Talk:William S. Harney

Temperament

The harsh unsourced allegations in the "temperament" section should be individually verified or removed. The claimed civilian court trial should have a verifiable record for example, as should the court martial proceedings. The rape allegation should not be here without some sort of reference and some indication of the source so that readers can weigh it.

It's completely sourced... so I really have no idea what you are talking about. Re-added. ʄ!•¿talk? 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I ask might you provide the sources for the more contentious claims, as I have found none, including the L.U. Reavis ref, which is available fyi for free in google books. The article has been edited and I support the current revision here. Regards, Johnfancy (talk) 16:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Tone and Factual Errors

I did some neutralization of the tone in the Civil War section. There were a number of outright errors such as "state national guard" references. (It was state militia until May 11, 1861, thereafter renamed the Missouri State Guard.) It was also incorrect to state that Price was still "pro-Union" after the Camp Jackson Affair. Biographies show he was Conditional Unionist until the riots in St. Louis. The change is why Jackson appointed him to command the new MSG. Finally, the "St. Louis Massacre" description seems to be the result of recent attempts at renaming and reshaping the event. Red Harvest (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read the pages 8-12 L. U. Reavis, The Life of General Harney 1878 and they are part of the table of contents. I have read chapters 8-12 of the same book and no mention of raping indian women before hanging is mention. Can you be more specific of its location or correct the issue. ~stewmack1953~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stewmack1953 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The so-called source for the murder of the slave woman turns out to be a list of "historic happenings" compiled by a St Louis radio host. Nothing in the list is adequately sourced, so this should probably either be removed, or checked with reference to the several biographies of Harney that are available. Not only that, but the ultimate source seems to be a contemporary, that is, a nineteenth century newspaper account, and anyone who has done research in this area knows that such newspaper stories are not always reliable. A court document of some kind, or reference to one from one of the Harney biographies would be preferable to the current sourcing, which is essentially a non-source. 24.84.99.199 (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Under "Crimes" too, it needs to be said that the deserters / soldiers captured at Churubusco and subsequently executed, were, from the point of view of the American forces, guilty of treasonous conduct, and therefore liable to execution. James Robins, in his history of the "goats" of West Point, says that among the defenders of the convent of San Mateo at Churubusco "was the San Patricio battalion of foreign mercenaries and American deserters, who fought furiously, knowing their fate should they lose." (p. 101) Was their delayed execution against the laws of warfare? Churubusco was fought August 20, and Chapultepec on September 12, a "delay" of about three weeks. The writer is also incorrect to cite the so-called laws of warfare. As Wikipedia itself says, the transition from unwritten to written codes of conduct did not begin until the mid-1850s, a decade after the Mexican War. If the writer means to reference such unwritten laws, or a general order issued at the time by General Scott, then that is what needs to be said. It is far too easy to make allegations of criminality, and forget that the past is another country: they do things differently there. Everything I've read about Harney suggests he was a right bastard; but in this case, the execution of the Patricios doesn't seem to me to rise to the level of a crime.24.84.99.199 (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't the time period in between being taken prisoner at the battle of Churubusco, rather the delayed and grotesque manner of forcing a group of prisoners to stand on ox carts for hours on end, thristy, and covered with insects in the blistering heat until the american flag went up at the battle of Chapultepec. There is a citation from an academic who wrote a book that was published by a university press on the subject, so unless there is a specific citation from a different academic regarding that matter which contends that it was in fact in accordance with the laws of war at the time(I have never seen this assertion before), then I think it's pretty much a fact. ʄ!•¿talk? 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lincoln loved him

If indeed Lincoln said it was a great mistake to remove Harney, then this needs to be cited properly or removed. I would seriously doubt too, that an officer whose career abounds with political mistakes (almost starting a war with Britain for example) would be beloved of Lincoln.140.161.86.159 (talk) 01:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Anti- William S. Harney sentiments are misplaced

It seems as though their is a general anti William S Harney Tone to this page and it seems to me to be the product of a few biased pieces on Harney, anyone who lives in Florida or out west in the United states has William S. Harney to thank, and the entire United states has William S Harney to thank for him not joining in the Civil War on the side of the South, which could have arguably changed the outcome of the war, Lincoln did make said remark about Harney and here's your source(http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~harney2/General/military.htm). And secondly the Harney bashers who have chose to embellish his Crimes section actually have conflicting sources which makes me wonder if any of the biased individuals attempting to re-write history here have any ground to stand on other than the inflammatory works of Hogan, are you familiar with his support at his own detriment of animal right, are you familiar with his self-less and often self-detrimental support of the Indians, are you familiar with the Indian attacks and torture and Mutilation of civilians during this period in history, History is not a soap Opera, and neither is War with a savage foe who does not distinguish between men and woman, military, or civilian. So you can raise a ruckus over the people who put up Indian warriors and knowingly involved themselves in the confict(Ash Hollow), while you choose to forget about the hapless civilians looking for their free land out west, who were raped, scalped, and murdered, and whose corpses were summarily mutilated, this is just another example of ungrateful American's not respecting people who gave their blood sweat and tears to make this country what it is today, their weren't always drive through fast food restaurants, and dog groomers on every block, America was carved out by the will of men like William S Harney, and I think a little bit of respect is due before everyone forgets that our modern plush lives are the product of experiences that would make the worst of worst today look like a walk in the park. Look up Kiowa forms of torture which included the mutilation of genitals using needle and thread for example, imagine a member of your family being subjected to this, imagine your uncle, a stage coach driver, being dragged off his seat and hatcheted, and having the top of his head sheared off with a knife just for kicks while he was still alive. The Indians we know today were not the Indians of yesteryear, and if you'd be willing to be scalped or to have your genitals mutilated in the name of political correctness than I don't think you should be revising history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.189.195 (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be edited of many fallacious arguments throughout this discussion. Please remember especially that different tribes' actions (in this case, the Kiowa reference) does not equate to other tribes' actions (the Lakota Sioux) and that any arguments made need to have sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.66.3 (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

More work needed

I came across this last night while updating my computer as a library closed. I've cleaned it up this morning at a cafe, but don't know when I can finish the job. Clearly, Harney was a complex character, and I hope my revisions show that, even if I can't find his genealogy and links with slaveholding right off.Jweaver28 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Since my laptop again had update problems this morning, I checked several of Mexican War books on the library shelf during the third (and successful) update attempt. I could find no discussion of atrocities nor treatment of the San Patricio battalion (other than one book's mention that they were executed), so I didn't change the chicago.indymedia.org work from a "See also" to a footnote.Jweaver28 (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)