Talk:54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): United States military history task force

	Massachusetts Portal 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry is part of WikiProject Massachusetts, an effort to create, expand, and improve Massachusetts-related articles to a feature-quality standard. For more information on this project or to get involved see the WikiProject Massachusetts project page.
Start	rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale

Contents 1 Usage of African-American 2 black vs. african american vs. negro 3 truly awful writing 4 Statistics 5 Chronology or Inaccurate Info 6 Quoting Robert Lowell's poem 7 Tired of the Vandalism and Undiscussed Changes

[edit] Usage of African-American

I think that due to the tense in which the article is written, it is appropriate or at least possible to use African-American because we are looking back at the history, not writing in the present. Also another term that could be used is 'colored'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChaseBB (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] black vs. african american vs. negro

Not to sound politically correct, but is there any reason to use the term 'negro' when not directly quoting a source? If the argument can be made that the term is appropriate given the historical context of the article (and I don't think it can), I would at the very least suggest that one term is used consistently. Toscaesque 05:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC) From foxtale; Toscaesque, please note that during the Civil War the term 'colored' was affixed to units to designate inclusion of people of color (not just African-Americans.) The term Negro is still used today in historical context such as United Negro College Fund, as is Colored, as in National Association for Advancement of Colored People, and also People of Color is gaining prominence in oratory.

there were no "AFRICAN AMERICANS" at this time in history because blacks werent americans.

You may be confusing the difference between U.S. citizens (which the Dred Scot decision covered) and Americans. In any event, it is appropriate to use modern terms in modern encyclopedia entries. We are writing for 21st-century readers, not 19th. Hal Jespersen 19:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the quote "we have buried him with his blacks," to what was actually said. I hate this word, but we cannot censor the racist remark. I cited the source, but it is not in the normal wiki format. If someone wants to change this, that would be appreciated. Clarkseth 00:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"we cannot censor the racist remark". Too right. History without its warts is simply not history, it is propaganda at the very least. Malangthon 22:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I havewatched the movie GLORY go watch it NOW

[edit] truly awful writing

Who wrote this pap in paragraph 5?: "These mobs directed their animosity toward blacks because they felt the Civil War was caused by them. However, the bravery of the 54th would help to assuage anger of this kind, although African-Americans would continue to suffer from discrimination for many years."

A nod to the gods of . . . What?

If this were a legitmate entry it should at least provide some means of actually understanding what was possibly mitigated and how it was mitigated. And this, 'although . . . continue to suffer"? This is just really bad prose, high school text-book stuff the likes of which the most self-righteous history book censors would approve in issues less than encomiastic. Malangthon 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

Hi,

I read about the 270 dead, but how many men were in the regiment in total? And was 270 a high percentage or a relatively low one?

Robin.lemstra

At their peak the 54th had around 950 enlisted and 29 officers. This was close to a full compliment which was 1000. The 54th was actually far less hard hit with casualties than many who saw comprable service. They suffered 270 casualties total. When the 1st Minnesota Infantry charged at Gettysburg that was about how many men they had present and they too started out at near the 1000 figure. Sometimes regiments in the Civil War held a front of only 50 meters or less because they had less than 200 men. The 54th also lost far fewer to disease than some regiments did. All in all they lost fewer than they probably should have. (For instance, they could have been uterly destroyed at Olustee but instead they were the rock that allowed Seymour to retire in good order.) That among other things speaks to their caliber as soldiers.Tuelj (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology or Inaccurate Info

I see that this article has been selected for rewriting. One consideration I would like to suggest is that currently the chronology seems out of whack or the article is not worded well regarding LTC Hallowell. In the third paragraph, it states that Hallowell was promoted into the 55th Mass., but seems for the rest of the article to be serving with the 54th Mass., which he later commands. I'm not sure what the truth is, but it's confusing right now. CsikosLo (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There were two Hallowells, brothers Norwood Penrose (Pen) Hallowell and Edward Needles Hallowell. Part of the text has been vandalized. If this site weren't such a frequent target of vandals that would still be in there. I'll fix it.Tuelj (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting Robert Lowell's poem

The correct quote for the Lowell poem (as uncomfortable as it may make us feel) not only cites the letter mentioned, but the current quote also leaves out lines and words:

Shaw's father wanted no monument except the ditch where his son's body was thrown and lost with his "niggers."

(quotation marks in the original poem - Lowell was not a bigott)

87.51.132.174 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and I intend to change this. Quotes are just that quotes. Lowell did not write his poem as a racist; but even if this were so the quote, if used, must be faithfully rendered. The point of an encyclopedic approach is being lost sometimes with people who want to promote a certain perspective. This is fine in political histories or social histories in which a point of view is stated at the outset and the reader knows to expect interpretations from a certain point of view.

However, Wikipedia strives for neutrality. In history this requires an empiricist approach to the historiography of articles and the work as a whole. This entails determining the historicity (verifiable through objective and authenticatable data)of all material and including faithful renderings of that which can be verified or specific disclaimers (also citing the source) of unverifiable facts. This so called "empiricist history" is a school coming out of the Annales School (wiki has an article on it) of the early twentieth century. The empiricist school is popular with a lot of us military historians, both armature and professional. Some of us call it "The Dragnet School of History," because like Detective Joe Friday we seek, "Just the facts, Mam."

Histories have been full of apocrypha, polemics and just general laxness of scholarship for centuries. There is a lot of truth in the saying that "the victors write the history." An empiricist history is sometimes controversial--that is unavoidable when you include data about people behaving badly. But that is the history of man--people behaving badly and people behaving nobly. Empiricist history throws both out coldly and accurately. It is sometimes therefore very dry and of limited usefulness to a social or political history except as a starting point. But that is the point. It makes no judgments; it merely says what we can verify happened and what people may say happened and did not or what they say can not be verified.

I verified the quote very easily on five internet sources. It needs to be changed. I intend to do it and fight to have it stay that way. I think a lot of folks agree that accuracy, however uncomfortable it makes us feel is too important to do otherwise. Or soon you get idiots saying things like the holocaust of WWII never happened. I think collectively the world is better than that. I think as a whole we realize that the way to do in use of nasty epithets like "nigger" or "mick" or anything else is to admit that they were used in the past and to show that "here is the damage they helped do when they were used."Tuelj (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tired of the Vandalism and Undiscussed Changes

I don't think I personally am going to try to improve this article anymore. It is vandalized about every other day and significant sections like the pay controversy section are arbitrarily deleted without discussion. The 54th was at the center of unequal pay and other issues regarding African-American troops. For instance there are probably three or four relevant paragraphs on the issue of the 54th's leadership trying to get higher rank for their enlisted troops, trying to secure the appointment of an African-American surgeon, etc. But I give up. It's not worth trying to improve an article when you are constantly undoing vandalism and taking several stepps back.Tuelj (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As material continues to get hacked away and work that various people (not only myself) have done dissapears, including, notably, almost everyone's past references I realize that Wikipedia is when all is said and done, a bad idea that will only serve to generate probably millions of bad papers, articles and projects that are full of errors and shortcomings.Tuelj (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In addtion to the presumably well-meaning "edits", this artcle has to be the most vandalized of all the 500+ pages I have contributed to that I track, all too much of it racially based. It is appalling. Tuelj, I feel your pain. Scromett (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)