Jump to content

Talk:Military history of African Americans/Archive 1

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

Untitled

All help is welcome and needed! εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 01:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The use of capital letters should be minimized where possible. Since I'm not in the mood for move wars, please check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Capital_letters and convince yourself. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It was moved back. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 02:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've just added the official muster roll information of all African Americans who were mustered into the Army for the War with Spain, complete with dates, and where they went. You should use it to flesh out this article.


CORNELIUSSEON 04:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


Here is another link for you to utilize.

[1]

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

World War II Medal of Honor recipients

Just added a subsection on World War II - to include the award of the Medal of Honor to seven in 1997. —ERcheck @ 17:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

American definition

under "See Also", Abbott was deleted as he was a Canadian. However, he lived in the USA on a couple occasions and served under contract. Technically, I'd suggest in a more traditional sense, that Canadians are Americans just as Brazilians are also Americans (or more accurately South Americans). Wikipedia states "American may refer to: A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the Western Hemisphere ".

From the biography link on his page it appears he played a prominent role in the Civil War as one of only eight African-American surgeons:

In February 1863, during the American Civil War, he applied for a commission as an assistant surgeon in the Union army. His offer was evidently not accepted. In April Abbott, who was conscious of the risks faced by blacks in the military, reapplied, this time to be a “medical cadet” in a coloured regiment. He was finally taken on as a civilian surgeon under contract. Between June 1863 and August 1865 he served in Washington, D.C., first at the Contraband Hospital (Camp Baker) and then at the Freedman’s Hospital; subsequently he had charge of a hospital in Arlington, across the Potomac from Washington. Abbott received numerous commendations and became popular in Washington society. Among the select group who stood vigil over the dying President Abraham Lincoln in April 1865, he was later presented by Mary Todd Lincoln with a shawl her husband had worn to his first inauguration...
In 1894 Abbott’s professional life took another turn when he accepted appointment as surgeon-in-chief at Provident Hospital in Chicago." http://www.biographi.ca/EN/ShowBio.asp?BioId=41288

—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertaSunwapta (talk • contribs) 20:13, 29 December 2006

I'm sorry ... after reading the article for Anderson Ruffin Abbott, I would have sworn that he was Canadian ... this is what convinced me:
{{Canada-bio-stub}}

Category:American Canadians 
Category:Black Canadians
Category:Canadian physicians
Category:People from Toronto
Category:Pre-Confederation Ontario people
Category:Ulster-Scottish Canadians
Now, exactly what rank did he hold in the U.S. Military as a "civilian surgeon under contract"? --72.75.72.174 04:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations

This article is in desperate need of citations...Balloonman 07:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that. Also phrases like "the African American soldiers bravely advanced over open ground in the face of deadly artillery fire" and such don't seem too neutral to me. Not to diminish the deed, but we'd better stick to wiki rules --70.83.157.66 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Fort Pillow

I removed this from the article:

Following the propaganda-embellished "Ft. Pillow Massacre" (later disproven by an 1871 Congressional investigation) Black Union troops often went into battle crying "No quarter" and themsleves executed Confederate soldiers who surrendered. At Ft. Blakeley, Alabama, on April 9, 1865, surrendered Confederate soldiers were shot, bayonetted and beaten to death by United States Colored Troops. When the white Union officers of the USCT regiments attempted to intervene and stop the murders the Black troops shot two of them, killing one and permanently crippling the other.

It directly contradicts our Battle of Fort Pillow article, it seems very POVish to me, and I can't locate any references that confirm these events occuring at the Battle of Fort Blakely. 70.20.194.59 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I re-removed the Fort Blakely paragraph. There are no citations for it and as you say it is written in an unseemly POVish style. Red Harvest (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Vietnam War

I would like to know the number of African American enlistees and draftees in the Vietnam war. Also, for discussion, what people are thinking about President Lyndon Johnson's passing of Kennedy's Civil Rights Amendment considering its proximity to Vietnam War enlistment and draft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.39.126 (talk) 03:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC) "African Americans during the conflict suffered casualty rates slightly higher than their percentage of the total population" seems an incorrect comparison.. Should read ."...than those of the total population." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.180.165 (talk) 04:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed list of African American firsts

There are a lot of military history items/dates that are not covered in this article. Would a list or timeline of African American military firsts/events add quality to this article? Something like this:

DATE (or Year) Name (or event) Notability Reference
October 4, 1985 (1985-10-04) Donnie Cochran became the first African American to serve as a member of the Blue Angels precision flying team
February 1, 1998 (1998-02-01) Lillian E. Fishburne officially promoted and becomes the first African-American female to hold the rank of Rear Admiral in the United States Navy
June 24, 2005 (2005-06-24) Jeanine McIntosh officially completed aviation training to become the first African American female in the United States Coast Guard to earn the Coast Guard Aviation Designation

A seperate table could be placed following each subheading currently in the article. Absolon S. Kent 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Olustee

