Talk:Union Army

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] 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.

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).

[edit] 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)

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

* * * * *

[edit] 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)