Relevance of U.S.C.Ts in the American Civil War.

3,089 Views | 39 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by wesag
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
American History Channel is featuring the U.S. Colored Troops and their participation in the Battle of Nashville on an upcoming program. In the promo, one of the talking heads makes a statement that the North would not have won the war without the participation of emancipated/runaway slaves and Freemen in the Federal Army. One also states that they earned the respect of their fellow white soldiers.

Does anyone have opinions or knowledge that agree/disagree with the above mentioned talking heads?


Presley OBannons Sword
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

one of the talking heads makes a statement that the North would not have won the war without the participation of emancipated/runaway slaves and Freemen in the Federal Army
I do not profess to know a whole lot about the Civil War, but this sounds a whole lot like some present day bull**** that someone came up with to sound poetic
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Presley OBannons Sword said:

Quote:

one of the talking heads makes a statement that the North would not have won the war without the participation of emancipated/runaway slaves and Freemen in the Federal Army
I do not profess to know a whole lot about the Civil War, but this sounds a whole lot like some present day bull**** that someone came up with to sound poetic
Oh I have my somewhat educated opinions. I am just see what others think.
Maximus_Meridius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

one of the talking heads makes a statement that the North would not have won the war without the participation of emancipated/runaway slaves and Freemen in the Federal Army

Pretty sure the war was over when Vicksburg fell and Lee lost at Gettysburg. That was in July 1863, the Confederates just did a fine job of prolonging the inevitable after that point. Colored soldiers weren't even allowed until May 1863, I think. And while I don't have the numbers in front of me, I think USCTs only comprised no more than 10% of the Union Army. They were important to the fight, but to say the Union would've lost without them is excessive, if not naive.
Mort Rainey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rabid Cougar said:

In the promo, one of the talking heads makes a statement that the North would not have won the war without the participation of emancipated/runaway slaves and Freemen in the Federal Army.



This is an absolutely absurd statement. Sorry if that hurts people's feelings.

2 million men fought for the North (and if they were losing battle after battle in 64 and 65, they could've brought a lot more.)

750,000 men fought for the South.

Less than 200,000 black men fought for the Union.



End of discussion.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Presley OBannons Sword said:

Quote:

one of the talking heads makes a statement that the North would not have won the war without the participation of emancipated/runaway slaves and Freemen in the Federal Army
I do not profess to know a whole lot about the Civil War, but this sounds a whole lot like some present day bull**** that someone came up with to sound poetic


The Union would have had a very difficult time winning without the disobedience displayed by slaves hundreds of thousands of slaves who ran away as soon as Federal troops came within distance. And that started almost as soon as the war started. They knew what was at stake.

USCT made up about 10% of the Union armies by the end of the war, or 180,000 soldiers. They were crucial for holding territory and providing vital reinforcements. They also had a major hand in smaller campaigns that drained the Confederacy of resources. The absence of the USCT would have made the Union effort much harder. Saying the North wouldn't have won the war is a stretch too far in my book, but it was decisive in some ways.
Presley OBannons Sword
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

The absence of the USCT would have made the Union effort much harder. Saying the North wouldn't have won the war is a stretch too far in my book, but it was decisive in some ways.
wtf does "decisive in some ways" mean?
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Presley OBannons Sword said:

Quote:

The absence of the USCT would have made the Union effort much harder. Saying the North wouldn't have won the war is a stretch too far in my book, but it was decisive in some ways.
wtf does "decisive in some ways" mean?


They held down important territories and supply lines, freeing up other troops for front line operations.
BQ78
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Here is the "what if" associated with the promise of black troops. If the Confederates had found a way to extend the war for another year, the black troops would have ended up being the decisive factor. The north was war weary and not sending white troops in great numbers during the last year of the war but black enlistment was growing and in huge numbers.

For a newly freed black man in 1864 you could be a soldier in the army or a laborer attached to the army, there weren't many other options. There was slightly more prestige being a "1 ea, stopper, bullet."
VanZandt92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rabid Cougar said:

American History Channel is featuring the U.S. Colored Troops and their participation in the Battle of Nashville on an upcoming program. In the promo, one of the talking heads makes a statement that the North would not have won the war without the participation of emancipated/runaway slaves and Freemen in the Federal Army. One also states that they earned the respect of their fellow white soldiers.

