Buffalo Soldiers Memorial

Couvi
Society Member
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:30 am

Pat Holscher wrote:
While not related to Bison, of course, the name "Elk" shows up fairly often as well. I once worked on a matter where a woman had the last name "Pretty Elk", for example. It'd be interesting to know what contemporary sources indicate being used as a nickname, if there are any.

The very well researched, but still a novel, Little Big Man has the Cheyenne using the term "Black White Men" for blacks in general, and while it is only a novel, it is an unusually well researched one in regards to Indians and their views.
My grand=daughter's maiden name is Red Elk, two words.

'Tui-Tivoh (sp) ' was the Comanche word for Blacks and means Black White Man. I wonder if it actually means 'strangers' and 'Black strangers.'
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

From the article:
William Leckie’s 1967 book, The Buffalo Soldiers, essentially a campaign history of the 9th and 10th Cavalry regiments, brought the service of these units to popular attention and popularized the term "buffalo soldiers."
I wonder if that's correct. I've seen (and might have) Leckie's book, but I think the term was in popular use prior to that. For example, John Ford's 1960 movie "Sergeant Rutledge" featured Woody Strode as a 9th or 10th Cavalry First Sergeant who is wrongly accused of assault and murder and defended by his commanding officer, Lt. Cantrell, played by Jeffrey Hunter. It's one of the classic John Ford cavalry movies and was reportedly one of Ford's favorites, and it uses the term and even features a rather over dramatic "Captain Buffalo" pseudo period marching/riding song (most Ford Westerns having at least one big musical number in them).

Anyhow, while it's not one the films that people routinely think of in the Ford collection of cavalry movies, the theme of career black Frontier cavalrymen and the term "Buffalo Soldier" had sufficient cultural currency such that Ford doesn't seem to have to explain their elements in the film, and that predates Leckie's book. More likely, Ford's film came in the thick of the 1950s era Civil Rights movement (granted, it's a 1960 film) while Leckie's book probably reflects the results of that movement and the wider interest in the topic of black soldiers by 1967, sort of the same way that there started to be a lot of Indian themed books in the 1970s following the Indian movement of that era.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Couvi wrote:
'Tui-Tivoh (sp) ' was the Comanche word for Blacks and means Black White Man. I wonder if it actually means 'strangers' and 'Black strangers.'
Comanches are a Shoshonian people, which makes their language interesting in the context of the northern plains. Their language is an Algonquin language. The Cheyenne (in regards to the novel Little Big Man) speak a Utzo Aztec language which is quite different. The Shoshone people, had a presence on the northern plains prior the Cheyennes, and so their use of a term of that type may be telling.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Regarding the enlisted ranks of the Frontier Army, this discussion serves to remind me the extent to which the enlisted ranks were really heavily populated by the disadvantaged of some sort. Not exclusively, to be sure, but the recently freed black population certain had its economic and social disadvantages, as we all know, and the remainder of the Army's enlisted ranks was sort of a near registry of Irish and German immigrants.

An interesting army.
Joseph Sullivan
Society Member
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:35 pm
Last Name: Sullivan

You are right about the immigrant population of the army. During the 19th century, when service meant years of hard labor as construction gangs and the like as much as it did riding horses, once the War Between the States was over, who would enlist unless he had limited options? Officers are an entirely different matter, of course.

To Couvi's question as to whether that Comanche word actually implied "strangers," I have no idea but wouldn't be surprised. As my fatier once pointed out, most tribes name for themselves collectively translates to "the People," as in the human beings, and their names for other tribes ranged from humerus to downright insulting (Souix means "poisonous serpent," in Ojibwa; Chippewa means "puckered toe, in Ojibwa, but it was applied to them by other people -- that is in itself a funny story).
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

I wonder what percentage of the enlisted ranks of the frontier Army stayed in until retirement? At that time, that was 30 years. Some clearly did, but 1/3d of them deserted every year as well.