The Olustee paragraph about "cannon fodder" and quoting a CS Engineer as its documentation seems weak. Nulty's book on the battle doesn't support the interpretation given. There were also complaints of killings of wounded Blacks by various rebels after the battle (and boasts of having done so.) Red Harvest (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the Battle of Olustee in the article so it must have been deleted. However, the Battle of Olustee Web site at http://battleofolustee.org/ has several Confederate letters and dairies that state Negro troops were murdered after the battle. There has been claims that the Negro troops were sent in as "cannon fodder" but these are false. The 8th U.S. Colored Troops were sent in with the first brigade, but that brigade also included two white regiments. The second brigade committed to action had three white regiments. It was not until the Union forces began their retreat that the Union commander sent in the 35th U.S. Colored Troops and the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry to provide cover for the withdrawal. I am the Webmaster of this site so I am very familiar with the materials on the site and their historical accuracy. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 08:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Black "Confederates"

The Black Confederates section is a mishmash of poorly cited and second hand reports, not unlike elusive sightings of Big Foot, in the stark contrast of the obvious and documented roles of blacks in the Union army. I'll be cleaning up the entry over the next couple days. SiberioS (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of what I removed was either anecdotal and piecemeal, or was secondhand, or from a site with a hell of an explicit axe to grind (most of the websites used as sources would pawn off their statements on a variety of "books" that do not pass historical muster, especially presses that put out books with a decidedly Lost Cause slant). It's also absurd to take what are a handful of irregular instances to form a cohesive strategy on the part of either the Confederacy or the numerous state armies that served it. Despite the constant caterwauling that black Confederates existed, they simply do not exist in the pension rolls, are almost nonexistent except for a handful of mentions (and often only in laborer positions) in the Federal Record. Even most people who claim there were black Confederate soldiers can never pin down how many (accusing Yankees of rewriting the history, even though no one else contests the Federal Record unless it suits them), especially when there is an overwhelming (209K) of black troops for the Union side, accounted for by name, in the Record, in the pension rolls, and in a number of Union burial grounds. It just doesn't add up. SiberioS (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you delete the accounts of Robert Wilson and Louis Napolean Nelson? There was a photo of Louis Napolean Nelson in Confederate uniform going to a Confederate veterans reunion. His grandson, Nelson W. Winbush, is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. To obtain that membership he had to produce some kind of papers for proof of service (typically pension papers). I for one am not trying to say that their were vast numbers of black Confederate soldiers, but to believe that there were not ANY is fooling one's self. I think the purpose of wikiepdia is to provide people with correct information and let them draw their own conclusions from there. I'll be putting that information and the photo back in the article, because I feel that it is very relavent information. Sf46 (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that they are exceptions rather than a representation of anything approaching the norm. The CSA was fundamentally opposed to black troops. They did not sanction the enlistment of such troops until the very end in an act of desparation. They had made it central to their cause that the USCT forces not be recognized as legitimate. The threat of retaliation against their own POW's largely prevented the CSA from uniformly treating USCT soldiers as being part of "servile insurrection."
A bigger concern is that your placement of the individual accounts interferes with the flow of the article. The article addresses the general claim and context, not a man-by-man analysis of the CSA armies. Perhaps collection of individual accounts could be moved to a sub-section?
The historical concensus is not that there were no Blacks in CSA service in combat roles, but that the number doing so was trivial compared to modern revisionist claims. Extrapolating a few isolated examples to a substantial percentage of field armies will not pass muster. If one were to examine the muster rolls of an entire CSA field army (or even a division) and prove that 5-10% of the men listed as regular infantry/cavalry were actually black, then it would have great relevance. Teamsters, cooks, musicians and body servants don't qualify as such. Red Harvest (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You know there are books written about the subject, such as this one: Black Confederates Book. Also what are you calling modern revisionist claims? You might consider that there are those who have (or say they have) claimed all along that Black Confederate soldiers historically played a somewhat significant role in the war and that those who now trivialize their contributions are the Revisionist Historians. Just some food for thought.Sf46 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I've actually looked through some of these and watched a poorly made "documentary" of the subject (several times in fact.) What is most noticeable is the extreme extrapolation made from very limited supporting evidence. I've also read several accounts of the role of local free black militia by various authors, and they illustrate a far different state of things than that being pushed hard by some modern day Confederates. A far more critical and systematic study is needed for the extensive combat role theory to gain credibility. Red Harvest (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the assist Red Harvest. I'll be going in and revising more, making important to note the use of slave labor in logistical matters, the sporadic reports of freedmen (never slaves) in certain companies, as well as the issue of coercion and impressment. SiberioS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-Guys, not once have I suggested any where that there were extensive numbers of black troops such as the 90,000+ that is estimated and still in the article. One of you guys compared the existence of black Confederate soldiers to "big foot". I've already supplied you with two pictures of "big foot", so why continue to discount these people? The individual examples that I lisyed are not and never were intended to represent all black Confederate soldiers in general. They are merely to demonstrate real life stories of individual troops. There continues to be a notion that because a guy was a laborer on transport troop that his contribution doesn't matter. If a guy puts on a uniform, he's a troop. The argument you guys make would basically make modern supply troops not be considered in the Army at all. I also argue about your notion about the motivation for service of Black Confederate troops to serve. It doesn't matter if they joined voluntarily or were promised their freedom or whatever the case is, they were still troops. Not everyone gets to join any military voluntarily. Don't you think a ton of Vietnam draftees were pretty pissed about being in the Army? Ever heard the phrase "Go to war or go to jail"? Are these people any less soldiers? By your argument they would seem to be. Sf46 (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Only a small portion of the large numbers bandied about for Black Confederates would be classified as actual soldiers. They were not men standing in the firing line--except on rare occasions. Unfortunately, there is an orchestrated effort by some to present the "Happy South" picture tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of black troops rushing to save the Confederacy. The support role of slaves in the war effort is well established, and allowed more Whites to serve on the firing line. "Contrabands" also served in many of the same support roles for the Union army, but the USCT was an entirely different type of service. Red Harvest (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Military historians would love to hear your interesting perspective on what constitutes a troop. More to the point, illustrating individual stories is not the subject of this particular article, especially when said stories are put in to establish or possibly hint at, a larger involvement than what actually existed. Putting up that one photo (of a 'veteran' some 40 years or more out of the war) and inflating the size of the article to the point where its larger than the Union article (where 209K men served) is absurd. I'm deleting the Navy and Marines part because, as you point out, the records were destroyed (convenient) and the one lone citation isn't valid. Comb through the record (You know...like I did with my citations above) and then we can talk. SiberioS (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Fellows I really don't want this to turn into an edit war, but what you guys are doing is censorship plain & simple. I've added valid information and cited it with sources which you continue to ignore because it doesn't fit your point of view. Why suppress information? Why not provide information and allow the reader to put whatever value they want on that information? Sf46 (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh? Is that why I put a prominent quote by a Confederate General about raising black troops? It's clearly because I have a POV to enforce. The thing is Sf46, you have little to no citations in any of your material. You have ONE citation for the whole Confederate Navy/Marine section. Compare that to the minor parts I've edited where I've added atleast 5 citations to the Official Record (something you can find in any decent college library, or online if you have access to certain databases through a college) as well as references to the actual passed laws/statues of the Confederate government. It's being reverted back. SiberioS (talk) 21:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, I don't want this to be an edit war, so when I get a chance I'm going to ask an administrator to put this page on lock down because I think it it against Wikipedia policy to continually revert and delete sourced info that another user is protesting may be relevent info. Sf46 (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. But one citation, to a website of dubious value, does not a "source" make. Take a look at the American Civil War article, and look at the number of refs (126 alone at last count) and the size of the bibliography. In fact, as I have time, I'm going to edit in more citations from the Record for stuff thats already here (notably Lee's letter to Davis) as well as using two fairly useful Journal of Negro History articles on the treatment of black union soldiers and the debate inside the Confederacy about using slave troops. SiberioS (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
When I first looked at this article a month ago I was appalled at some of the factually erroneous assertions being made that amounted to little more than vandalism. There are plenty of SCV sites and such around that are fast and loose with the facts and timeline and contain spurious numbers and primarily editorial. (Fortunately, they also contain some good primary documentaion as well, so they are worth exploring despite the flaws.)
Sf46, as I said above, I don't see an issue with adding individual accounts on principle. They do however ruin the flow of the article and turn it into a debate rather than a general informative treatment. (How many thousands of examples could one cite proving that these were exceptions rather than the rule?) If you can determine with an administrator how to handle the accounts, I think they would make good additions, but probably to a new page/sub page since it is intended to support a debate. I would have gladly moved them if I had determined what was the appropriate location. Mentioning the men's names as examples and linking to a page about them might be the answer. This isn't an effort to censor on my part, but to make the article work.
The Union Navy and Confederate Navy are probably good subheadings as well within the main article. Unlike the respective armies in 1861, what I've read indicates that Blacks had for decades been part of the USN as sailors and other roles. (They were also often used as pilots, etc. in Southern ports.) The USN was signing "contrabands" on as crew when encountered on blockade duty. The CSN also employed them although they had some security problems that precluded as widespread use as they might have otherwise. See The Planter incident as an example of the potential for trouble. I'm not well enough versed on the naval side of it to write an article. What I've read of these matters was in relation to other historical events. Red Harvest (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason that I'm led to believe that there is censorship afoot, is that the sourced information I've added is deleted while vast sections of this article still stand with ZERO references. Several other sections cite individual soldier accounts and yet there are left untouched. Other sections have photos of soldiers in uniform. As soon as I can find a better photo than the one that keeps getting deleted, I intend to add it, but I'm almost certain that it too will be deleted because someone doesn't want the world to know that black men actually served in the Confederate Army in some capacity other than a man servant.

