Talk:Joshua Chamberlain

Untitled

Can someone find out what illness he had after the minor wound at Gettysburg? I believe Last Full Measure says malaria, but I want to be sure. ugen64 02:45, Dec 12, 2003 (UTC)

• I was always under the impression that the redeployment of 20th Maine to the Stone Wall was a literary device employed by Michael Shaara in The Killer Angels. Please provide a source for that detail other than the book or the movie.

I have not yet found any information relating to the 20th being relocated to the Union center. As far as my sources, I have yet to see any mention of the V Corps (which was where the 20th Maine was located) being transferred to the center at all. If anyone has any additional information on this, please provide it. --Martin Osterman 02:24, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a mere literary device; both Chamberlain's official report on the battle (which is in the Official Records) and his later writings (notably Through Blood and Fire) document the regiment being repositioned on the morning of the third to the extreme left of the brigade, which would place them to the right of the reserves for the center that received Picket's charge, though the regiment was not called forward. Also, yes, it was malaria. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

last paragraph

I deleted the last paragraph from a long list of excellent edits. It said:

Chamberlain is remembered and honored today as one of the bravest, noblest, and capable officers of the Union army. Many historians believe that, had Chamberlain and his men not held Little Round Top, the Army of the Potomac may well have lost the Battle of Gettysburg, and perhaps the war.

The first sentence is simply over the top. Noblest? Let's keep a NPOV, please. And although the view of holding LRT meant winning the war has popular appeal, there are few reputable military historians who would say so. A brave engagement, but hardly one on which the entire battle or war rested. I could go into a lot of detail as to why, but perhaps you could cite two or three historians (or document "most historians") who have written this. Hal Jespersen 14:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wounds

All sources I have seen point to the cause of death as being complications from his wounds recieved at Petersburg. See [1] and [2] -- I don't have any written sources, but I think that Hal or one of our other contributers probably does that will back this one up. --Martin Osterman 12:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sourcing that. I've added that back into the text. // Pathoschild 12:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem! I found it to be one of the most interesting Civil War-related facts I'd ever come across... and yes, it did make me do a double-take the first time I read it. Of course, Chamberlain led a very remarkable and interesting life -- but, I think, so did other generals of the day. --Martin Osterman 12:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I don't think this is all that important, both of those sources merely state 'died of war wounds' and don't specify the actual cause of death. Perhaps someone romanticized his death and others are copying the claim. I checked Pullen's biography by searching on Amazon and found he suffered throughout his life from the wound (which left a "fistula on the base of his penis" and affected his marital life) and from malaria that he contracted during the war. So it is arguable whether his wound directly caused an 84-year-old man to die or whether he died of somwething unstated while complaining about the effects of the wound. Hal Jespersen 15:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this is something that could be researched a bit, then. I do admit that my sources never specified what the actual cause of death was... which now makes me more interested than before. --Martin Osterman 16:47, 7 December 2005

(UTC)

For what it's worth to you guys, the book Twentieth Maine says he was shot through both directions of his hips, shattering his pelvis, and causing bowel complications, and that is what he is supposed to have died of. --S. Gentry, 12 June 2006

• It's actually a pretty well documented subject and in fact is not "arguable," as stated above. The wound he received at Petersburg affected him for the rest of his life, and, yes, he actually did die from the wound, or complications arising from it (you might say a combination of the wound and old age) - purportedly making him the last veteran to die from wounds sustained in the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.82.46 (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for recent edits HLJ

Looks great! SimonATL 21:32, 27 April 2006 (UTC) —

Chamberlain's wounds were the subject of an article in the Journal of Urology, March 2000, pp 713-716. A summary of the article appears here: http://medicine.hallowed-grounds.com/october2000.htm

71.16.157.130 21:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)J. Raeder

Appreciate this, and I have taken the liberty of adding it to the article, with citation. --Dumarest 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC) You may have to create an id for J.of U.