I suspect, but don't know, that this may be one area where the service was attractive to blacks in a way it wasn't to many whites. It was probably close to being the only occupation that was open to blacks that had any chance at something like equal pay with whites and retirement.

As a total aside, it's interesting to note that from the Revolution up until 1893, the Navy's enlisted ranks were generally open to blacks in a non segregated way. That is, the Navy didn't discriminate in enlisted recruitment based on race. I don't know for sure, but I'd surprised if blacks advanced in the enlisted ranks very much, but they certainly did serve. Estimates at various times puts the black population of the enlisted ranks in the Navy from 20% up to 40% of the overall total. Without knowing for sure, I think that may reflect the maritime culture of the period, and up until after the Civil War sailors were pretty much recruited from ports. As there were quite a few black mariners there would have been quite a few black sailors.

Starting in 1893 things changed, and the Navy restricted blacks to being messmen and a few other service roles. By that time, however, the Navy was recruiting from all over the country as the Navy was getting to resemble the modern Navy. From 1919 to 1932 blacks were completely prohibited from joining the Navy.
Joseph Sullivan
Society Member
Posts: 858
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:35 pm
Last Name: Sullivan

Going way out into speculation, a thesis for your consideration:

I wonder if the increasing discrimination against black sailors is in part an artifact of the mechanization of the Navy? IN the days of fighting sail, every hand who was not a beginner had a set of highly critical and specialized skills, tremendous nerve, and a fair amount of athletic ability. As the navy moved to combustion power, those skills were no longer needed. What took its place were firemen, engineers, gun crews and the like. to be sure, senior non-coms and officers needed high level navigation and ship handling skills, but not ordinary seamen. They needed skills, but nothing as demanding or hard to attain as those of the old mast hands. This made it possible to recruit more broadly, and, sadly, to be racially discriminatory in the process.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Joseph Sullivan wrote:Going way out into speculation, a thesis for your consideration:

I wonder if the increasing discrimination against black sailors is in part an artifact of the mechanization of the Navy? IN the days of fighting sail, every hand who was not a beginner had a set of highly critical and specialized skills, tremendous nerve, and a fair amount of athletic ability. As the navy moved to combustion power, those skills were no longer needed. What took its place were firemen, engineers, gun crews and the like. to be sure, senior non-coms and officers needed high level navigation and ship handling skills, but not ordinary seamen. They needed skills, but nothing as demanding or hard to attain as those of the old mast hands. This made it possible to recruit more broadly, and, sadly, to be racially discriminatory in the process.
I think you are almost certainly correct.

When the Navy went to what we'd recognize as more modern ships post war, a lot of Navy occupations, probably most Navy occupations, started to have little to do with seamanship. Most sailors, far more than soldiers, are some sort of physical plant tradesman, such as electricians, pipefitters, etc. etc. They're clearly in the service, but the skills necessary to those jobs are just as likely to be found in Omaha as they would be in Boston. Recruiting from the entire nation would have mean that the general atmosphere of discrimination would have come on in with the broader recruiting.
Couvi
Society Member
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:30 am

Joseph Sullivan wrote:You are right about the immigrant population of the army. During the 19th century, when service meant years of hard labor as construction gangs and the like as much as it did riding horses, once the War Between the States was over, who would enlist unless he had limited options? Officers are an entirely different matter, of course.

To Couvi's question as to whether that Comanche word actually implied "strangers," I have no idea but wouldn't be surprised. As my fatier once pointed out, most tribes name for themselves collectively translates to "the People," as in the human beings, and their names for other tribes ranged from humerus to downright insulting (Souix means "poisonous serpent," in Ojibwa; Chippewa means "puckered toe, in Ojibwa, but it was applied to them by other people -- that is in itself a funny story).
One benefit, in addition to being steady work, a five-year enlistment in the Army, and I would imagine that to be the case in the Navy and Marine Corps, was citizenship, which opened up a lot of doors when viewed with an Honorable Discharge with positive remarks at the bottom.