Revolutionary War Section - not a single reference
U.S. Civil War & Union Army Sections - not a single reference
Indian Wars - not a single reference & individual example of Henry O. Flipper
Spanish American War - not a single reference
World War I - not a single refernce & individual example of Freddie Stowers
Spanish Civil War - not a single reference & individual example of Oliver Law
World War II - several indivdual soldier examples
Korean War - whole section is about only 1 soldier
Vietnam War - several individual soldier examples
Post-Vietnam - several individual soldier examples
Noting all of this, tell me again why I can't put a photo of an individual soldier or his account, and why I can't put sourced info when all of this unsourced info is left untouched? Sf46 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You presume because indidividuals haven't had the time to edit and find citations for over 200 years of African American military involvement, that there is a conspiracy afoot. The reason why those other sections haven't been edited is because, simply, no one else has gotten around to them yet. I decided to start editing the Civil War section (and especially the Confederate portion) because, on a personal level, its the most interesting one and the one I'm read up on the most. There's no amazing conspiracy other than editors of this article aren't superhuman. SiberioS (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Siberio instead of reverting sourced info did you ever think of putting an NPOV tag or a more citation needed tag? Is there no compromise that we can reach on this matter?? Sf46 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The current version (00:08, 15 January 2008) appears to be neutral and balanced. Cla68 (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sf46, For the third time...why don't you create pages about those individuals then add a sentence to this section stating something about these apparently unusual examples--since such men were not traditionally sanctioned to perform in this capacity? The problem here is implying that this was the norm for the CSA. Earlier the article was mentioning 65,000+ or so and that appears to be part of an intentional effort to deceive the readers or a misunderstanding what constituted a soldier in the period. Red Harvest (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Negro Question"