Does anyone have opinions or knowledge that agree/disagree with the above mentioned talking heads?





That sounds like made up crap. The North had a ton of men outside of blacks.
tmaggies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Watson at it again......
VanZandt92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
How about a discussion of blacks on both sides in the Revolutionary War? Much more interesting
Presley OBannons Sword
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

Presley OBannons Sword said:

Quote:

The absence of the USCT would have made the Union effort much harder. Saying the North wouldn't have won the war is a stretch too far in my book, but it was decisive in some ways.
wtf does "decisive in some ways" mean?


They held down important territories and supply lines, freeing up other troops for front line operations.

So are you saying it was decisive or not? There's no such thing as decisive in some ways, expect in the wishy washy liberal world you live in.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rabid Cougar said:

Presley OBannons Sword said:

Quote:

one of the talking heads makes a statement that the North would not have won the war without the participation of emancipated/runaway slaves and Freemen in the Federal Army
I do not profess to know a whole lot about the Civil War, but this sounds a whole lot like some present day bull**** that someone came up with to sound poetic
Oh I have my somewhat educated opinions. I am just see what others think.
The USCTs were heavily involved in the Peterburg Campaign from the very first battle on 9 June 1864 until the Confederates pulled out on 2 April 1865. They were utilized as laborers (digging/building entrenchments and forts and at the huge Federal supply base at City Point) but also used in combat involved in 6 major battles along the western flanks. One of the battles being the Crater.

Two brigades were trained and prepared to be the shock troops for the famous attempt to rupture Confederate line with the mine. A the last minute Meade decided, and Grant agreed, to use untrained white troops to be in initial assault after the mine was blown because he didn't want to create a political fire storm if the USCTs were butchered ahead of the following white troops AND because he didn't trust the ability of the USCTs. The mine blew, the white troops failed to exploit the huge gap in the lines and were butchered. They finally put the USCTs in and they were also butchered. Numerous accounts of Confederate soldiers taking their time to load and shoot surrendering black troops.

On the Federal side of the lines, the white troops hated and despised black troop who were put into trenches next to them. It literally pissed the Confederates off to no end ( my words for lack of a more concise description). Life could get generally tolerable in the trenches with neither side in any hurry to kill each other. There were lots of local truces. All that would come to and end when the USCTs arrived. The Confederates would pour incessant sniping,mortar and artillery fire in to the Federal line. If you happen to be a white unit next to them, you got the full dose too.

I don't think they made a bit of difference in the outcome of the war. In regards to acceptance by the Union Army, except for the abolitionist, I don't think the white Federal troops thought of them any differently than the white non-slave holding Confederate soldiers.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Presley OBannons Sword said:

Dr. Watson said:

Presley OBannons Sword said:

Quote:

The absence of the USCT would have made the Union effort much harder. Saying the North wouldn't have won the war is a stretch too far in my book, but it was decisive in some ways.
wtf does "decisive in some ways" mean?


They held down important territories and supply lines, freeing up other troops for front line operations.

So are you saying it was decisive or not? There's no such thing as decisive in some ways, expect in the wishy washy liberal world you live in.


Give the vitriol a break. You can point to multiple decision points in a battle or in a war without saying that every single one of the is THE decisive point. USCT were extremely important late in the war as a ready source of voluntary manpower that was extremely important in places like Tennessee and the Atlantic coast. They were decisive in certain areas in certain ways. But I'm not going to claim the war would have been lost without them.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
My thoughts:

Yes, this is PC B.S., but only by exaggeration, as there is some truth to the general idea. As was mentioned, they weren't a factor until late. Recall the comment that Shelby Foote made that the US was always going to win, but for much of the war they were fighting with one arm behind their back and all they had to do was bring that arm around. The colored soldiers were part of that arm, but not all of it. The north had more factory workers and farmers exempted than the south and they simply had the manpower.

One might be tempted to say, well bring those factory workers into the army and then replace them with freed blacks, but that would have blown the copperhead powderkeg apart. Whites would never want their jobs taken by blacks, because they might not get them back when the war was over. So in a lot of ways, the addition of colored manpower did help. If the North had never used them, it would have been hard, but not impossible. But one could say it was like the Atomic Bomb: it led to the end, and it made it less costly to some degree, but the conclusion was a foregone one by Gettysburg, if not sooner.

