Jump to content

Talk:United States Colored Troops/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Thornton Chase

Suggesting adding Thornton Chase's bio somewhere here.

Who knows...

Anyone know what would happen to a black soldier captured by the confederacy? Angrynight 15:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Check out Italic textBlack Flag over DixieItalic text edited by Gregory J.W. Urwin. The fate of captured black Union soldiers varied from immediate execution, being sold back into slavery, or being held as a prisoner of war along with white soldiers.

End of USCT designation?

When did the designation "United States Colored Troop" end? There were Regular Army black infantry and cavalry regiments until after WW 2. But they weren't named USCT. Was the term USCT only used for units raised during the Civil War?--TGC55 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I suspect that had more to do with the reorganization of the Army than anything else. In the early part of the 1900s, the National Guard regiments were renamed as well (example, 1st Missouri Infantry Regiment might be renamed 67th Infantry Regiment). My guess is that we got rid of the USCT at the same time. 138.162.128.53 (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the threat of retaliaion prevented the execution threat from being carried out or limited. I'm not sure that 54th Mass was part of US Colored Troops, which were federally raised wiht officers appointed by examination. 54th Mass was a state regiment.

Peter Reilly 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Runaways

Is there any solid info on the prominence of former runaway slaves in black regiments during the war? where is that table on all the different states from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.81.83.231 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Name

In the body of the article United States Colored Troops has been edited to United States Troops of Color. If something had an official name, I think it should be retained regardless of it's being considered offensive. One solution might be insertinb (sic) after the name to indicate the offensiveness of the name by contemporary standards. Certainly their is a problem with putting the sbustitute in caps, since it is a name that didn't exist historically. Further compounding the confusion is some units like the First South Carolina Volunteers that were segregated units that were not initially considered USCT (sic).

It should definitely be "United States Colored Troops", that was the official name and it is the name still used in sources about the units. I have changed it back in the article. jwillbur 02:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the link to the Lincoln Brigade of the Spanish Civil War. While many of the links have little to do with the USCT, this one had absolutely nothing to do with them. 138.162.128.54 (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

So, when I ask for proof you deleted it and deny it. Yet, claim “not relevant” when I provide historical account of the UST "Notable" atrocities. You want to make the claim that General Grant made a decision to stop prisoner exchange based solely on Southerners refusing to exchange black prisoners when he clearly stated on several occasions:

On April 17, 1864, Union General Ulysses S. Grant decided to stop the prisoner exchange. His logic for this termination of the program was that every rebel prisoner who is exchanged “becomes an active soldier against us at once either directly or indirectly.”

On August 18, 1864, General Grant sent a dispatch to General Butler stating; "It is hard on our men held in Southern prisons not to exchange them, but it is humanity to those left in the ranks to fight our battles. Every man released on parole or otherwise becomes an active soldier against us at once, either directly or indirectly. If we commence a system of exchange which liberates all prisoners taken, we will have to fight on until the whole South is exterminated."

You falsely accuse Confederate government of having a blanket law regarding execution of USCT based partially on the movie “Glory” when the only proclamation was issued in December 1862 (ADJT. AND INSP. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Richmond [Va.], December 24, 1862. GENERAL ORDERS, No. 111. ) by President Jefferson Davis against ONLY General Butlers and his officers who at the time where murdering, raping and stealing blind New Orleans and LA. The only effect on blacks where those who were KNOWN slaves were to be returned to their respective States and owners. You are promoting falsehood and outright lies to make it seem as f the USCT were some kind of saintly element of the US military. You are afraid the whole truth will get out while claiming others are re-writng history.

This statement by Mgpthoc moved from article to this talk page by Dwalls (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Your source uses McPherson. I quoted from actual sources, yet you are denying them? Why? If McPherson disagrees with actual sources does that not question his "history" interpretations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.173.167.20 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of Union "Colored Troops" by state, North and South

