Talk:Daniel Sickles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I merged two articles and deleted one. Its talk page had the following:

I apologize for my unfamiliarity with this process, but I was interested in further information, and found these related websites: (input by (User:Mksmith)

Thanks, Lou I 09:23, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Date of birth[edit]

Why did the date of birth change from 1825 to 1819??? Because Find-A-Grave gives it 1825. Lincher 03:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Keneally's American Scoundrel says 1819. So does Tagg's Generals of Gettysburg. And Congress: And Arlington: Hal Jespersen 15:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Find-a-Grave is not an RS per Wikipedia policy.Parkwells (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Teresa's Affair[edit]

I had always heard that it was not "blatantly public" at all - do we have sources for this?--TurabianNights 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a footnote. I don't think it is necessary to go into the details of the affair in the article, but it was well-known to their acquaintances and Key would publicly signal Teresa from Lafayette Park by waving a handkerchief. I would call that reasonably blatant. Hal Jespersen 17:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I recall, and I once did a lot of research on Sickles, the handkerchief waving incident occurred only once--on the day of Key's murder. In fact, Sickles saw Key waving the handkerchief and ran out and shot him. The murder itself is better described in the Wikipedia entry for Teresa Bagioli Sickles. The "blatantly public" aspect of the affair was that Key and Teresa were frequently seen alone together in society by mutual friends. But this was with Sickles' knowledge. Sickles was neglectful of his wife and grateful that Barton Key took an interest in her, although Key had told Sickles that he thought of Teresa as a daughter. During their affair, Barton Key and Teresa met for sex in a house on 15th Street. Apparently all the neighbors were aware that two "society" people, a man and a women, arrived separately and used the house for their romantic meetings. In this respect, it was blatantly public--to the neighbors of the house in that poor mostly black neighborhood. Rob043055 15:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and make improvements to the article, but please cite secondary sources (not your recollections of research) for your claims. The article needs more footnotes anyway. Hal Jespersen 16:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Newt Gingrich's Grant Comes East[edit]

In the alternate history novel Grant Comes East, Newt Gingrich and Willaim R. Forstchen do a great hatchet job on Sickles, portraying him as a tool of Tammany Hall. Any truth to that? In the Gingrich/Forstchen universe, the South won at Gettysburg, but it didn't prove to be the end of the Civil War, and in fact, Ulysses S. Grant is called east to take command of the newly-formed Army of the Susquehannah to fight Lee. Sickles, who was not wounded at Gettysburg, violently puts down riots in New York City in order to show the elite of New York that he is their hero, and uses Tammany Hall to push for his being made Commander of the decimated Army of the Potomac, so that he can wrest control of the army from Grant, become a hero, and become elected President in 1864. It's important to remember, though, that Sickles and Tammany were Democrats, after all, and we know Newt's feelings for Democrats. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read all three books of the trilogy and found them greatly entertaining. As to your question, I think many New York politicians of the era were in bed with Tammany Hall and we know from real history that Sickles was a pretty slippery character, so I think the authors took a reasonable leap of imagination. Hal Jespersen 00:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Alternate History is "fiction", which is defined as "something invented by the imagination or feigned; specifically : an invented story". So no there is no truth in "Grant Comes East". It is just one more book, in a 150 year long tradition which is called the Lost Cause of the Confederacy; although in this particular alternate history the Confederacy still loses. Nick Beeson (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


Does anybody know how to get the quote box to show up on the right, adjacent to the long info box? It would fit nicely there if possible. Currently it gets pushed down into the Civil War section instead of in the Trial section where it belongs which is quite confusing. Thanks in advance. -Cwenger (talk) 23:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. See if that suffices. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
That is certainly an improvement. Thanks Hal! -Cwenger (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Quote from McPherson[edit]

Is "Sickles's unwise move may have unwittingly foiled Lee's hopes." the actual quote from McPherson, James M., Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era or does it have "Sickles' "?

Graeme Cook (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I just checked. The article punctuates it exactly as Jim wrote it. Apparently professors at Princeton used the Chicago style guide as well. :-) Hal Jespersen (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


The reference to Gettysburg Medal of Honor Recipients by Charles Hanna was inserted by me. It is very troubling, because almost 2.5 pages are quoted without change, or little change, without attribution. I do not know how long this text has been here, but however long, it was too long for it to be here without attribution.

Would some editor please read the original and rewrite this article to remove these huge quotes? Please.

You can find the text on the web.[1] Nick Beeson (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daniel Sickles. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 09:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this is backwards. ". In both of these cases, it is easy to imagine the disastrous battle turning out very differently for the Union if Hooker had heeded his advice. — Charles Hanna, [19]"[edit]

Hooker lost because Sickles didn't heed his advice, but the subject quote is mixed up. (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)