Dr. Watson's point about them hurting the south by refusing to work, etc. is true, but is somewhat overblown by some historians who want to credit blacks with an empowering act rather than being spectators, so they gravitate to that idea, as the black historian on the Civil War documentary did.

I think more important than what they denied to the south was what they provided to the North. I say this because many of the ancillary roles in the army that the North used them for, the south was loath to do so anyway. They used some, to be sure, but there simply wasn't as much make work in the southern army for them as there was in the far more logistically complex Union army.

I think overall, it's a sketchy argument to make with certainty. I will say that they were far more important in the frontier army than most people realize, and they were hugely important, although often overlooked, in the Spanish American war. It was "Black" Jack Pershing's colored troops who led the main assault on San Juan, and the Rough Riders only joined in the attack after they had taken the difficult, but smaller Kettle Hill.

I think that was the high point of colored soldiers, because by World War I, the army (ironically run by Pershing, who was very pro-colored troops, hence his nickname) was trying to move them away from most combat roles.
gigemhilo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Did they play a large role toward the end of the war? yes

Did they win the war for the North? No - Vicksburg and Gettysburg was the beginning of the end.

The CTs may have brought the end quicker, but it was not the deciding factor. The South surrendered because they had exhausted their resources. Their inability to gain any foothold in the North, along with the inability to receive food and supplies from Europe or the West, was their eventual demise.

I had never heard the part where shelling/sniping increased because the CTs were on the line. Makes sense though.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
gigemhilo said:


I had never heard the part where shelling/sniping increased because the CTs were on the line. Makes sense though.
Yes. I worked at the park for three summers while in school and had access to its research library. Did a lot of research putting together a living history program and for conducting staff rides from Fort Lee. There were copies of numerous diaries of both Federal and Confederate soldiers that mentioned this taking place.

Not saying the Confederates didn't make life miserable for white Federal soldiers and vice versa, but that activity elevated in intensity towards the USCTs and the adjacent white regiments reaped the fallout.
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The southern troops were almost certainly more hostile to colored troops. Think of it as how Americans fought Japanese, vs. how they fought Germans.
Presley OBannons Sword
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

Presley OBannons Sword said:

Dr. Watson said:

Presley OBannons Sword said:

Quote:

The absence of the USCT would have made the Union effort much harder. Saying the North wouldn't have won the war is a stretch too far in my book, but it was decisive in some ways.
wtf does "decisive in some ways" mean?


They held down important territories and supply lines, freeing up other troops for front line operations.

So are you saying it was decisive or not? There's no such thing as decisive in some ways, expect in the wishy washy liberal world you live in.


Give the vitriol a break. You can point to multiple decision points in a battle or in a war without saying that every single one of the is THE decisive point. USCT were extremely important late in the war as a ready source of voluntary manpower that was extremely important in places like Tennessee and the Atlantic coast. They were decisive in certain areas in certain ways. But I'm not going to claim the war would have been lost without them.

In the context of this thread, "decisive" means only one thing.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think it does.
VanZandt92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blacks being kicked out of the redoubts by the British at Yorktown. Now there's a story.
Presley OBannons Sword
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

I don't think it does.

That's literally exactly what the topic of this thread is.
jickyjack1
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dr. Watson said:

I don't think it does.

How many contexts concerning how many issues are you applying that opinion to? Decisive to the war? To a battle? To whether the horses were effectively held? To a thousand other things?

"To the war", which I think was the consideration in the question originally posed, requires a broad -- an overlapping -- answer: an answer far from definitive of every affecting issue, which is impossible, but as definitive as a one word rejoinder to the put question can be.

I join those whose opinion in the broad sense is "No". This, IMO, is settled historical reality and was so the day the war ended. This is not to say Black troops had no effect on the conflict whatever; that, too, would be misrepresentation of reality. But had they never taken the field, the percentages for victory would have remained solidly with the Federals. Too many cornfields, too many railroads, too many smelters, too much money.

