Talk:Gideon Johnson Pillow

factual error

One place in the article says that General Pillow died in Lee County, Arkansas. Another place in the article says that General Pillow died in Helena, Arkansas. Helena is not in Lee County. Helena is the county seat of Phillips County, which is south of Lee County. I don't know where he died, but the two references are contradictory. They can not both be correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.46.3 (talk) 04:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to say a lot of negative things about the subject

Because a new editor attempted some preliminary changes (which were reverted), my eyes were drawn to this page, a work I have only peripherally assisted, adding a category, if memory serves. While Pillow was certainly not one of the tactical giants of the Confederate Army, he may deserve better treatment than he has gotten here. I'm not for a moment saying the sourced statements and quotes are inaccurate, but on reading the entire article, I'm not sure we've accomplished more than a caricature of a human being's life. My access to personal library sources is somewhat limited right now, and my time in the next few months also somewhat constrained, but I'm going to see if we can flesh out this page to improve we have previously done. While searching JSTOR, I see at least one book-length biography reviewed by scholarly sources, and many many journal articles. Right now all the applied sources concern some other figure of the time, plus some survey works. I see User:Donner60 is willing to help as well. Let's see if we can source this a bit better. BusterD (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am adding sources, inline citations and some details such as exact dates tonight. If this remains incomplete, I will return to this at some later date. I think the sentence in the lead probably can be made more of a statement of what happened than a judgmental statement. Pillow lead an attack which opened a road out of the fort but (inexplicably, as at least one source states) returned to the trenches to resupply his men instead of trying to keep the road open and break out immediately. It was a mistake as the Union force rallied and closed the breach before an escape could be made. Pillow's reputation suffered from this misjudgment and also from the fact that he fled the fort for fear of prosecution for treason (having been a general in the Mexican-American War) while leaving almost all of his men to be captured. I have every book in the reference section except Longacre's and currently have access to JSTOR. We must stick to the facts as given by the sources, of course, but perhaps there are some other facts that are more positive or are mitigating factors which can be added, perhaps even as an alternate or minority view if that is the case. Donner60 (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

While I'm no defender of Pillow (or Floyd or Wise whom together form a trifecta of "political general" incompetence in various early war campaigns), I agree that the article focuses almost entirely on his many faults. Doing a quick check I've found some additional biographical info that helps explain why he was perceived positively in various circles before his downfall. One thing that bothers me, but would need a source to state it is that Grant/Buckner as friends had mutual reasons to trash Pillow and that probably deserves some sort of mention with regard to this well-known amusing anecdote. Red Harvest (talk) 06:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like Donner60 and I are editing at the same time so I'm going to step back because of the edit conflicts that result. Things that should be included are Hughes comments about Pillow being one of the largest landholders in the South and possibly the wealthiest man in Tenn as of 1860. He also was responsible for construction of miles of levees and championing long term improvements. Red Harvest (talk) 08:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am going to continue only for a short additional time tonight/this morning. Please add details I miss later. Despite my earlier comment that I would only work on this tonight, I may return to it tomorrow night if it does not appear finished by then. I don't think we noted this above, but BusterD and I had reverted some unsourced comments by a user who said he was correcting the record concerning erroneous statements about his ancestor. After some advice from us, he stated his intention to withdraw from this. We have proceeded to fill out and better source the article in response to his concerns. Donner60 (talk) 09:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Very impressive effort, wikipedians. Nice addition to sources and much fuller and broader coverage of a very human subject. I guess my question after hearing the new user (who self-reports to be a descendant) was "how does a person get to be a leader of men in two wars?" and the answer couldn't be merely "because he was a flawed individual" (which seemed to be the conclusion of this article at the time of my reading). That the answer I gave might be somewhat true doesn't fully answer the question I asked myself. So for this reason, the new user's change in the lead resonated with me. A person can't be best known for a failure unless elevated to a status where a failure of sufficient scale is possible. Losing a battle or siege to such as U.S. Grant is no badge of shame, for IMHO Grant proved, aside from his other abilities, a fair appraiser of opposing battlefield commanders. Much better officers than Pillow found themselves surprised and beaten by Grant. I'm veering into WP:FORUM here, but my brief interaction with the new editor has opened my mind to the worth of this subject, and the need to add this page to my list needing improvement. This is a subject which could be worthy of A-class or FA effort, IMHO. Thanks for the excellent work to date. BusterD (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Several common elements come through in the sources I've seen about Pillow: 1. His political connection to Pres. Polk fueled his rise, and protected him from appropriate censure in the Mexican War. His extreme wealth by the time of 1860 and public projects had also increased his clout with the public. 2. He was a tireless self-promoter and over-represented his own contributions. This gave him a high public profile, while causing severe resentment among fellow officers. 3. He was no soldier and really should not have had field command. The other officers recognized this and coupled with his actions toward Scott, he was opposed by the professional officers. 4. He had some personal charisma and energy for getting things done. Red Harvest (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Red Harvest sums up rather well most of the major points about Pillow that I believe the sources support. He got his commands because of his political friendships, wealth and self-promotion. Add to that the Mexican-American War experience for the Civil War appointment. Almost any military experience was valued with such a large increase in the military. He seems to have been personally brave and energetic but made big mistakes on a few engineering projects that he guided and on battle tactics. He did not seem to learn much from them.