I asked for a cite check on the North and South numbers in this section. It indicates some 72k "colored" soldiers for the North and some 93k "colored" soldiers fought for the South. The North figure seems low and the Southern figure seems outlandish. I will check back and if it is not fixed or cited properly, then it will be removed. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't say they fought for the South, just that they were from there, and presumably recruited there. Most blacks lived in the South, after all. The table's total, 179k, is consistent with the earlier "over 178,000 free blacks and freed slaves".
—WWoods (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay. This needs to be made clear and a cite is still needed. Thank you for the explanation. I remember a figure of just under 200K, so that 179K is probably more accurate. My primary concern dealt with a rash of revisionist propaganda regarding "tens of thousands of black confederates" fighting for the south in some CW forums. While small numbers of "colored" served they were usually in the same unit of their slave owner/master. And yes, a few mulattos were found in militia units. However, there is no documentation of any "colored" fighting unit in the CSA. Jrcrin001 (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually there is a "unit" late war protecting Gen Gordon's train. There are also "units" at training camps after Battle of Natural Bridge in FL outside of Tallahssee, FL. But there in lines the real issue, you are just looking for "units." Blacks, while many were "servants" (just as in northern army)and dug holes and cooked (just as in US) many were intergrated into Southern "units" as individual States didn't need permission from federal gov't to have blacks in their fighting forces, as did US. Men like Dallas Mosses died while attacking USS Waterwitch. There are accounts of at least 2 servants of CS Marines fighting along side their men. The info is there, if one looks for it. And it was the Southern States that took care of thei old - black and white - after US abandoned them in their old age. Much like the Black Southerners who appeared at 1913 reunion at Gettysburg with no place to stay - as yanks didn't expect them. They stayed with their "own" - the Southerners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgpthoc (talk • contribs) 11:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the figures in this section need to be referenced. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 16:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted first paragraph under Legacy

The Federal government did not address pensions for USCT veterans in 1890. Section 14 of the Pension Act: June 18, 1866 - Revision of the July 14, 1862 Act provided that colored soldiers and their wives and children are entitled to pensions. It also deals with the problem that "negro marriages" prior to the CW were not considered as sacred as white marriages (being discarded by a slaveowner either directly or by selling off one of the couple).

The 1890 Disability Act provided that any applicant, white or black, could get a pension just for being injured or sick - before that the disability had to come from active duty in order for an applicant to collect. A 1912 law extended pensions to persons reaching 62. Both the 1890 law and the 1912 law applied to white and black applicants.

It seems the original poster got all these laws mixed together when he/she concluded "After the Civil War, many USCT veterans struggled for recognition and had difficulty obtaining the pensions rightful to them. The Federal government did not address the inequality until 1890 and many of the veterans did not receive service and disability pensions until the early 1900’s." Clearly, Congress addressed the racial inequality in 1866. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.244.91 (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

citations needed?

I think I will remove the "citations needed" tag at the top of the article. There are 16 footnotes and a half dozen books in further reading. Sure - the references can be improved, but it's like most articles it's not in a critical state. That said, where does the "10% of union strength" come from? The totals given here (see 2 sections above) are about 250,000 (now), which would suggest total union strength of about 2,500,000. something doesn't add up. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Edits by HDLShrsmn

Regarding this change[1], the broken citation seems to be from Aptheker (1947). I don't think the changes match Aptheker: 179,000 for the total number of soldiers is not more accurate than 180,000, as Aptheker also adds in 7,000 officers, giving a total of a little over 186,000. That said, Aptheker is really quoting Dyer's compendium (1908), and flipping through the 1908 compendium, I don't see which page the officer number is from. I am also not aware off hand if there is a more recent reliable estimate, which might be preferred. Overall, I don't think much of the material added followed policy, in particular that content not include original research and be verifiable. The edit states that 15 USCT received a medal of honor, but later in the article the number is given as 18. The edit quote from Aptheker, but do not provide the full quote, so it would be impossible for someone not already familiar with it to find. The edit states that USCT troops were not considered equal and black soldiers were often exposed to more difficult conditions without any citation. I think adding the number of troops and MoH grantees to the lede seems fine. I also think adding the number of casualties to the body and the relative devastation to the lede sounds fine as well. I will try to clean it up on that basis. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about that too much, its a good thing to keep in mind in the future, though. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Certainly there were many instances of unequal treatment and overall USCT were treated worse than white troops. Aptheker is a fine reference for that, if you look at how he makes the point and use that to inform your edit, I'm sure it will be fine. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


Possible sollution to 7,000 officers issue. This [[2]] states, less than a hundred officers were colored. Apotheker (1947) might have included white officers who led the USCT in his final tally. HDLShrsmn (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC) Michael Bradly, the author of that page, is a reliable source I think. However, he isn't really making an effort to tally the soldiers, so I'd hesitate to conclude from his article very much about the total number of USCT, I think approximately 180,000 with the state-by-state breakdown cited to Gladston (originally from Dyer) is fair for now. Some mention of black officers is probably warranted, though. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Colored_Troops/Archive_1&oldid=1115589110"