Talk:Union Army/Archive 1

Archive 1

Debatable figures

[Editorial commentary moved from article section Ethnic Groups in the Union Army on September 27, 2006]

These figures are debatable and can only be considered a guide as there were no real in depth studies done and various figures estimated, for instance Irish are given as usually between 145,000 and 200,000 a very large deviation.

The usually quoted figure for Irish Born participents in the Union Army is 140,000 (See Osprey's Irish Units of the American Civil War). 50,000 is the usually quoted figure for the Confederacy. Neither of these figures counts first or sdecond generation Americans of Irish Descent. That said the Web site used by this author to come up with these figures is rather dubious and has many errors (it list the Fenian Invasion of Canada as being commanded by Meagher, it was actually Colonel John O'Neill). A better more difinitive source for these figures should be found.

--- 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)

Just FYI - The figures for the Irish refer generally to 1st and 2nd generation Irish Catholics, with a much smaller number of Protestant 1st generation Irish. The proportionately large numbers of Protestant Irish immigrants of the 18th and early 19th Century, and their descendents, would be listed under Native born of British descent. Comparatively few Irish Catholics arrived in large numbers before the famine, and their religion somewhat impeded their integration into the nativist identity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iol (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

The previous poster is falling victim to the myth that few Irish Catholics emmigrated to the United States in the 18th Century. I refer him to O'Brien's book on the Irish in the American Revolution. Thousands of Irish Catholics had been transported to America as part of Cromwell's ethnic cleansing. Population records in the 18th Century were usually Church records and since the Catholic Church was banned in all the Colonies prior to the Revolution, Irish Catholics would be undercounted (as they would not appear on Protestant Church Roles).

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)

Desertion section

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)

Apparently different authors are at work here. You are welcome to edit either or both articles, although I would suggest that comparability across articles is not an explicit goal. Hal Jespersen 22:22, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The following text was added by mr. Jim McManus (not logged in), which disputes the neutrality of this text. As it hasn't been written in the NPOV style and no sources have been cited, I've removed it from the main page and placed here for review. -- MiG 17:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The best data on desertion in both armies is Lonn, Ella; Desertion in the Civil War; American Historical Association (1928). It makes sorry reading though; giving typical absentee rates of 50% or more. For example, at Antietam the Army of the Potomac was nominally 180,000 strong, but only 90,000 were present, the remainder were in hospital (20,000) or had absented themselves (70,000). Two hours after the battle it is reported that another 30,000 Union soldiers had absented themselves. Lonn also reports that the contemporary commanders thought that foreign born soldiers were more likely to absent themselves. 67th Tigers 10:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This section on desertions is a good example of how bigotry gets inserted into an open encyclopedia.

The Union army didn't keep track of the ethnic identity of its deserters -- Frederick Kohl re St. Claire Mulholland's inquiries. We do know, however, that immigrants including the Irish won a large number of the Civil War's Medals of Honor and that that parameter is highly correlated with enlistments and combat mortalities. In the numerous pages of court martial records I've seen the names are pretty diversely American.

Most of the New York City's population including the Irish didn't participate in the 1863 draft riots, which went unchecked because the city's militia had been sent to Pennsylvania in June 1863. Most of the dead were the rioters and bystanders. According to Adrian Cook's thorough investigation, Armies of the Streets, it wasn't an Irish riot and the dead totalled about 120.

Gangs of New York is a piece of anti-immigrant propaganda written at the time Al Smith was running for president. It's a testimony to bigotry and the prejudices of the British Isles that anyone would cite it as a reference in any way shape or form.

Southern sympathies of the Irish? William Techumseh Sherman, Phil Sheridan, George Gordon Meade, who led the Union army at Gettysburg, and Dennis Hart Mahan were all raised by Irish Catholic families. It is true that Sherman was sympathetic to his many Southern friends, but he had a peculiar way of showing it. Sheridan turned the Shenandoah into a wasteland.

Jim McManus, Phoenix, Arizona. slante9@msn.com

* * * * *

Notable units

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)

Hi. you have a point., However, since the point of this article, (or any such broad article) is to give others an overview to enable them to learn more on their own, I feel it does make sense to include just a few notable units which might give the average reader a glimpse of what some notable units were. The two chosen are good as examples of which units were notable, and why. And I would not suggest attempting to include every unit which was notable, as you rightly point out. I suppose if I were planning to add anything to the list, it might be the Zoaves, or the fighting 69th, and one or two others. After that, I would suggest that readers visit the relevant categories for more on individual units. --Steve, SM8900 16:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

edits May 27

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)

Hardee's "Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics" (1855)

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)

West Pointers - quality v. quantity

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)

I would not recommend this article to any one to use in a history paper

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)

Military tactics, not strategy

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)

Good point. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

How Many From Each State?

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)

Regular Army

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)

Sentence 1 is correct and the regular army were indeed mixed into the various Corps (maybe you are thinking at the company and regimental level?). Sentences 2 & 3 are unlikely (I'd put a {{who?}} tag on those to find out who considered them elite. First Bull Run (First Manassas) was a Confederate victory and there are no accolades for regulars as a group there. Back to sentence 1: after Mclellan was replaced, Burnside reorganized the army and then when Hooker replaced Burnside, they were reorganized again and so on. Different commanders had different ideas about the best structure and they changed things several times during the war.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I am removing "units" then, and retaining "formations", since the first term would indicate a regiment. Luke (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)