![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
[Editorial commentary moved from article section Ethnic Groups in the Union Army on September 27, 2006]
--- The "usually quoted figure." If you know your stuff, you'd know the source for the 140,000 figure: It's The Sanitary Commission Report of 1869 - Investigations in the Military and Anthropological Statistics of American Soldiers. Their actual number is 144,221 with an acknowledgement that it is just an estimate and for only the volunteer units, given that only about 60% of the state volunteer soldiers had a birthplace recorded on their enlistment records. Moreover, the state volunteer estimate does not include the regular army units, the navy, marines or even the all the militia units that made up the Union army at Bull and during other emergencies. It observes: "The materials available for forming a trustworthy estimate of the nativities, and even the nationalities of our soldiers have been very meager ... It was not until the war was waged for some time that the State or country of birth was systematically required upon the enlistment rolls." So be clear about what you're claiming and quote primary sources. The only systematic primary source on a comprehensive estimate I know of is mine ~200,000, based on statistical analysis of primary sources, including Medal of Honor and state records. Avoid the subject altogether if you want to avoid "grievances."
"The call for volunteers initially was easily met by patriotic Northerners, abolitionists, and even immigrants who enlisted for a steady income and meals. Over 10,000 Germans in New York and Pennsylvania immediately responded to Lincoln's call, and the French were also quick to volunteer." If you don't want grievances, avoid the the appearance that you're promoting specific ethnic groups and avoid Nativist claims regarding why about why immigrants enlisted. Enlistees in units from heavily immigrant New York State, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts appear to have suffered a disproportionate number of KIAs during 1861-1862, based on analysis of Fox's Regimental Losses unit tables.
I suggest that people with more interest in ethnic grievances and conflicts than I have review the material regarding the Irish and the African Americans in the paragraph about the New York City draft riots. I question whether this material belongs in an article about the Army, but will await judgments from others. Hal Jespersen 14:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the questioned ethnic composition figures from the lead, but left them in the ethnic group section. The ethnic composition of the Union army is not it's most striking characteristic, and even if the figures were known to be correct, they would not be appropriate for inclusion in the lead, especially as short a lead as in this article. The citation of only three ethnic groups (Irish, black, American Indian) is also odd. The ethnic group section itself is a disaster, with scarcely any citations, a spurious precision, contradictory numbers, and confusion among ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, and place of birth. Almost the whole section could be struck as wholly undocumented, but I leave it so that other editors who have access to reliable sources might be able to reconstruct an accurate and well-cited section. MayerG ( talk) 03:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
The desertion section is oddly large, especially considering that the Confederate sister article makes no mention of the practice at all. - Plasticbadge 21:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written like a
personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (December 2007) |
I would recommend deleting this section. There were many dozens of units from regiments to Corps that were "notable." Listing them here with a paragraph description each does not seem worth it. Do others agree? Hal Jespersen 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I started off fixing the lead paragraph from a recent edit, but found a number of other problems that needed attention. The statement in the lead paragraph about all of the officers who left the U.S. Army is false, as described in the final paragraph of the section Formation. The description of McClellan's relief was wrong. The description of the end of the war confuses Grant's unconditional surrender reputation from Fort Donelson (and Lee's surrender -- let alone the entire Confederacy -- was not really unconditional anyway. The Confederacy never formally surrendered. Its armies surrendered and the government simply dissolved.) The material about peace entreaties since 1863 was inaccurate and not necessary for an article about the Army. It portrayed the Overland Campaign and Siege of Petersburg incorrectly. I also removed the Notable Units section. I thought about cleaning up the unit descriptions and improving the writing to be acceptable, but since I think that the notion of this section is impractical to begin with, I did not think it was worth it. Hal Jespersen 00:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to include a section on W. J. Hardee regarding his tactics written prior to the start of the war, and how it was used on such a large scale by both Union and Confederate armed infantry, despite him being a secessionist. Does anyone have any objections? Or should I post this on a different page?
--Patrick Brenner
Pmbrenner91 ( talk) 17:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
The key issue was not the number of regulars or ex-regulars who joined the Confederates. It was the caliber of these officers - many of the best leaders in America. Valetude ( talk) 12:27, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
from the national park service
it cannot be forgotten, however, that the Irish did not serve in ethnic regiments alone. Throughout the Union army, Irishmen and their sons served with distinction. General Philip Sheridan was born of Irish parents and Generals James Shields and Robert Nugent were both Irish-born. With over 150,000 native Irish in uniform and countless thousands of Irish descent, the Irish fought their way to recognition in the United States through their service in the Civil War. While some anti-Irish sentiment continued through to the twentieth century, the service of men like those in the Irish Brigade brought the waves of Irish immigrants firmly into the fabric of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:8241:5600:C546:16AC:6FAF:2AD2 ( talk) 17:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The section titled Military Strategy should be renamed Military Tactics. The information in the section's two paragraphs deals exclusively with weapons technology and the tactics used to employ it. How far soldiers are spaced in battle formations, whether they rush or march, etc.. is tactics, not strategy. If you want to talk strategy, this section should cover General Scott's Anaconda Plan, the naval blockade, etc... Haberreiter ( talk) 16:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't really know where to look for the info, but it would help to hava a state-by-state breakdown and to have some way of comparing Union and Confederate recruitment in individual states. The article on United States Colored Troops provides figures for that contingent. Livermore's Numbers and Losses doesn't include the data. 74.96.172.110 ( talk) 01:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
The regular army, the permanent United States Army, was intermixed into various units and formations of the Union Army, forming a cadre of experienced and skilled troops. They were regarded by many as elite troops and often held in reserve during battles in case of emergencies. This force was quite small compared to the massive state-raised volunteer forces that comprised the bulk of the Union Army.
This is totally wrong. The regular army was kept separate, no enlisted regulars served in the volunteer troops, and commissioned officers serving with the volunteers were on leave from the regulars. The regular army was hardly an elite, as 25 % of the enlisted regulars deserted during the war, compared to 6 % of the volunteers. Early in the war, say First Bull Run, they might have been a stabilizing force due to being better disciplined, but hardly much later. Luke ( talk) 14:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)