Talk:Francis Marion

Spelling

In the third paragraph, defense was spelled incorrectly.

unsigned comment by User:24.236.100.30 16:54, 16 November 2005 24.236.100.30

Actually, this article is in British English, so defence is correct. --A D Monroe III 01:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Why is this article in British English? This article is about American history - it seems more appropriate that it would be in American English.

Controversy?

Removed from page: British historian Christopher Hibbert said that Marion was "a wily and elusive character, very active in the persecution of the Cherokee Indians and not at all the sort of chap who should be celebrated as a hero. The truth is that people like Marion committed atrocities as bad, if not worse, than those perpetrated by the British."

This comment inserts a POV without any specifics or proof. I have been unable to find any information that links Marion to any atrocities. Whoever put it here, needs to supply some specifics.

Marion's success as a guerilla was only possible with the strong loyalty of the population. Within the Williamsburg area, he was quite safe from the British, as their every move was quickly reported to him. Outside this area, where there were more Tories, this was not true, of course. But Marion's reputation was as a gentleman who could command fiercely loyal troops simply from the force of his character. At one point General Greene, not understanding that Marion's men supplied their own horses, requisitioned horses from him, which he refused to do. It was a tense time between them, with Marion offering his resignation before he would give away the personal property of his own men. Finally Greene came to an understanding and dropped the issue. Such practices were to some extent, the source of the loyalty of his men. Pollinator 16:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Hibbert did say that in an interview, see http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Exclusive/0,,332358,00.html . Or did you mean that Hibbert's assertion needs documenting ? Angus McLellan 16:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you are not quite aware of the meaning of WP:NPOV. Opinions can and should be just not bias, representing all majority and significant minority views fairly. This is the neutral point of view policy.)

The historian cited as a representative of this opinion, Christopher Hibbert, has written numerous high-profile books, one of them specifically about the American Revolution (ISBN 039302895X). This and the fact that the cited article is from one of the UK's most reputed newspapers proves without doubt that his statement represents at the very least a significant minority view.

The fact that you refer to The Guardian as a "pulp magazine" indicates that your knowledge about this publication is not very reliable. I would suggest that you first make yourself more familiar with it by reading the article The Guardian (if you think it to be wrong, then correct it) before doubting this source or removing that link here.

Sure there could be an expanded section about alleged atrocities committed by Marion, but it's not our job here to prove or disprove Hibbert's view, only to verify that it's a notable one. For balance, I am also reinserting the link to the National Review article defending Marion (contrary to your assumption there is no Wikipedia policy not to link to opinion pieces).

regards, High on a tree 13:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The opinion quoted might reflect truth or not, but the opinion exists. --A D Monroe III 14:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

...contrary to your assumption there is no Wikipedia policy not to link to opinion pieces). Just what are you talking about? I also removed a link that defended Marion, because the whole thing is a crock. Once again I ask: What atrocities? We have a historical commission working on his history right now, and the more we study his life, the more regard we have for him. Any evidence of atrocities is only a smattering from sources with an axe to grind - and it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Pollinator 05:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There being no response, I am removing the statement. Simply saying that so-and-so said something is not encyclopedic, especially when there is no evidence to back up the statement. Also, if the Guardian is such a high quality paper, why does it run an article written in the same style as the US pulp rags? Pollinator 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

-USAF 157th squadron, of the South Carolina air national guard, are called the "swamp foxes", presumibly after Marion.

I know that the following isn't proof, but it could lead to it. Consider the following from the trivia page of the IMDB's Patriot page: "Mel Gibson's character was originally scripted to be the real historical figure Francis Marion, "The Swamp Fox", but after historians informed the filmmakers of some of the more sordid aspects of Marion's life (slaughtering Indians, raping his female slaves) they decided to create a fictional story and a more likeable hero." Anyone know more about this? --Happylobster 17:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a modified version of the "controversy" issue to the article. Regardless of which side has the facts, the fact that a dispute exists is encyclopedic and worth mention. I personally don't care who is right, I merely want people to delve deeper into ANY topic. An encyclopedia entry is merely a starting point, as all English teachers love to point out when assigning term papers.