I'm in the midst of poring over Confederate Emancipation by Levine, and will be using it to refashion, with sources from the Official Record and other journal articles, the Confederate section to highlight the argument and debate that was raised over the "Negro question" in the Confederate Army, of whether or not slaves and freedmen should be enlisted. The debate was an interesting one, and showed at times stark ideological and practical contrast between people in the South, from civilians up into the halls of the Confederate government and military structure. Despite the assertions of other people above, who insist that I'm trying to cover up some sort of phantom legions of black Confederate soldiers, highlighting the debate, as well as the contrasting and conflicting policies and statements of the people involved, would be the best way to explain the issue. I should also point out, that the fact that there was debate, nullifies the idea that there were vast numbers of blacks enlisted or serving in combat roles. Why such an argument if it was already happening? SiberioS (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said Siberio, I've never tried to claim there were vast legions. Only that there were more than you want to admit. You keep deleting all the referenced and sourced information I've added that supports it. Kind of easy to say someone's info is erroroneous, trivial, nonexistent, etc, when you keep deleting the sources and info. Sf46 (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And what is more then? A thousand? Ten thousand? How many as laborers, and how many as soldiers? And your "sources" were tosh, a citation or two from a variety of Lost Cause websites with an axe to grind. Can you find me sources from the actual records of the war? Theres literally reams of letters, correspondence, and offical pronouncements, as well as the official reports of battles. Somewhere within those huge volumes there should be some mention of African Americans on the Confederate side. And there are, almost always as laborers, and always, to use your term, as "man-servants". They were neither promised nor offered emancipation (until the waning days of the war, and ONLY if you signed up for combat duty), and there numbers were usually small. After all, slave labor was necessary to maintain agriculture as well as necessary industrial issues at home. The use of slave labor, as I pointed out before, was the reason why the Confederacy was able to field so many men initially, because the backend was already being taken care of. 24.88.79.249 (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the sourced info about the Navy & Marine Corps that you deleted gave a figure of a little over 1,100. The source was the Navy & Marine Living History Association's website Navy & Marine.org which can hardly be considered a Lost Cause Website with an axe to grind. If anything, I think that you, Serbio, have the axe to grind. Sf46 (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Except that the article does. Hell, it has the absurdity of mentioning "60,000 to 90,000" served and cites Nelson Winbush as an "expert" an absurd preposition. And then it goes onto cite a handful of anecdotes as example of "blacks contributions to the Confederate war effort", and in Conclusion asserts that somehow historians have "neglected" this part of history. That's simply not true. Historians have written volumes on the issue of master-slave relations, how it changed and adapted during the war, the use of slave power in buttressing the domestic affairs of the Confederacy, and as the book I'm currently using to help shore up this page, the question of whether to use black troops. It's all there. But I refuse to see a bunch of anecdotal and exceptions to the rule be portrayed as blacks serving the war cause of the south, atleast without a ton of discussion about the issues of compulsion in serving and of the effect and role of the master-slave relationship. SiberioS (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Siberio, I ask you again, is there no compromise that we can come to on this matter? Sf46 (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
My compromise is exhibited above. The issue of African American's in the Confederacy is fraught with more than simply whether or not they served, and thats mostly why I want to include stuff about the debate over whether or not they should serve. Without this context, which is how the article appeared before, the raising of black Confederate troops at the end of the war appears either as a random anomaly, or as a tool for lost cause supporters. The problem with anecdotal and highlighting of certain individuals, as mentioned above by RedHarvest, is that implies a larger and more coherent force than what actually existed. It's going to take me awhile to skim over a number of books and find citations for some of the stuff thats already in the article (as most of its in the Record, I just need to find it).
I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan of secondary source websites. Do you have access to a college library? I live near a college campus where I have access to the huge volumes of the Record, as well as access to journal databases. I suggest doing that and mining through books to find citations. 04:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sf46, I've suggested ways to retain content repeatedly without creating a skewed article...this makes the fourth time. I notice you've added the old section to the Confederate Army wiki entry. Red Harvest (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That photo is a fake. I'll have to go searching for it, but theres a website that shows the real version (which was a photo taken of a troops in the USCT) and its use as the basis for a print that ended up being used for recruitment purposes in the USCT. SiberioS (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Here it is http://people.virginia.edu/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/essay.html .SiberioS (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that Photo is a known fake, I'm surprised more studying this subject weren't already aware of that. Red Harvest (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd like to comment on the Frederick Douglass quote, and particularly how he quotes the Charleston paper. Simply put, the Charleston paper (and other Southern papers) were blowing smoke. One of the more interesting parts is the evolution of the loyalty and steadfastness of the slave into the indolent, lazy, and potentially murderous slave that would be talked about in 1863 as the war dragged on, as the USCT was instituted, and after the Emancipation Proclamation. After years of espousing about the "Sacred bond", Southerners were at a lost to explain the desertion of slave from plantation, their unwillingness to work, and the potential of slave insurrections without enough troops to supervise. SiberioS (talk) 05:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that the Douglass quote, claiming black troops were at First Manassas in 1861, is paired with a newspaper aticle that clearly refers to the first black troops as not existing until March 1865. This is a good example why the selective use of anecdotal evidence unsupported by reliable secondary sources is discouraged by wikipedia policy. Why exactly would Cleburne's 1864 proposal be controversial if black troops had been regularly used since the first days of the war? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean there could be a good part in the article, or maybe even in a larger, separated article, about the kind of fawning slave-master reports on the front that Southern newspapers used to show that slaves wanted nothing to do with abolition. Whats amusing is how quickly that changed after the emancipation proclamation, and also shows why, after so much rhetoric, the debate about arming slaves struck to the very heart of what made the Confederacy tick. SiberioS (talk) 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