Does anyone here know what a ‘Bob-tailed’ Discharge is?

Your father is absolutely correct on Native Americans naming themselves. The Comanche call themselves ‘Nu’um,’ which means ‘The Men.’
Couvi
Society Member
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:30 am

Pat Holscher wrote:Starting in 1893 things changed, and the Navy restricted blacks to being messmen and a few other service roles. By that time, however, the Navy was recruiting from all over the country as the Navy was getting to resemble the modern Navy. From 1919 to 1932 blacks were completely prohibited from joining the Navy.
I wonder how much the passage of 'Jim Crow' laws, and not the ability of Blacks to adapt to the mechanized Navy, had to do with that?
Couvi
Society Member
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:30 am

Pat Holscher wrote:Regarding the enlisted ranks of the Frontier Army, this discussion serves to remind me the extent to which the enlisted ranks were really heavily populated by the disadvantaged of some sort. Not exclusively, to be sure, but the recently freed black population certain had its economic and social disadvantages, as we all know, and the remainder of the Army's enlisted ranks was sort of a near registry of Irish and German immigrants.

An interesting army.
In the early 1870s, the 5th Cavalry, at Fort Richardson, TX, was composed of companies of Germans and companies of Frenchmen. When the Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870, they started fighting each other! The solution was to mix the content of the companies.

There is a great book, whose title escapes me at the moment, by an individual named Lowe, which describes this scenario.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Couvi wrote:
Joseph Sullivan wrote:You are right about the immigrant population of the army. During the 19th century, when service meant years of hard labor as construction gangs and the like as much as it did riding horses, once the War Between the States was over, who would enlist unless he had limited options? Officers are an entirely different matter, of course.

To Couvi's question as to whether that Comanche word actually implied "strangers," I have no idea but wouldn't be surprised. As my fatier once pointed out, most tribes name for themselves collectively translates to "the People," as in the human beings, and their names for other tribes ranged from humerus to downright insulting (Souix means "poisonous serpent," in Ojibwa; Chippewa means "puckered toe, in Ojibwa, but it was applied to them by other people -- that is in itself a funny story).
One benefit, in addition to being steady work, a five-year enlistment in the Army, and I would imagine that to be the case in the Navy and Marine Corps, was citizenship, which opened up a lot of doors when viewed with an Honorable Discharge with positive remarks at the bottom.

Does anyone here know what a ‘Bob-tailed’ Discharge is?

Your father is absolutely correct on Native Americans naming themselves. The Comanche call themselves ‘Nu’um,’ which means ‘The Men.’
Building a bit on what Joe and Couvi have noted, one thing that's been completely forgotten by modern Americans is the extent to which single life was extremely difficult up until the mid 20th Century. Domestic machines (washing machines, modern stoves, etc) revolutionized home life. Frankly, they had a lot more to do with the "liberation" of women than the much cited example of World War Two did.

Prior to the invention of domestic machines, it was almost impossible for an average person to exist without others to depend on for much of what we take granted. Clothing tended towards wool, and no clothing was conveniently washed without a person directly doing it. Everything was air dried. Food took hours to cook, and very little of it could easily be stored by most people. Keeping living space clean took direct physical labor.

I note that, as what this meant for most single people is that they lived at home until they were married, at which point their joint efforts allowed them to live outside the household of their birth. Men typically stayed at home until they were married, their adult incomes contributing to the household's. If they didn't do that, living in a boarding house was a very common option. They had little other choice, as it isn't as if they could work ten hour days, clean their clothes, keep their quarters clean, etc. Young women also typically stayed at home until they were married, contributing to the household labor as a rule. One of my mother's aunts, observing the extent of married labor, elected to do that with her father, living in his household her entire adult life and essentially acting as a cook, maid, and business clerk, rather than marry. Even in the mid 20th Century these long held habits were often there. My own father returned briefly to his mother's household after he got out of the USAF, which was typical. My mother and a couple of her sisters gravely disappointed their mother by moving out of the family home in the 1940s to go elsewhere to work.

