This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
The two sources I used in reworking this article seemed sometimes to be saying different things. The Centennial History source included a letter from an eyewitness to the battle (who literally watched it from her own front porch!) which I tried to incorporate into the narrative. I will try to do some additional research in weeks to come, but anyone who is more knowledgable about this than I am is more than welcome to edit, expand or otherwise make changes to this article! - Ecjmartin (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no disparagement of any kind intended toward anyone who served, or had ancestors serve, in the Second Battle of Independence. However, to categorize this engagement as anything other than "minor" leads readers to conclude that it was of either medium or major importance to the outcome of the war, and this is blatently wrong. Ask anyone with a knowledge of US History to name several major battles of our Civil War, and he or she will name Anteitam, Gettysburg, Bull Run/Manassas I and II, Petersburg, Chancellorsville, Atlanta, Chicamagua etc. As them to name some battles of medium importance, and they might name Mobile Bay, Wilson's Creek or Pea Ridge. In Missouri, Westport and Lexington I might be named as battles of medium importance; there were no battle . Independence II, while contributing to the following day's engagement at Westport, was of minor importance overall in the war by itself. Hence, it should (in my opinion) be designated as a "minor" engagement--not to belittle it or those who fought there, but to place it in the proper historical perspective. To fail to refer to it as "minor" would be to insinuate (in my opinion, at least) an overall importance the battle simply did not possess. I'm not trying to "lord it" over this article, so if other editors disagree with this, please go on ahead and revert it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Minor" versus leaving out the word "Minor"
I agree "important" may be too presumptuous, but it feels like "minor" goes to far in the other direction. Merriam-webster describes "minor engagement" as a synonym with "skirmish" and academics have avoided calling a much "smaller" battle (the last battle of the Civil War")[1] a "minor engagement," because it was not. I believe the introductory sentences for both First Battle of Independence and Second Battle of Independence would be fine without adjectives "important" or "minor" or "major" or "significant" or "dramatic" EGDJ (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree emphatically. This was a minor battle; there's no way out of it. Historians and students of the Civil War (and wars in general) generally look at "major battles" and "minor battles;" to fail to classify this as a minor engagement (which it clearly was, to any historian of the conflict as a whole, no disparagement intended) is misleading. I have a definitve historical/governmental source that clearly designates the two battles of Independence as being of Minor (class D and C) importance: NPS What are the Nation's Principle Civil War Battlefields?. See page 1 for the four classes, plus table 7 for the specific listings for Independence under IV.2, Battlefields-Lost Integrity. It is clearly misleading, in my opinion at least, not to categorize this battle as "minor." "Minor" most definitely does NOT mean the same as "skirmish" to many Civil War historians. - Ecjmartin (talk) 01:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing that link about the Nation's Principle Civil War Battlefields, it is a rich resource for anyone who might see this Discussion Page, and our "very minor engagement" here. While I feel it may still be arguable to label the two-day runup to the "Gettysburg of the West" as a "minor engagement", my view represents a layman's impression only. I don't plan to again edit out the word "minor" in either article. EGDJ (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article very badly conflates this action and the Battle of Little Blue River (the October 21 action). These two actions are treated as separate battles by an overwhelming consensus of secondary sources, so I will be removing the conflation. Our nice, GA-assessed article about the Battle of Little Blue River is the proper home for extended analysis of the October 21 action. Hog FarmTalk04:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