The above link to J. of U. article no longer works...well at least for me. Try http://www.jurology.com/article/S0022-5347(05)67789-0/pdf Some stories about JLC may be apocryphal, nevertheless, he was a hell of a man. fokker55

Redirect

I would like to suggest the addition of a redirect to this article from a search of "Lawrence Chamberlain" because by reading Civil War novels such as Killer Angels, one would search Lawrence Chamberlain, and expect to find this page

Done. Hal Jespersen 15:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Gettysburg movie quote

"The inspiration of a noble cause involving human interests wide and far enables men to do things that they did not dream themselves capable of before and which they were not capable of alone. The consciousness of belonging vitally to something beyond individuality, of being part of a personality that reaches we know not where in space and time, brightens the heart to the limit of the soul's ideal and builds out the supreme character." as quoted by Stephen Covey in the 8th Habit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.72.56 (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"This is a different kind of army. If you look at history you'll see men fight for pay, or women, or some other kind of my dog ate my paprerloot. They fight for land, or because a king makes them, or just because they like killing. But we're here for something new. This hasn't happened much in the history of the world. We are an army out to set other men free. America should be free ground, from here to the Pacific Ocean. No man has to bow, no man born to royalty. Here we judge you by what you do, not by who your father was. Here you can be something. Here you can build a home. But it's not the land. There's always more land. It's the idea that we all have value, you and me. What we're fighting for, in the end, is each other. Sorry. Didn't mean to preach." -Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

I was wondering if this a real quote by him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SlayerOfChainer (talk • contribs) .

You might try looking over at wikiquote. You can also try a google search on one of the more memorable parts of that quote. My guess is that this isn't a real quote. It doesn't feel like what quotes I have read by Chamberlain, and it feels like language of the 2000s more than of the 1860s. GRBerry 12:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

–That part of the movie script was taken nearly word-for-word from the novel, Killer Angels. I don't know if the book's author, Michael Shaara, was quoting Col. Chamberlain directly, although that seems unlikely. Still, Shaara used letters, memoirs and other published materials as the basis for the thoughts and words of the characters (Lee, Longstreet etc) in the book, so it's possible that he may have based his rendering of Col. Chamberlain's speech to the group of reluctant soldiers (if it actually happened) on Col. Chamberlain's or somebody else's recollection of the incident.207.59.159.138 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) J. Raeder

The actual speech was a product of Shaara's pen. Chamberlain's records merely showed that he spoke to the men and offered to help them with their situation. It should also be noted that the men of the 2^nd were transferred to the 20^th on 24 May rather than over a month later as Shaara wrote it, and that in the end all but two of the men ended up choosing to fight for the 20^th. As for those two men, they were court-martialed, but their sentences were remitted through the efforts of Colonel Chamberlain. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Confederate Surrender

I think the statement that Chamberlain was "informed that of all the officers in the Federal Army, General Grant had selected Chamberlain to preside over the ceremony of surrender and parole of the Confederate infantry . . . ." is incorrect. By the time of the surrender ceremony the "Official Records" indicate that only the Fifth Corps was at Appomattox, so the pool of officers was reduced, and according the Warner's "Generals in Blue," Chamberlain's division commander, General Bartlett, received the "stacked arms" of the Confederates. Chamberlain said he commanded the "parade." Furthermore Grant didn't mention Chamberlain in his report in the Official Records or in his memoirs. Is there any original source that supports Chamberlain's claim that he was either chosen by Grant or that Grant approved General Griffin's choice? Levelpuddle039 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made some adjustments and added some citations. Feel free to make modifications. Hal Jespersen 00:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Warner does not give any citation for his claim about General Bartlett, nor do the Official Records show any specific duty which he was to be performing that day. Indeed, despite frequent claims to the contrary, there doesn't seem to be any record anywhere that Joseph Bartlett was anything but an observer to the surrender ceremony. If he was to receive the "stacked arms", then one must remember that the stacking of those arms was an integral part of the surrender itself and happened under the authority of General Chamberlain. Any receipt of those arms was, by necessity, merely a clerical function after the fact, similar to filling out paroles for Confederate personnel. As for who chose Chamberlain to accept the formal surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia, Chamberlain himself was never actually sure whether it was Griffin, Gibbon, and Merritt (who were Grant's chosen commissioners), or if Grant himself had suggested it. While he was under the impression that Grant had made the ultimate decision, he also "had reason to believe that General Griffin had something to do with General Grant's kind remembrance." (JLC: Passing of the Armies) IcarusPhoenix (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The text of the surrender differs greatly from the Wiki on the Battle of Appomatox Courthouse (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Battle_of_Appomattox_Courthouse), the text of which follows.