On Photos

If you're going to insist on coming up with more and more photos, then you need to be getting them from a verifiable source, like one of the dozens of books that have Confederate photography. I'm sure there are microfilm collections of photographs from the civil war. SiberioS (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's the problem with a Black guy in Confederate Gray to start off with? You know we could have just left this at the photo of Louis Napolean Nelson and been done with it. I must admit that I am wholeheartedly in a state of shock and awe that you've not yet deleted the Frederick Douglas quote. Or is that coming next? Sf46 (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
That last sourced & referenced photo that you deleted does come from one such book entitled Black Confederates. The photo is actually on the cover. This is still another instance of of you hiding information. I intend to continually add more and more sourced information until someone takes notice of the fact that you continually keep deleting it because it doesn't fit your agenda whatever that may be. Sf46 (talk) 06:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh bumpkis. Black Confederates? From Pelican Press? This has turned into a farce. That book is completely unreliable, and its greatest use is a kindle for a fire. Again, you insist on either using sources with an axe to grind, specious secondhand sources, or misconstruing other sources to prove your point that there were substantial numbers of black Confederate soldiers. I can point you to two books on the issue of Confederate enlistment of slaves and the debate it caused; the Levine book I mention above, and Robert Durden's The Grey and The Black: The Confederate Debate on Emanicpation from LSU's Press. SiberioS (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No my friend, the absolute only thing that I've been trying to get across is a support of the statement that is still left in the article: "There is some documentary evidence that they did see limited combat service:", and a photo of an African American in Confederate Uniform. In my opinion every time period section in the article could stand a photo. Sf46 (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And a photograph and a speech from Frederick Douglass proves this? Again, wheres anything from the Official Record? Have you looked locally to see if any library near you has access to the Record, in either paper or electronic form? SiberioS (talk) 07:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
See Sf46, despite your assertion that I have an "Agenda" I have actually re-written the opening paragraph to highlight the use of slave labor, except instead of using spurious website sources, I'm actually using scholarly books and primary sources. SiberioS (talk) 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Crusade to discredit the entire article

So instead of taking any hints to improve the article by providing some basic references to the non-controversial sections, he's decided to try to discredit them. In the words of Sam Rayburn, "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one." Red Harvest (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It does take "edit warring" to a new level. The article, as a whole, was tagged, appropriately, as needing citations -- everything else seems to be overkill. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Pretty much. Most of the stuff can be verified in the Union section (I'm not well read on most of the other wars unfortunately) it'll just take time to hunt down the sources and rewrite the sections so there more coherent. I think I'll also highlight the efforts of David Hunter's and others to raise regiments of colored troops before official policy was enacted. I'd like to include more about the POW issue, and I'm hunting down some other references to corroborate. This whole article needs an extensive rewrite, and when you actually have to go hunting and looking through books (unlike saw, just googling the web) it takes awhile. SiberioS (talk) 00:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
You guys are wrong. At least I've got the common courtesy to give someone an opportunity to source the info before arbitrarily calling it trivial and irrelevent, and then deleting it. You guys deleted my source info (over my protests), yet turn a blind eye to this vast amount of unsourced info. If I were following your example, all of this unsourced stuff would have long since been deleted. Sf46 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Except it hasn't, for the exact reasons why I illustrated above when you raised the same point. No one's gotten around to the others sections mostly because of time and interest, and NOT because they approve of how they are. I rewrote the Confederate section (and will eventually rewrite parts of the Union section), and deleted most of the unsourced material, because I was, and still am, slowly writing and citing things. Like I mention above, poring over books takes a fair amount of time. SiberioS (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
On the contrary Sf46, you've ignored my suggestions for getting the info you want into a format that works with the structure of the article. As a result, rather than improve other parts of the article, you chose to discredit them while continuing to push your agenda. It looks like you've decided to take out your dispute with SiberioS on this community rather than trying to work out a compromise. It would matter less if this article and attached template had not already seen a lot of vandalism by what appear to be Southern partisans. Red Harvest (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I took the quote out (again) and have written up a little bit replacing the kind of vague and uncited piece about the specifics of how many and from where the (very limited) black soldier recruitment took place. Tommorrow I'm going to the library to go sifting through Durden's The Grey and the Black, as well as searching through the record to see if there were any direct statements from the individuals involved. SiberioS (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great. Why don't you find me a photo of a black guy in Confederate Gray while you're looking, because you guys keep labeling everything I come up with as unacceptable. Sf46 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There might not be. The very short life of the emancipation attempt, I'm not sure if they ever took any photographs. There may have been recruitment posters, and there are definitely plenty of photos and prints/sketches of laborers, or with their masters etc. SiberioS (talk) 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A photo/woodcut of the unit etc. that was authorized would be a notable thing to add since it was officially CSA sanctioned rather than ad hoc. Is there some sort of muster roll or pension application with later photo of a participant? Perhaps Sf46 can locate specific references in the book he mentioned? (No, that's not ribbing--it is the sort of thing I expect from a well-researched book on the subject. I'm accustomed to books where authors have gathered detailed muster rolls and casualty lists for regulars, volunteers, conscripts, and militia/home guard as well as USCT.) I would have expected some Richmond artist to make some sort of attempt at rendering them before the fall of the city. Red Harvest (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no mention of such a thing in Confederate Emancipation, which is one of the reasons why I want to skim over Durden's book to see if he mentions anything more substantial about the unit (Levine, after detailing the very arduous debate, doesn't actually write much about the admittedly short lived unit). I doubt it though, as Levine points out that most of the units equipment was adhoc, and in fact, had not been supplied uniforms even when they saw battle (a fact that their own commanders, evidently, lamented). SiberioS (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
A good potential source for the serious student might be the new Tredegar museum. Tredegar used slave labor and provided a company or battalion of white workers to the city defenses during various emergencies. Seems reasonable that the slave labor would have formed at least a company of any Black Confederate unit in the city. It's the first place that comes to mind to check. Then again, Anderson would likely have been unwilling to part with his skilled labor force voluntarily. Red Harvest (talk) 07:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Forking...