Incidentally, the fact that "so and so said" something doesn't invalidate a topic in an encyclopedia. Re-read your old Britannica's sometime and see how much is hearsay. For example, L. Ron Hubbard is the primary source that said Xenu exists; whether Xenu exists or not is not the point, the whole of Scientology is a coverable topic in an encyclopedia.

Most of history is somewhat subjective; as they say, "history is written by the winners." --Tokalon73 02:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As one might say, Francis Marion is not the "All-American Hero" that many say he is. For example, did you know that he hunts natives for fun? 65.95.113.102 02:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The argument that "a lot of Encyclopedia Britannica is hearsay" isn't relevant -- just because someone else did sloppy fact-checking doesn't excuse us from doing our best to back up our facts. An allegation that he hunted Native Americans for fun needs to be supported with evidence. Please include a citation in the article, preferably something scholarly and backed up with research. --Bookgrrl 02:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm sure you've backed up your facts. The only edit I've made to this page has a citation now. I'd like to see you put citations on all of the other points that are not cited. 65.95.113.102 03:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point you are in violation of 3RR. Where in your citation does it say Francis Marion hunts natives for fun? Thanks, Brian 03:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)btball

Brian - my apologies for the paraphrase. It actually says, "Although controversial, one of his favourite past-times include hunting Native Americans for game." I think this may slightly misleading, since hunting for "game" implies he either ate them or hung them on his walls. Possibly a more correct statement (assuming that this is true in the first place) would be that he hunted them as a game, i.e. for sport? --Bookgrrl 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC) sorry, misunderstood Brian's comment -- I think he and I are both confused as to the applicability of the citation...--Bookgrrl 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

65.95.113.102 - Regarding the added citation, I'm not sure what in the website you've cited actually supports your statement? In that document, I find for example this, which seems to directly contradict your assertion: "Some of our men seemed to enjoy this cruel work, laughing very heartily at the curling flames as they mounted, loud-crackling, over the tops of the huts. But to me it appeared a shocking sight. "Poor creatures!" thought I, "we surely need not grudge you such miserable habitations." He then goes on to talk about the Cherokee children and how they "will return, and peeping through the weeds with tearful eyes, will mark the ghastly ruin poured over their homes, and the happy fields where they had so often played. `Who did this?' they will ask their mothers. `The white people, the Christians did it!' will be the reply." Can you point to a direct quote from this book that supports the allegation? --Bookgrrl 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, neither I nor Bookgrrl can find anything in the citation that supports 65.95.113.102's edits (most recently reverted by admin Rogerd). The assertion by 65.95.113.102 should remain off the article page until discussed and agreed to here on the talk page, when, and if, there is a valid citation for the claim. Brian 03:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)btball

revert war

who is morton, and why is he being continually replaced into the article?

Moving section

I moved the section about the film "The Patriot" because it is not about *Marion's* character, but about the character portrayed by Mel Gibson. Further, it's something that happened hundreds of years later, and not about something contemporary with Marion.

It's certainly pertinent to the article, but it's ancillary and not of primary importance. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You would be perfectly right if Hibbert's comments had been about Benjamin Martin, the fictional character in Robert Rodat's 2000 movie script. However, this is incorrect. Please read the cited references and watch the movie - Hibbert's comments were about the historical person Francis Marion, and your assumption that in the movie Mel Gibson's character persecutes Cherokee Indians and commits war crimes is wrong.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, but I *have* seen the movie, and I *do* understand what the section is saying, and it's still an after-the-fact controversy that doesn't deserve the up-the-article placement it's receiving here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I've edited the section so it clearly pertains to Marion and not the movie. I've left it in it's original placement. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The Movie is about Francis Marion. I have watched it many times and I am sure it is Francis Marion. JesusFreakiv4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.97.200 (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Slave Owner?