The momentous meaning of this occasion impressed me deeply. I resolved to mark it by some token of recognition, which could be no other than a salute of arms. Well aware of the responsibility assumed, and of the criticisms that would follow, as the sequel proved, nothing of that kind could move me in the least. The act could be defended, if needful, by the suggestion that such a salute was not to the cause for which the flag of the Confederacy stood, but to its going down before the flag of the Union. My main reason, however, was one for which I sought no authority nor asked forgiveness. Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other bond;—was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a Union so tested and assured?

Instructions had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier's salutation, from the "order arms" to the old "carry"—the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly, making with himself and his horse one uplifted figure, with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual,—honor answering honor. On our part not a sound of trumpet more, nor roll of drum; not a cheer, nor word nor whisper of vain-glorying, nor motion of man standing again at the order, but an awed stillness rather, and breath-holding, as if it were the passing of the dead!

– Joshua L. Chamberlain, Passing of the Armies, pp. 260-61

Cathsteve2002 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have collected all of the regimental histories and find all the regiments still in service on that date confirm Chamberlain accepted the surrender. Even regiments that came after Chamberlain left the third brigade and had every right to be loyal to the man they served primarily under, General Bartlett. One of these the 118th PA states, ″General Griffin and General Gibbon had sent for General Chamberlain on the night of the 11th and informed him that he was to command the parade on the occasion of the surrender of Lee's army. The general then asked for his old command, with which he had been constantly identified until he was detached to command the 1st Brigade at Petersburg, where he was so severely wounded.″ To browse all the regimental histories please visit www.joshualawrencechamberlain.com/regimental.php Suzenatale (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Under Chamberlain's Flag ext link advice please?

Hi. An editor took out this ext link: Under Chamberlain's Flag - “The Story of the 198th P.A. and 185th N.Y. Volunteers" - it's dead, after all. I've put it back in and marked it dead, which is what I think is policy. I've also undertaken to look for an archive copy at the Wayback Machine, as it's not there (yet?). On the other hand, the book is not exactly all over the internet - though you can get copies (at a hefty price) on Amazon and Abebooks. It may have been a self-published work, though I do not know if this is relevant or to what extent. All in all, I don't know if it's a link that should have been in in the first place or is worth preserving, and I don't have the expertise to be able to assess this, though my default position would be to err on the side of inclusion. Do you have a view please? Thanks DBaK (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice is to delete it. An external links bears the burden of proof that it is reliable and if you cannot even access it, that proof is impossible. I have no idea from the name of the link whether it is an information site, a book review, a merchandising site for a book, the text of a book, or a blog. At least three of those categories would be ineligible for listing here at all. If this were a well-known site that was temporarily off-line, the dead link template makes sense, but in this case it is the equivalent of litter on the side of the road. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you: I have zapped it having read that very clear statement. It's there in the edit history if anyone needs to get back to it. I was I think perhaps overzealous in rescuing it! Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

How did Chamberlain receive the Medal of Honor? I thought commissioned officers were not allowed to receive it until 1915. Emperor001 (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite a number of commissioned officers received the medal in the 1890s. According to http://www.cmohs.org/medal-history.php, Congress passed a law on March 3, 1863, that allowed the practice, modifying the 1862 law that originated the medal. As far as I am aware, it was not considered appropriate to award them to officers during the war because for the most part they received brevet promotions for gallant (and sometimes not so gallant) service. Hal Jespersen (talk) 01:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, he recieved the Medal of Honor for his actions on Little Round Top. He ordered his men to charge down the hill and swept the opposing force back. Although it must be mentioned that the criteria for recieving a MOH were not as stringent then as they are today. They were basically giving them away during that war. I can't complain though. My Great Great Grandfather recieved one as well.Jojhutton (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

 **What are all those other medals he's wearing in the photo of him in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.81.2 (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC) 

Battlefield Promotion

I have removed a parenthetical statement regarding General Chamberlain's battlefield promotion by General Grant which state that this promotion was "the only one he ever made". In addition to being unsourced, this is also incorrect. Emory Upton had previously received the same honor at Spotsylvania Court House, though Chamberlain's commission was delivered to him with somewhat more alacrity. It is worth noting that Grant's statement in his Memoirs about this incident ("...I promoted him on the spot") was very likely the last thing he added to the book, at least according to Bruce Catton, who examined the original manuscript some decades ago. Grant dies only a few days later.
--IcarusPhoenix (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Animation concerning the Battle of Gettysburg is not linkspam

