Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
•••
I've been examining my Philippine-American War cover more closely , and came away more than a little confused! So you don't have to scroll up to see the cover, here it is again:
Here's a high-res image of the return address:
It clearly indicates that the sender is in the 27th Infantry. Or does it? It appears that the return address was first written in light pencil, and the pencilled "7" looks like it might have been a "4". Sort of.
Then there are the initials at the end of the second line: “U.S.Uâ€(?). A google search turns up nothing of military significance that would have the initials “U.S.U.†except, possibly, “United States Uniformed Servicesâ€.
Now to the writing at the left end of the envelope:
In the Second World War, censorship at the unit level could be avoided by officers if they signed a statement that appeared on "Privilege" envelopes, also known as “Honor†envelopes to the effect that nothing that nothing in the enclosed letter could compromise military security. However, I have not seen any such endorsements on other covers of the Philippine-American War or the First World War, but I can’t think of any other reasons for the “endorsement†on this cover.
In addition, the last line of the “endorsement†also has those letters at the end, and they are clearly “U.S.U.â€
David wrote that the U.S. 24th Infantry was a black unit descended from the original Buffalo Soldiers. Now It seems that the sender of the cover was not in the the 24th Infantry, but in the 27th. Or not!
I would, once again, appreciate any of your thoughts on these questions.
Bob
P.S. It’s amazing how much time a “simple†cover can consume. I’m certainly getting my money’s worth out of it. Or you could say that it has, for a few dollars, certainly added to my store of ignorance!
Login to Like
this post
I believe that "USU" is actually "USN". CO could be "Care of". I believe that many troops were housed on ships in the harbor. Just a thought.
There are musters available for the Philippine American War and you could research the names to determine whether you are dealing with the 24th or 27th regiment - I believe that both were there.
Hopefully someone with vastly more knowledge than I have will be along and help out.
Login to Like
this post
Bob's question begs a tad more explanation, some of which appeared in the Belgian thread. The 24th was an amalgamation of the 38th and 41st US infantry regiments, which were created after the civil war. both latter, and the subsequent 24th, were colored regiments. In all, between 1866 and 1900, there were 25 infantry and 10 cavalry regiments, with two of each branch being colored.
In 1901, regiments were slightly expanded, the 27th being one of them, specifically to serve in the Philippines.
It's clear that the ink seen here covers pencil originally used to address the cover; the hand of the ink writer appears the same throughout: corner card, addressee, AND censor. Was this added later, or was the censor helping? The censor's regiment would have been the same as the writer's, so I think there's little doubt that this is the 24th.
I find it interesting that, to me, it seems the censor is the "1st seepet" or, my guess, the "first sergeant" of the company. it might also be "1st Lieutenant" but the writer's I and L are pretty distinct, while his S are pretty ordinary.
In today's army, the first sergeant IS the soldier who runs the company. Was that the case then? Or were casualties high enough that there were no officers? or was it that a white officer wouldn't censor his black enlisted man's letter? I've never seen a letter censored by an enlisted man, if that's what I'm seeing now.
Fascinating. I wish I knew more.
David
Login to Like
this post
Carol, you are correct, both regiments served in the Philippines
David
Login to Like
this post
but i don't think USN would wash. This is not a Marine unit, but an army one.
there were also state units serving there; could the writer have meant USV, as in volunteers, which is how the state units were designated, but not the federal units?
Login to Like
this post
Thank you David and Webpaper for your responses.
David is correct that the cover could not be a U.S. Navy cover. The U.S. Marines are the amphibious assault arm of the U.S. Navy, not something marines like to admit, but it's true. It's why navy hospital corpsman are assigned to the Fleet Marine Force (F.M.F.); that's how I came to be with the marines in Vietnam.
David's suggestion that "U.S.U." might actually be "U.S.V" for U.S. Volunteers is interesting, and the best explanation so far although those second "U's" certainly don't look like "V's". This is what Wikipedia says about the U.S.V.:
"United States Volunteers also known as U.S. Volunteers, U. S. Vol., or U.S.V. were military volunteers enlisted in the United States Army who were separate from the Regular Army.