A question I would find interesting if addressed by learned -- pro and amateur -- posters on this site, and somewhat related in a speculative mirror sort of way, is your idea(s) on Pat Cleburne's unsuccessful proposal concerning the use of Black troops. Of course, it came so late in the day that, even had it been implemented, it would have been grasping at straws and highly unlikely to have had real battlefield effect. But that the brilliant and unfortunate Cleburne brought forward such a proposal seems to me an indication that the possible potential of the Black soldier was not 100 (99 or 98, maybe; that's my question)% confined to Northern military philosophy.
bufrilla
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Another attempt to rewrite history via the PC agenda. Slavery did not START in the Colonies and did not end with Civil War. Our Founding Father were as heck of a lot better leaders than these fools we have today.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bufrilla said:

Another attempt to rewrite history via the PC agenda. Slavery did not START in the Colonies and did not end with Civil War. Our Founding Father were as heck of a lot better leaders than these fools we have today.


What do you mean it didn't start in the colonies? The history of slavery in what would become the United States began in the Spanish and then English colonies.
Rabid Cougar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
jickyjack1 said:

Dr. Watson said:

I don't think it does.


A question I would find interesting if addressed by learned -- pro and amateur -- posters on this site, and somewhat related in a speculative mirror sort of way, is your idea(s) on Pat Cleburne's unsuccessful proposal concerning the use of Black troops. Of course, it came so late in the day that, even had it been implemented, it would have been grasping at straws and highly unlikely to have had real battlefield effect. But that the brilliant and unfortunate Cleburne brought forward such a proposal seems to me an indication that the possible potential of the Black soldier was not 100 (99 or 98, maybe; that's my question)% confined to Northern military philosophy.
I think the south's attitude towards black men with guns had everything to do with it. That fear and the doubt that they were reliable/capable (same as I mentioned about Petersburg) outweighed the need for able body soldiers and overcame Cleburne's forward thinking, even in desperate times.

I should point out the slaves contribution to the southern war effort,particularly at Petersburg. The entire Dimmick Line and subsequent fortifications was built by slave labor. They were indeed a force multiplier, albeit not of their own volition, in the south. Very similar to USCTs utilization by the Federal Army.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I agree. Even in March of1865, at the very end, when you finally had a couple of companies of black soldiers enlisted by the Confederacy, they were greeted by people throwing rocks at them and newspapers questioning the entire purpose of the Confederacy if they were going to support black soldiers in the end.
bufrilla
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quite easy to understand!! Slavery existed many many centuries before the settling of the colonies in what became the USA.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bufrilla said:

Quite easy to understand!! Slavery existed many many centuries before the settling of the colonies in what became the USA.


Ok. Who has ever denied that? And what is its relevance to American history?
aalan94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Ok. Who has ever denied that? And what is its relevance to American history?

It means that our moral opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the people who lived in that time. In fact, most of the Northern states had slaves until the 1790s. The idea of slavery being morally wrong was a very uncommon one until the 19th Century. It seems to violate the principles of Christianity, but it was acceptable in the Old Testament, and American Christians in that time had a much stronger attraction to the old Testament than they do today.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aalan94 said:

Quote:

Ok. Who has ever denied that? And what is its relevance to American history?

It means that our moral opinions on the matter are irrelevant to the people who lived in that time. In fact, most of the Northern states had slaves until the 1790s. The idea of slavery being morally wrong was a very uncommon one until the 19th Century. It seems to violate the principles of Christianity, but it was acceptable in the Old Testament, and American Christians in that time had a much stronger attraction to the old Testament than they do today.


This is where I disagree. Antislavery sentiment grew very strong through the 18th century to the point that polite opinion throughout the British empire held slavery as a moral failure. In 1772, slavery was banned in Britain proper. The fact that slavery existed in a weak state in some northern colonies and states does mean slavery was accepted in general. The moral failure of slavery was very well understood in the Enlightenment context.

What happened in the 19th century was a concerted effort by people like John Calhoun to frame slavery as a positive moral good in addition to an economic necessity. And they did not limit themselves to the Old Testament. They saw Paul's instructions to Philemon as supporting slavery.
VanZandt92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Never takes long for Civil War discussions to go these directions. If only Southerners could free real estate in their heads for other history. But instead we're back to slave holding and it's many forms....
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
VanZandt92 said:

Never takes long for Civil War discussions to go these directions. If only Southerners could free real estate in their heads for other history. But instead we're back to slave holding and it's many forms....


It's rather hard for a discussion about the Civil War to not eventually return to the cause for the war.
Post removed:
by user
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.