I was thinking of forking the Confederate section (and eventually the Union section) to seperate pages and leaving summaries here. Thing is, I can't really think of any good, short names for a new article. Any ideas anyone? SiberioS (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. The U.S. Civil War section seems to be much larger and detailed than the other sections so it could probably stand alone as its own article. A brief summary could be left and the edit war can move to the new page (smile). I added the {{splitsection}} tag with the title "Military history of African Americans in the U.S. Civil War." on the main page to draw additional input (couldn't think of a shorter title either). Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
As long and as awkward as that title is, its probably the best one. I'll start working on moving it once I've summed up the stuff on the Union side, and have done a bigger rewrite of the section (something I should get to in the next week, unless someone else wants to start editing stuff in). SiberioS (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I've finally started moving it over, as well as getting down to basics on the Union side of the equation.SiberioS (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't gut the page, Sf46, I summarized. In fact, its the same summary that exists on the Confederate States Army section. I moved a majority of the information on African AMerican involvement in the Civil War to a seperate article (duly linked to) in order to cut down on the size of this page. At some point, as other editors better versed in other wars edit the other sections, we will see similar breakouts from this main article. SiberioS (talk) 01:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hollandsworth Quote

Is the second quote, that website, a review of the book? I'm sure he says something effectively similar in the book (I've glanced over it) but could someone actually find something direct from the book, as opposed to second hand? SiberioS (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the book, however I noticed several incorrect assertions in the original statement attributed to his book by Sf46. When I did a search the quote turned up. The corrections to what Sf46 asserted/implied were: 1. This was state militia, not "Confederate Army." 2. Louisiana changed its laws forcing the unit to disband rather than it voluntarily doing so.
However, the statement in the current article, "But as to the issue of arming Negroes, it was off the table, even for militias composed of freedmen" appears to be too absolute. There were some instances of "Creole" companies forming around Mobile for local service (as in Bergeron's Confederate Mobile) as well as the 1st Louisiana Native Guard. Alabama actually passed legislation to call up Mobile Creole's for militia service in late 1862. As Bergeron notes with regard to Maury's intention to use Creoles as heavy artillerits in Mobile and have them accepted into CSA service, Seddon replied, "Our position with the North and before the world will not allow the employment as armed soldiers of negroes." So for the CSA it was "off the table", but not for the states who permitted rare exceptions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red Harvest (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I can agree to that. As you pointed out, Seddon was distinctly against the idea (pointing out that they could only be sent if they could somehow be "distinguished" from regular Negroes), though some states DID break the rules, atleast in the opening volleys of the war. I'm writing up some new bits for the CSA page about conscription, and I'll rephrase the bit about militias being off the table to be more accurate. SiberioS (talk) 04:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo

This photo

is just too good to leave out of here, so I'm 'bookmarking' it here for when there's enough material in the civil war section for it to fit comfortably. Mostlyharmless (talk) 08:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Barbary Wars

what was the role of African Americans in the Barbary Wars and other small conflicts? More info is also needed on how they fought and what side, as well as their status compared to regular troops Rds865 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

the unit

The tv show The Unit might be included in the pop culture section. Rds865 (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian Wars/Native American Wars

I understand everyone's yearning for political correctness (although I don't share this yearning), but changing the title from Indian Wars to Native American wars to be PC is improper. No one has ever heard of the Native American Wars, while the Indian Wars is a title that has been in existence for quite some time. The U.S. Army even refers to it as the Indian Wars - see here. Sf46 (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, though probably for differing reasons. Rewriting the title gives the appearance of something much more benign than it was; when we write about history we need to preserve the language that was used then. Replacing the words "Indian" with "Native American", while not on par with the following examples, is similar to trying to exorcise offensive words like "nigger" or "kike" from writings in history. We get into absurd situations where were trying to repaint certain things to look better than it was, and thats certainly not the goal of history. SiberioS (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
The name should be left as it was: Indian Wars, because that is how they were referred to at the time. Describing the participants as Native Americans within the body is correct except where "Indian" or "Indians" is part of a quotation. "Indian" is a long lasting misnomer, so I wouldn't refer to "Native American" as "PC", but as more accurate. However, for the name of the event itself, the historical name should be used. Red Harvest (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

On the use of the term "white" and "European American"...