The external link showing the Battle of Gettysburg, a section of which is devoted to Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top, cannot be considered linkspam. The Gettysburg engagement is frequently associated with Chamberlain throughout the entry. The link has been rephrased to more closely indicate Little Round Top is a section of the animation, if not the entire subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAnth (talk • contribs) 06:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor that this link adds nothing of substance to the entry on Chamberlain, and I have removed it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your definition of substance. It details his actions on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg, an act which he is most famous for in his own personal history. The Battle of Gettysburg is also mentioned repeatedly throughout the article. There are no advertisements on the page, so it really can't be considered linkspam due to it's lack of financial gain via clickthrough from the wiki article.SuperAnth (talk• contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperAnth (talk ) 18:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was linkspam. However, it's a very glancing treatment of the subject, with hardly a mention of Chamberlain. It doesn't belong in his bio, and given the lack of gravitas, doesn't belong in an entry on the battle either. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to confess I"m curious; what do you mean by "gravitas"?

--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 03:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments of MarmadukePercy. His judgment about gravitas was probably prompted by the use of the tiny toy soldier icons to represent large units, rather than the more traditional battle lines and unit identifications that are more widely used in maps and animations. The very first animation shows what purports to be a detailed approach of units to the battlefield, but contains a number of inaccuracies. (You can see what I mean by looking at the campaign map in the battle article.) The actions on July 1 are not correct in unit movement and time sequence. (I did not bother to watch much more.) Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to agree that the Little Round Top animation is buried deeper than I'd expected. Especially because both Maraduke and Hal are in agreement about it.

--24.91.154.25 (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Lost Regiment

I've reverted the reference to William R. Forstchen's "Lost Regiment" series. The main character is an homage by Forstchen, and it no more faint and tangential than Tim Owen's song about Chamberlain; in neither work are their names mentioned. The Lost Regiment article specifically references Chamberlain and the 20th Maine as well. SuperAnth (talk

I've replaced the Lost Regiment reference. "citation needed" tags don't mean an entry expires after a set time period; if you think an information reference needs a citation, you may need to find it on your own. Isn't putting a time period on a needed citation arbitrary? The Chamberlain connection is valid and referenced in the "The Lost Regiment" wiki article as well.--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Bloody Chamberlain

The term "Bloody Chamberlain" Can someone add a citation for this? I have never come across this term except for on this site. Is this possibly from a novel or is this based from some source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzenatale (talk • contribs) 06:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I've never seen it either, so I'll probably excise it the edit. The whole section in which it falls is a complete mess anyway, and I've long been planning a complete overhaul of the article, so when I finally get around to that part, it's likely the "Bloody Chamberlain" reference will vanish. IcarusPhoenix (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Name

The book "Gods and Generals" said he was born Lawrence Joshua Chamberlain, but he then switched them because he thought is sounded more formal, but he preferred to be called Lawrence as most of his family did. Was this true or was it one of those things that Shaara improvised on? If true, shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? Emperor001 (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed true, though if added to the article one should reference Trulock or Pullen rather than Shaara of course. --IcarusPhoenix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC).

I now have some doubt about his original name after reading his autobiography. Chamberlain claims his name was originally only Lawrence Chamberlain, but years later "when about to be written on public records, the mother, loyal to her husband's house, wished to prefix... Joshua." I am under the impression the the public records Turlock or someone found, I don't have their books right now infront of me, listed the name Lawrence Joshua Chamberlain. By prefix I would think it to be the front not the middle. If someone has the public record or Trulock's references this can be cleared up. Suzenatale (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I checked Trulock, she says the family bible records him as Lawrence Joshua Chamberlain. I'm still not clear on what he meant in his autobiography by "public record" he was listed in the 1850 census as Joshua Lawrence, but by then he was already at school writing his name as "J. Lawrence." --Suzenatale (talk) 03:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Little Round Top Charge

There is a seven part TV documentary whiy deals with the Civil War Battles. In part four a historian states that Chamberlain read about a similar situation during the Napoleonic Wars.

A French force on a Hill was attacked by a Austrian Force and chargend downwards. (One of the Battles of Caldiero, there were several fought). Further Ch. never clamied that he has led the actual charged.