Owning slaves was quite common during the time period in which Marion lived and is of no significance to this article. I do not see the need to include it. If anybody objects, please state your arguements. I will remove the section in five days if a valid arguement is not brought to this discussion page. --Grammar Watchdog (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that he held a plantation and owned about 200 slaves was surely important for his professional life. In fact, I think that the article should say more, not less, about this aspect (for example, did he own Pond Bluff plantation until his death, or another one? What kind of crop did he make his living off?). Compare the section in the George Washington article, which has even been made into a separate article.

Another thing to consider: To conceal the fact that Francis Marion was a slave owner, you would also have to remove any mention of Oscar Marion.

Regards, High on a tree (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Valid point, but the line "[slave owner] a situation taken for granted at the time, though made controversial at later periods and up to the present" makes the section have a sort of civil rights undertone. Of course the statement is true, but it does not further this particular article in any way. Perhaps that phrase should be struck from the section. What do you think? --Grammar Watchdog (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed the statement. Sperril (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that you feel as I do. :-) --Grammar Watchdog (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy

Is there a controversy? I am not disputing that Marion committed atrocities, or that they were worse than the British, or that he shouldn't be a hero, but thats my point, who is? Also, more detail is need on where and when and what he did. It seems it is referring only to action against the Cherokees, which was committed as a British subject. Rds865 (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Controversy? What controversy? Francis Marion was indisputably a hero. He made constant raids upon small groups of british and supply lines. He helped foster America into resistance. Concerning him and atrocities of the Indians out in the wilderness it was either you kill the indians or they scalp you. It was survival of the fittest and you therefore have to take it in the context of the times. The Indians continually killed many settlers without distinguishing age, sex, or gender and led many others into captivity to die on death marches across the barren wilderness. I believe Marion was justified in his attacking and killing of the indians and that he was a true hero. Born in the U.S.A ( And a Proud American). April 3 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.97.200 (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, scalping was widely encouraged by European/American powers who paid for scalps during the French and Indian War, which spread the practice to tribes which had not previously practiced it. It does remain uncertain as to whether the concept of scalping was originally introduced to North America by Europeans or natives -- there is evidence for both sides. It did exist in Eurasia before post-Columbus contact. The most ancient scalping cultural practice for which there is evidence was Eurasian (Scythian), and that is clearly documented from 440 BC, loosely the same period as Socrates and only a few hundred miles away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.117 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

General Marion never denied the war against the Cherokee HOWEVER he did write about his personal feelings at his orders to burn the homes and destroy the corn fields. He followed his commander's orders but he hated doing this--unlike some of his fellow soldiers who cheered as the flames destroyed the homes of the Cherokee. When he also had to do this as the Swamp Fox, he gave vouchers to every person who had their home burned or supplies taken. These vouchers were honored by the states after the war was over so the individuals really did not lose anything. General Marion also took the idea of being a hidden soldier from the French & Indian war. He taught his men how to do war the American way -- behind every tree, in every bush and even in leaf litter if he fought the way of many Native American tribes. You can all follow the links by searching the web. All of this information is on the web. Simply put "Francis Marion Swamp Fox" in the search box. Use the "" and it will help restrict your search to the General's information. Swamp Fox Hero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamp Fox Hero (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC) she was a girl!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.206.81.216 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

where dose Francis Marion Live????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gosh could you Plaese tell me where Francis Marion lived i mean really i keep comming to your site but you don 't say where he lived. ive been trying to find out this info for so many hours. i'm not trying to be mean in any way but really could u tell what sites it tells me where he lived because i've been working on this thing for a couple days!!!!!! well im getting tired so by.

Edit request on 14 January 2012

On his tomb it says he died on the 26th of February You guys said he died on the 27th! 24.151.111.18 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done (see below)

Edit request on 14 January 2012

On his tomb it says he died on the 26th of February You guys said he died on the 27th! 24.151.111.18 (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

•  Not done The Smithsonian magazine reference states 27th. His grave marker & the Historical marker shown at the Find a Grave link clearly show the 27th. Dru of Id (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with Dru of Id. The handful of WP:RS I've checked all say the 27th. e.g. [Cate, Alan C. Freedom Fighters: The Battlefield Leaders who Made American Independence. p.164]. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)