Talk:Philip Kearny

Untitled

Not trying to start an edit war or anything, it just happened that my edit happened same time as yours. I have two reliable sources that say Kearny's birthday is 6-2 1815, and I'll change back the side of the picture. Those two sources both say Columbia university (those sources being civilwarhome.com and the 1911 Encyclopedia). ugen64 21:59, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

I'm no fan of edit wars either. Sorry for almost getting into one. :)

1. Columbia College and Columbia University are the same thing, but it didn't become a university until 1896.
2. The left margin on the image I think we agree on already.
3. This will be the second major thing I've found really iffy about the info on civilwarhome, I'm starting to not trust them so much. I originally got the date from Webster's American Biographies, and have so far verified it on [1], [2] and [3], who probably ought to know. - Hephaestos 22:06, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is this how regular talks go between users, replying on other users' names? I've never had to do it, but I suppose this is how... anyway, [4] says 1815 (which was your second example), so... what is up with his birthdate :-\ ugen64 22:09, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think there's any set way of replying, it's usually up to the individual. I like this way because it gives the notification at the top (usually).

This is quite weird with the date; I could see there being some possible controversy between the first and second of June, since they're close together, but one would think the year at least would be unambiguous. I'm guessing it's an error that got copied down repeatedly, but I'm not sure how to tell which one's right. - Hephaestos 22:18, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, I hit upon something that I can't swear is accurate, but I guess it's the best we can do at the moment until something more definitive comes up. I checked "Philip Kearny" (in quotes) with some dates in quotes on Google. "June 1, 1814" gives five hits, "June 2, 1815" gives nineteen. "June 2, 1814" and "June 1, 1815" each give zero hits. So I guess the best thing is to go with June 2, 1815 at least for the time being. - Hephaestos 22:52, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

All right, that works. It's really a minor thing, I dunno. ugen64 01:28, Dec 2, 2003 (UTC)

Promotion to major general

At first I thought the posthumous promotion reference may be a mistake, confusing him with Isaac Stevens who was also killed at the Battle of Chantilly, as several descriptions of that battle have Kearny as a Major General during the action. But the 1911 Encyclopedia does mention him not receiving his commission by the time he died, so I looked around some more and came across this documentation in an old biography of Kearny:

MY DEAR SIR: In reply to your note of the 2d instant, I have had the records examined, and find the following answers for your questions in relation to General KEARNY:

1. When General KEARNY was appointed Major-General of Volunteers, he stood number six on the list of Brigadier-Generals.
2. His commission as Brigadier-General of Vols. was dated 7 Aug., 1861, to rank from 17 May, 1861.
3. He was appointed, during the recess of the Senate, Major-General of Vols.; the letter of appointment was dated July 25, 1862, to rank from July 4,1862. His commission, prepared after his death, bears date of March 13, 1863. The records do not show that the services, on account of which the rank of Major-General was conferred were stated in either the letter of appointment or the commission.
4. At the date of his death, he stood number thirty on the list of Major-Generals of Vols. GEN'L:DEPEYSTER, Tivoli, N. Y.

Very truly yours, E. D. TOWNSEND,
then Asst. Adjt.-General, now Adjt.-General U. S. A.

Philip Kearny was not confirmed as Major-General of Volunteers until March 9th, 1863, nor was the order, says Brevet-Maj. G. E.H ~ —, announcing his promotion as Major-General, received by his old, then Birney's division, until November, 1862.

I certainly don't know enough of the technicalities of rank promotion to say... was he in fact promoted to Major General in July 1862 and not posthumously (just with the details not complete), or does that in fact mean he was not promoted until after his death? Carl Lindberg 07:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons that Wikipedia promotes the use of secondary sources is so that we do not have to be involved in the minutiae of such matters. The Eicher reference, which is used by many of the ACW generals' bios, states that he was promoted posthumously. If there are alternative secondary sources that make claims about dates (rather than printing verbatim letters from the War Department without comment), those sources should be included. We also generally do not take notice of Senate confirmation for promotions unless they are denied, nor of the detailed difference between dates of commission versus dates of rank. Hal Jespersen 15:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll keep looking and post more soon, though a number of things lead me to think that he was in fact promoted before his death, and the posthumous reference is either a mistake or coming from the perspective of the Senate confirmation being the critical date. Not sure why I'm so interested in this little factoid, but, well, there you go :-) Carl Lindberg 05:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess the main thing that piqued my curiosity was that on their commemorative plaques at Ox Hill Battlefield Park, both Kearny and Stevens are named as Major General. On the county plan for the park (page15), it specifically notes that Stevens was posthumously promoted (which he was) but does not say the same about Kearny (the panel had a local historian on it, so I was thinking it was at least an informed omission). The Chantilly Union order of battle, which comes from one of the books on the battle, lists Stevens as brigadier general but Kearny as major general, indicating in that author's opinion he had already been promoted. The bit I quoted earlier is from an 1869 biography, Personal and military history of Philip Kearny, major-general United States volunteers by John Watts DePeyster. The last paragraph is the author's summary; it was a footnote explaining why Kearny's commission was listed in an 1863 newspaper article, along with other generals (including Stevens) who were promoted posthumously. The 1911 encyclopedia bio mentions the delayed commission, but does not say the promotion itself was posthumous, which is consistent with the above info. In fact, with online searching at least, I can't find any page (other than those derived from the wikipedia article) which does mention a posthumous promotion. Back to DePeyster's book, he prints a few other things: A note from Birney on Sept 4, where he references "Major-General Kearny", and a portion of Pope's battle report that references "Brigadier-General Stevens" but "Major-General Kearny", both of which seem to indicate Kearny had already been promoted (while Stevens had not). This website on the battle consistently makes the distinction as well. Given all that, it seems as though the posthumous reference is either a mistake — a confusion with Stevens, or because the commission was confirmed alongside several promotions which were posthumous — or a different perspective on what constituted promotion. If other authors had the same opinion, I guess I would expect that it would be mentioned at least somewhere else :-) Do you know of any other references which say it was posthumous? Carl Lindberg 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are persuasive. In my (relatively limited) library, I could find no references to a posthumous promotion other than Eicher. I have modified the article with a footnote that highlights this discrepancy. Thanks for your diligence. Hal Jespersen 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for making the change. The footnote is a very good way to handle it. Carl Lindberg 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Tack Terminology

I can buy the idea of a rider holding the reins in his teeth, but the bridle? Literal application of that description raises a quizzical picture--if the general had the bridle in his mouth, what did the horse have?

Terry J. Carter (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did a little web search and was amazed to find that well over a dozen sites accessible by Google are using this exact same phrase, presumably copied from the Wikipedia article. The quotation originally came from either Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography or De Peyster's Personal and Military History of Philip Kearny, Major-general United States Volunteers, both 19th century works and you would assume that people in that era knew more about tack than that. Since there is an earlier reference in the same article about reins in the teeth, I deleted this quotation. Thanks for catching. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Parentage

Phil is listed as having the same parents as Stephen W. Kearny, but Stephen is said to be his granduncle. This needs to be cleared up.Ealtram (talk) 17:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a similar problem with the reference to Robert Anderson playing Kearny in the 1966 episode "The Firebrand". Philip Kearny was not in California at that time and the character of "General Kearny" is most certainly referring to Philip's uncle, Stephen W. Kearny.