Civil War Battles 4/7 its available on DVD at Amazon. --37.24.12.14 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

What you're talking about is a long-standing controversy; however, long-standing though it may be, it didn't actually start until forty years after the events in question, was borne of a claim made by a single officer of the 20th Maine (whose own family said he was suffering from dementia) changing his story and giving credit to an officer who was no longer alive to answer one way or the other, and has generally been regarded as an over-blown misinterpretation of what really happened; it's worth noting that Chamberlain himself made it quite clear that the charge was an act of desperation on his part, borne of a junior officer's request to collect his wounded (Holman Melcher, the same officer who Ellis Spear later claimed had actually led the charge, though Melcher never made any such claim himself), and that he was by no means the first man down the hill (which is I think what you mean by "led"; Colonel Chamberlain ordered the charge, but he did not lead it in the strictest sense, being as he was near the center of the line rather than the left which he ordered to move first).

Civil War Battles was made nearly thirty years ago, before the vast majority of scholarship on Chamberlain's life was written; to this day, only one major work has ever credited any officer other than Chamberlain with conceiving and ordering the charge, and it has generally been dismissed by academia as poorly-researched and full of unsupported conclusions. As for the claim that he read about the charge in Napoleonic literature, I can not answer to the specifics, having not seen the documentary in question in at least twenty years; however, both Chamberlain's earlier decision to refuse his line (something that this article fails to address - one of many things which needs correction) and his decision to use his right-angled left-flank to his advantage and order a swinging charge were textbook maneuvers, and Chamberlain - ever the academic - had absorbed pretty much every manual on tactics the era had to offer. Combining the two actions was rather novel, and neither action had ever been used in quite that manner either in North America nor in the post-Napoleonic era (you have to remember that in that mere fifty years, the technology of warfare had changed immensely, and Napoleonic tactics generally had no hope of success... as the next day of the battle would demonstrate so effectively). It was the action of refusing the line that Chamberlain had learned from Napoleonic warfare, not the charge itself; charging down a hill is hardly a Napoleonic tactic. Indeed, it's a tactic that predates Sun Tzu. It was the nature of the charge in the context of the time in which it was made that made it so remarkable.IcarusPhoenix (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The fact is that Ch. didn't had any formal training as a field officer, less as a commanding officer of a battailion sized force. In terms he was nothing more than a "gentry" who raised his own unit to join the army. He was just a more intelligent one. Many tactics from the early 18th century saw a revival in the Eastern Theatres of the Civil War. Mostly, for the lack of tactical communication devices. --37.24.8.147 (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits removing remarks about Chamberlain being unschooled in military strategies and science

All - two recent edits have removed remarks that Chamberlain had "no earlier education in military strategies" and was "not trained in military science," ostensibly because military science did not exist while Chamberlain was alive. Clausewitz, Jomini, and West Point were already extant in warfare during the Civil War, so I have to disagree that military science was not a matter of study. I propose to put the descriptions back, but seek consensus first. user:JMOprof ©¿©¬ 14:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joshua Chamberlain. 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/20060201231747/http://www.joshua.lurker00.com/ to http://www.joshua.lurker00.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051228133938/http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/articles/chamberlain1.aspx to http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/gettysburg/articles/chamberlain1.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joshua Chamberlain. 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/20080219012927/http://www.wickedgoodmaine.com/facts/history/chamberlain.shtml to http://www.wickedgoodmaine.com/facts/history/chamberlain.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090814010747/http://community.curtislibrary.com/pejepscot.htm to http://community.curtislibrary.com/pejepscot.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ref

There was a reference without explanation before the first word of this article, so here is it: SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Second Cousin of Samuel Chamberlain

Samuel Chamberlain and Joshua Chamberlain were second cousins.

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Joshua_Chamberlain http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI286.html

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Samuel_Chamberlain http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI570.html

Their fathers were first cousins: http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI284.html http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI493.html

and their grandfathers were brothers: http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI283.html http://www.dchamberlain.net/genealogy/indiI485.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.241.69 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The Butterfly Effect

It should be mentioned that Joshua Chamberlain was single-handedly responsible for the Allied victory in WWII as explained by Andy Andrews in his book The Butterfly Effect.

- AAEexecutive (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)