the new URLs more times than I can remember. Several Civil War-related Florida state parks are linked to on our Battle of Olustee Web site. If you edit pages on Florida State Parks, you're probably already aware of this. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Olustee. 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.

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) 12:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date of reeneactment

[edit]

The date of the reenactment and accompanying festival is the Sunday on or before the date of the actual battle Feb 20. It has no relation to President's Day other than coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.84.149.177 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About every four or five years, the Sunday reenactment of the actual battle takes place on February 20th, just as it did in 1864. This will next occur in 2022. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Olustee&oldid=1217653151"