The point is this. Even today, joining the service is a very popular option for young immigrants. Added to that, for those young men who came into the country in the 19th Century, with nothing much more than the clothes on their backs, the service offered three bland meals a day and a set of clothing, which was not a bad deal really.
Pat Holscher
Society Member
Posts: 7553
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Last Name: Holscher

Couvi wrote:
Pat Holscher wrote:Starting in 1893 things changed, and the Navy restricted blacks to being messmen and a few other service roles. By that time, however, the Navy was recruiting from all over the country as the Navy was getting to resemble the modern Navy. From 1919 to 1932 blacks were completely prohibited from joining the Navy.
I wonder how much the passage of 'Jim Crow' laws, and not the ability of Blacks to adapt to the mechanized Navy, had to do with that?
I think a lot of it would have been simply cultural.

People don't completely accurately remember the history of race relations in the post Civil War era today. There was never a post 1865 point in time when everything was okay, but what's sort of been forgotten is that there was a nationwide rise in "nativist" and racist feelings in the late 19th Century. Following the Civil War there was certainly ongoing opposition to the incorporation of blacks into society, with some very open opposition, but it was often surprisingly muted in some areas and outside the South there was a period of time when blacks were relatively accepted. Even in the South it was apparently the case that poor whites were sufficiently accepting of the change in circumstances at first that when the Army had to conduct some food distribution after the war white Southerners encouraged blacks to participate in receiving it along with them, even while efforts to institutionalize prejudice were at work in wealthier quarters.

That era sort of passed after Reconstruction and institutionalization set in the South, but a general societal prejudice sort of set in everywhere, or at least in most places. Prior to World War One the KKK had a pretty significant presence in the Mid West,for example, and there were a lot of places where the KKK openly published advertisements, often aimed against Catholics and Jews.

What I suspect happened is what Joe notes. Sailors in the sail navy were heavily drawn from maritime communities, which had their own cultures and which were relatively integrated. Blacks had been part of the hard dirty job of seafaring for a long time, so it was natural that they'd be included in the polyglot community of enlisted sailors. But when the Navy started to field a lot of floating steel cities, everything changed. Those old maritime skills didn't really mean that much to a Navy that had a fleet of steam powered floating cities and towns. At that point, chances are pretty good that "mechanics" from larger cities and towns were more valuable than men who had grown up afloat. So the prejudice that had been developed almost everywhere just came right on in. Additionally, chances are good that the new class of sailors might have found serving with blacks odd as they likely hadn't worked with them or lived with them, where as seafaring people had. Chances are high, I suspect, that if the Navy hadn't changed its policy that no problems would have actually developed, but in the culture of the time, that probably wasn't something they worried about much.
selewis
Society Member
Posts: 927
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2003 1:47 pm
Last Name: Lewis

Couvi wrote:

Does anyone here know what a ‘Bob-tailed’ Discharge is?
It isn't in my dictionary but this guy has an explanation: http://ezinearticles.com/?Old-Army-Term ... &id=998349
Couvi
Society Member
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 9:30 am

selewis wrote:
Couvi wrote:

Does anyone here know what a ‘Bob-tailed’ Discharge is?
It isn't in my dictionary but this guy has an explanation: http://ezinearticles.com/?Old-Army-Term ... &id=998349
Absolutely correct. The bottom of the discharge certificate had a few lines where a commander could write laudatory comments on the discharged soldier. Comments such as “Good Blacksmith,” “Excellent Soldier,” etc. If the commander was just glad to get rid of him, he cut the bottom off the discharge certificate so that the soldier would not add his own comments, and every employer knew what the ‘bob-tailed’ discharge meant.
Locked