Talk:Sterling Price

Sterling Price's children

I am interested in Sterling Price's children. The five out of the seven that survived to adulthood.

Game2janie@aol.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.11.136 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

who else is glad only 5 kids of evil price survived — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.38.155.134 (talk) 08:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Entry into Louisana

The new information on Price's movements in Louisiana is excellent and a most welcome addition to the article, but it doesn't seem to "fit" chronologically in the portion of the article where it was placed. "In 1864", this section opens--when, in 1864? From the March date given further down in this section, it seems that all of these activities took place prior to Price's Missouri Raid, hence, I am moving the entire section to a place before that portion of the article. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sterling Price. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081212055830/http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp to http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050915050714/http://history.navy.mil:80/danfs/g3/general_sterling_price.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/g3/general_sterling_price.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead

This page is on my watchlist, and I noticed this edit. I'm personally not convinced that the lead is currently adequate. First, his being a slave owner wasn't a defining characteristic of him, so I'm not sure why it's in the first sentence of the lead. There's also a number of topics not mentioned in the lead that would seem to be of some significance - his leadership of the Missouri State Guard, the Battle of Wilson's Creek, the 1862-1865 period is glossed over as "service in Arkansas" when the Battle of Iuka and Second Battle of Corinth should certainly be mentioned as well (and it wouldn't hurt to mention the Battle of Pea Ridge by name), his service in the United States House of Representatives isn't mentioned in the lead, nor is his temporary flight to Mexico after the war. I also think that Price's Missouri Expedition should be mentioned by name/linked, as he's remembered for the campaign as a whole, not just Westport.

The note itself was added in this edit in 2019 by Lieutcoluseng, I can't find anything in the edit history or in the history of the article talk page that would indicate the need to fix the lead in a form like this. I don't think this notice should be there, at least until a more comprehensive version of the lead gets worked out. Also pinging Meters and 1976mkeith8, who were involved in the edit that caught my attention on this subject. Hog Farm _Talk 07:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, the "slave owner" should not be there as a defining characteristic in the lead. My apologies. I was checking edits by a user who had recently made a personal attack on my talk page and I did not give the edit the necessary thought. Note that the "slave owner" description was a recent addition [1] at which time the comment asking for prior discussion to the lead was already in place. user:BulgeUwU, who added the description may may wish to comment.

This article is not one I normally follow so I wasn't aware of the lack of prior discussion before the lead comment was added. I agree that it is very odd to effectively lock an entire paragraph of the lead (as opposed to a particular fact or agree upon wording), particularly without prior discussion. Meters (talk) 07:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've undone myself, and also removed the comment. Meters (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the fact that he was deeply involved in history's most powerful and deadly human trafficking ring is very noteworthy. He also dedicated his life to fighting for slavery, it's all he ever did with his life and was his entire reason for existance. Seems very noteworthy to me. Wikipedia isn't a promotional site for your poor choice of personal heroes. --BulgeUwU (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTWOKE - Yes, he did own slaves, and that should be in the article. But the first sentence should say what the person is notable for. And sources do not say Price was significant because he was a slaveowner. He was significant as governor of Missouri and as a CSA general, which is what should be in the first sentence. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS - until you can find RS that state Price's slaveholding was more significant than this political career or his Confederate Army service, then it doesn't go in the first sentence. And doesn't stating that he was a senior officer in the CSA pretty well get across his stance of slavery? Hog Farm _Talk 14:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It should be in the article (and it is) but there is no apparent reason why this is so significant as to be a defining characteristic. As it is, the article does not even have a source for the claim that he was a slave owner. Meters (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I can slap a ref onto the slaveowning bit pretty easily once I get off work, I've got copies of the Shalhope and Castel bios listed in the further reading at home. Hog Farm _Talk 19:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't doubt the claim at all. I was just pointing some irony in this discussion. Meters (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Price's role in the struggle for Missouri

The section discussing Price's role in the struggle over Missouri, and the struggle itself, seem deeply biased and utterly devoid of very important context.

The article in question paints the picture that the Unionist forces acted without provocation against the states legal militia, and that Price was forced by a "virtual declaration of war" into resisting the Unionists. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Governor and Price both had been in talks with Jefferson Davis for Missouri to join the Confederacy since the fall of Sumter in April, long before the Camp Jackson Afair. These talks concluded with the Confederacy agreeing to send a number of heavy guns to Missouri, guns that were delived the day before the Camp Jackson Afair, to Camp Jackson. It's clear the Price was both aware of, and actively participating in, a conspiracy to drive the Union out of Missouri and force succession long before Lyons "declared virtual war". Further more, as soon as the Price-Harney Truce was agreed to, Price along with the Governor and Lt Governor sent envoys to the Confederacy asking for an invasion of the state to drive out Unionist forces.

These series of events, in proper context, totally flies in the face of the claims made about Price's politics and intentions prior to the Camp Jackson Afair. He was clearly pro-confederate and painting him as being "forced" by actions of Lyons to support the Confederacy is blatant whitewashing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claiborne_Fox_Jackson

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Jackson_affair 2601:547:B05:1262:71FA:B6E:C0DB:9AF6 (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the fact that why the militia were at Camp Jackson in the first place isn't mentioned is problematic. He contested Union control over Arkansas in the summer of 1863, and while he won some of his engagements, he was not able to dislodge Northern forces from the state, abandoning Little Rock for southern Arkansas. later in the article is also problematic. It glosses over the fact that from what I've read, historians don't have a very high view of his handling of the Little Rock campaign, which was the primary military action he led after he took over following Theophilus Holmes' post-Battle of Helena illness.

I was reworking this article earlier last winter and left off after the Mexican War; I need to get back to this sometime. Hog Farm _Talk 19:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some minor edits to make clear a distinction between his public stances and private actions, as well as his complicity in the conspiracy. Will add citations when I have the chance. Elizabeth Gurely Flyn (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I suggest that a new section be added to the article citing appearances In Popular Culture. The first entry in this new section should be a reference to Rooster Cogburn's cat. 98.206.87.210 (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)