While his failure and departure at Fort Donelson were certainly bad and bad for his reputation, he at least should be given credit for a half decent plan to break out and for advocating continued resistance before giving in to the surrender insisted upon by Floyd and Buckner. Authors give various reasons for his pullback at Fort Donelson: realization that his troops were not prepared to move out without supplies, weather and the lateness of the day, thought that the fort could be defended after all and the Union force defeated, the possibility of evacuation via the river and even a desire to leave the other commanders hanging. I hesitate to add much on this because even though sourced, it seems rather speculative. One author doubts the Stones River story as out of character but the situation was rather dire. That author, Jack Hurst, states that only Hughes, Nathaniel Cheairs Jr. and Roy F. Stonesifer, Jr. The Life and Wars of Gideon J. Pillow. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1993 does him justice. If that book is the one mentioned by BusterD as on JSTOR, I will look at it and add some citations, and some details if I see any pertinent additional ones.

Overall, Pillow should not get a very good evaluation as a military leader. However, such good military actions or traits as he may have exhibited should not be totally swept aside due to his failures, lack of overall military competence and personality. Also, though it lengthens the article, the context and actions of others needed some mention to give a fair picture. I intend to add a few more details and a few more citations. If I can find a little more on his post-Civil War life, I will add that. I have spent more time than I thought I might on the subject so I want to wrap up my contribution quickly and let others add, subtract or revise it as may appear appropriate. Given the controversial nature of Pillow's actions and the objections of the descendant, I think the number of citations are justified. Sources support everything in the article. In fact, most statements can be supported by several of the references. Donner60 (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing some reading of sources on jstor, many of them reviews of the 1993 Hughes and Stonesifer book mentioned by Hurst. (There's an interesting 1966 article by Stonesifer on Pillow entitled "Gideon J. Pillow : A Study in Egotism"; it appears Stonesifer finds the subject's flaws worthy of separate and lengthy study.) One reviewer of the book, Brian S. Wills (now the Director of the Center for the Study of the Civil War Era and Professor of History at Kennesaw State University) highly regards the work. However, he quotes the authors: "It seems a cruel injustice that, a century later, the man can't be defended." Wills concludes of the book: "...in attempting to present the general's more positive contributions, Hughes and Stonesifer have set themselves a greater task than their subject allows them to accomplish." Not particularly complementary of the subject. Now I'm even more interested in the sources claimed by the new editor... BusterD (talk) 00:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt there are many other reliable and verifiable sources outside of JSTOR and Questia, especially given Hurst's comment about the Hughes and Stonesifer book. I reserve a conclusion until I do a little more work on this but it seems to me that the only thing that can be done is to add some more facts, which are not likely to make Pillow appear more positive than the current version of the article does. I will note here and specifically to BusterD and Red Harvest when I think I have done about all I can or feel I have the time to spend productively on this. Donner60 (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to add a few details of Pillow's Mexican-American War actions as the article has little before the start of the controversy. I need to clarify a few points about Fort Donelson, or at least add some notes about a few differences in the accounts about a few of the details. I have not found anything more about his later life except his cause of death as yellow fever. Donner60 (talk) 11:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I will have only a small amount of time to edit on November 20 and 21 and then will be on vacation (holiday, if you prefer) and completely offline until November 29 or 30. Even though I have gather some more information, I may not get the revisions to the article finished until I return. I have concluded that Pillow's involvement and actions in the Mexican-American War are more historically significant than I had known. I have already added some detail but I think some additional details and a little clarification are needed on that topic as well as on his actions in the American Civil War. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)