The problem with using the term "European American" and "White interchangeably is not merely that it hasn't gotten widespread acceptance, but that it doesn't accurately describe what being "white" is. "White", as an "Ethnic group", is mostly a social construction that collapses a wide-variety of light-skinned ethnicities all over the world besides Europe (from the northern regions of Africa, to some parts of the middle east, to Russia) into a kind diaspora, separated from Europe and other continents by generations and social and cultural differences. African-American is similar, in that it collapses a wide variety of ethnic and tribal groups into one single category (it is notable that the idea of an "African" race is one mostly of the construct of outsiders to Africa, for the idea of "Pan-africanism" did not begin until the turn of the last century), because they've been physically and in a sense, socially and culturally, divorced from their genealogical brethren. While white as a term can be more easily separated out into constituent parts due to the strength of memory and cultural ties to home countries, as opposed to the destruction of traditional tribal culture when slaves were brought over, its usefulness (as indicated by its appearance in numerous laws, court judgments, and rhetoric in America) is not diminished. The reality is, the segregation of the Army was not based on "European American" and "African-American's", but on "Whites", a much more permissive category, and "African American's". SiberioS (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right on the money, Siberio. Sf46 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A REALITY OF WAR AND THE AFTERMATH

Spike Lee’s Movie. St., Miracle of Anna “Here’s My Take”


As a former Combat Infantryman that served with U. S. Army's last all Black Combat Unit, the 24th Infantry Regiment, formerly known as “BUFFALO SOLDIERS” (Korea 1950 - 1951)

I found most of the War scene not very convincing. And degrading to the memories I have of serving with former members of the 92nd Infantry Division in Korea...

1. They weren't as focused as they would've been under the circumstances. There would have less concern about the racist conditions of the time and more focus on their present surrounding. Like in such a situation (combat patrol) one's six-sense kicks in.

2. No platoon leader, or platoon sergeant nor squad leader would've allowed one of their men to carry alone a 15 or 20 pound head of a marble stature, on a combat patrol. Not only would it had farther endanger his life and mobility, but also those of his companions.

3. No leader would send a civilian to safe guard their position. Like what happen when the platoon sergeant send one of the partisan as lookout. Or entrusting your weapon to a prostitute.

4. One of the most unimaginable instants, was the German Officer, giving his side arm to a wounded American soldier, to defend himself against his own troops.

5. Also soldiers with loaded weapons in town (the southern ice cream parlor incident) I could see them returning to their base, retaining them, then returning to town.

For the above five reasons I could only give the movie 1.1/2 stars...

I guess there's certain guidelines movie maker must follow when making Hollywood war movies. I just don’t know

The most appreciated part of the movie, is the recognition being paid to the African American military achievement during the world war two (WW2) and the 92nd Infantry Division, of which I've had the honor to serve with a few former members during the Korean war. Where I served as a combat Infantry Rifleman, and they as commanding officers.

Its for that reason that I recommend, others see the movie, (Miracle of St. Anna) In the hope that someday, some African American movie maker, and hopefully Spike Lee.

And not allow his wonderful movie making skills, to be trivialized to the point of buffoonery. Just to be accepted if that was the case with Miracle Of Saint Anna.

I am a firm believer that if we (African American) don't tell our stories, we shouldn't expect others to do it.

Still, we should bare in mind that Wars, is no joking matter.

And not to be consumed as presented by HOLLYWOOD USA. 

The movie (war scenes) is an insult to the honorable memories of the 92nd Infantry Division "Buffalo-Soldiers"

PS: Where our history is concerned, we (African Americans) should always be on the alert for the small things that might be used as a yardstick, to measure the whole

Curtis J. Morrow: G-Company, 1st Platoon, 1st Squad. AuthorOFObibini (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC): WHAT'S A COMMIE EVER DONE TO BLACK PEOPLE? & former BUFFALO SOLDIER

The Messman Chronicles

I included this book as recommended reading since it contains an entire chapter on Dorie Miller and his actions at Pearl Harbor, as well as an analysis of his actual conduct and the political use made by both the U.S. Navy, President Roosevelt and the Afro-American community and press. The book also includes the story of Messman Harmon, the first Afro-American to have a combat Navy ship named after him. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated the picture at the top of the article, Toni Fessell's portrait of the 332nd Fighters in Italy during WW2, as a featured picture on Wiki commons. Please support the nomination by leaving your (positive!) opinion here. Information on voting is here (voting expires in nine days).--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Black Confederates

I reverted the following which was added to the article's civil war section:

Other Free Blacks served in the Confederate cause without the sanction of the Confederate Congress--men such as William Clarke Quantrill's scout, John Noland,[1] Colombus Graves, killed at Shiloh, and James Hervey.[2] The issue here is complex and not widely understood--in fact, it is politically incorrect to debate it at all, but several books exist on the subject.[3]

The entire Civil War era is covered by one paragraph in Summary style fashion. The mention of a few anecdotal cases of alleged black confederates does not fit into this article and an SCV website is not a reliable source for this article or any other article. The editor's opinion that the subject "is complex and not widely understood" is nothing but POV and original research. In fact, other than a few works that concentrate on the anecdotal, the vast majority of civil war historians fail to accept these type of anecdotes as historically significant. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ See Quantrill's Raiders; also http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/theblackconfederatesoldier.htm
  2. ^ http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/022601/dsf_5481765.html
  3. ^ Richard Rollins. Black Southerners in Gray (1994); Charles Kelly Barrow, et al. Forgotten Confederates: An Anthology About Black Southerners (1995).
You appear to be deliberately whitewashing here. I've seen numerous estimates in the tens of thousands. Since the subject falls afoul of "political correctness" what a "majority" of historians allegedly believe, is hardly indicative of fact.
"over 65,000" http://www.37thtexas.org/html/BlkHist.html
"30,000 to 100,000"
http://www.scvcamp469-nbf.com/theblackconfederatesoldier.htm
-TEW
-TEW —Preceding :unsigned comment added by :97.123.62.141 (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
SCV websites don't cut it as reliable sources. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Korean War

I think it should be noted in the section about the Korean that it was the first war with integrated units. I think that is a very important fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.235.103 (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Merger

I propose to combine this article with African-American discrimination in the U.S. Military. The African-American military history is a history of discrimination, why source it out to another article?! The structuring of this other article is similar, analogous to the US military involvement. One could incorporate the essence of the discrimination article into this one, section by section.--Severino (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Spanish colonial army

1)Villasur expedition in 1720. Captain José Naranjo, explorer.
2)Black Militia en Florida (before 1763)_"http://www.fortmose.org/history/timeline.html"
3)Free Black and Mulatto companies in Lousiana (Siege of Pensacola).
4)Perhaps Estevanico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

American Revolution section needs some clean up

Another editor noted some problems with the American Revolution section and deleted four paragraphs. I have restored them as a quick search revealed at least parts of these paragraphs are easily verified. I've given some cites for sections of two of them. Another paragraph has two relevant wikilinks and should not have been removed. The other paragraph also appears partially correct although it will likely require some editing and proper citation. The link to Black loyalists (that was also over zealously deleted) is well organized and could provide a good resource for improving this section.

There are some serious problems remaining including wildly contradictory claims of the numbers serving on both sides. There is also an uncited sentence about how many supposedly escaped to British lines, how many served, and a dubious claim that the majority were not given their freedom. The smallpox epidemic fatality claim also requires sourcing. If I can't find anything to back them I'm going to start removing them.

Overall this section could use some restructuring for readability as well. It is very disjointed. Red Harvest (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Found a source for the 100,000 number, and some other in a PBS documentary narrative. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/2narr4.html It is hard to tell from context if the text used here is correct or not. It appears that some of what has been written is a misunderstanding or overstatement of what the narrative is stating. Red Harvest (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

List of Generals

The recent edit to remove the generals from the article was due solely to the format and structure; it disrupted the lede and put a large gape between the lede and the article. This information should be provided in its own section, or perhaps in its own article with a link in this one. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this material either needs to be put in a section far down the page or in its own article. It would make a good article and I'd support such work. In its current position, it's disruptive. Unless the new editor (who I applaud for their effort and enthusiasm) can find consensus for this configuation, the insertion needs to be removed. I have empathy for a new editor who'd like to make meaningful contributions. But it's difficult to acquire one's experience at the top of a very high profile article. BusterD (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I would think a gallery section might be OK, with a link to a separate page. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that (yet) - but I am willing to learn. I don't have a lot of experience with images, and none with galleries. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No gallery, move the material to a new article. Binksternet (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Here's a very encouraging edit from our new friend. Here's my reply. As suspected, the user really wants to help and just needs to get feet on the ground. I've sent to links and encouragement to the talk page and may be able to walk the user through first steps. I raised the issue of appropriate page name for where the new editor's content eventually may be seen. Suggestions for a stub name? We probably should do this in a user sandbox or draftspace, but I'm not sure how easy it is for the editor to work on the mobile device being used. BusterD (talk) 20:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Military history of African Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Merge discussion

The article Racism against African Americans in the U.S. military is unnecessary. The article Military history of African Americans must cover the role that racism played in the experiences of African Americans in the United States military. Mitchumch (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Looking at the entire history of African Americans in the military when you are specifically interested in racism and segregation may bury the information that is being sought.``` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C400:7BB1:8DA0:365B:9695:AF90 (talk) 02:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the move. While yes, there's some overlap in the two pages, there enough material that can be seperated and place on the racism page. Plus, this article is already fairly long, with some sections lacking. --Meanderingbartender (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Military history of African Americans

THIS GENERATION of $%&*$ young people. I'm a Black man who served in Vietnam as an officer and I am Ivy League educated and successful, with time as a college professor. How can you narrow the history of Black people in the military of the US and the story of the "inclusion" of that segment and mix it with the stupidity of complaining about "racism" in the military when the story of the military is the story of inclusion and full citizenship. Who proposed this suggestion, the Klan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.16.31 (talk) 15:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Military history of African Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

added Elizabeth "tex" Williams because it shows that women did more than become nurses in world war one. Autumn Black (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_history_of_African_Americans/Archive_1&oldid=1080668229"