Starting as early as 1861 these regiments were often referred to as the Volunteer Army of the United States but not officially named (codified into law) that until 1898.
During the nineteenth century this was the United States federal government's main means for raising large forces of citizen-soldiers needed in wartime to augment the small Regular Army and organized militia and National Guard. The U.S. Volunteers were the forerunner of the National Army in World War I and the Army of the United States in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.
The U.S. Volunteers did not exist in times of peace. Unlike the militia, which, under the United States Constitution, each state recruited, trained, equipped, and maintained locally, with regimental officers appointed and promoted by state governors and not kept in federal service for more than nine months nor sent outside the country, the U.S. Volunteers were enlisted for terms of one to three years, and between 1794 and 1902 fought outside the country.
Regiments and batteries became known as "Volunteers" to distinguish between state and regular army units."
I too wondered about the possibility of a censor "helping" to speed the letter on its way. I have several WWII covers in which censor tape, used to close the letter after opening for examination, covered part of the original return address; censors took care to write the covered part of the address on the censor tape, as in this example:
Assuming that a unit censor (but what unit!?) wrote over the pencilled words, it's entirely possible that he was overwhelmed with work and rushed the job. Or his handwriting was like mine, i.e. godawful!
Bob
Login to Like
this post
Hi Bob
Your last posted image isn't necessarily military in nature, but civilian, and censored as such . The rate affixed to the cover would amount to 1/-3 pence, which was the rate required for 'clipper' mail.
The two postmarks are civilian as well.
Hope this helps & I hope I read your question correctly?
Chimo
Bujutsu
Login to Like
this post
@Bujitsu,
No, of course it's not a military cover, but I do think that the censor's job was the same whether the mail was military or civilian — too many letters to censor, too little time. But I like the human touch of professionalism that is evident in the civilian letter, which seems to have been a factor in the censorship of in the military letter.
There was little difference in military and civilian censorship. The goal was always to limit the dissemination of military information that could be used by the enemy should the mail fall into the wrong hands.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Of related interest? - this cover was opened by EXAMINER 3394.
According to records, this British censor group was stationed in Bermuda from April 1941 on.
Login to Like
this post
Thank you for posting the image of that France-to-Indochine cover, nl1947. Can you read the date?
I have several pre-war and post-war covers from France to Indochina, or visa versa, but no wartime covers. A quick search of the major sources of postal history turned up nothing except a few covers posted prior to the Japanese invasion. I assume that your cover was posted before the Allies declared war on Japan.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
True Bob, all mail, military or otherwise, was censored in a similar way.
I have a number of covers close, or similar to yours, bearing postage that would be the rate for Trans Atlantic Clipper mail postage. This is apparently a study all by itself.
Chimo
Bujutsu
Login to Like
this post
Another Stamporama thread, about Belgian forgeries, caught my attention and reminded me of a questionable Philippine-American War cover in my collection. I posted an image of it in that thread, and a few members generously contributed their thoughts, which were based on more expertise than I have, for sure. The consensus seems to be that the cover is genuine. But then I became aware of another problem, which I outlined there. So far there's been no response. I am reposting it here in hopes more members will see it.
•••
I've been examining my Philippine-American War cover more closely , and came away more than a little confused! So you don't have to scroll up to see the cover, here it is again:
Here's a high-res image of the return address:
It clearly indicates that the sender is in the 27th Infantry. Or does it? It appears that the return address was first written in light pencil, and the pencilled "7" looks like it might have been a "4". Sort of.
Then there are the initials at the end of the second line: “U.S.Uâ€(?). A google search turns up nothing of military significance that would have the initials “U.S.U.†except, possibly, “United States Uniformed Servicesâ€.
Now to the writing at the left end of the envelope:
In the Second World War, censorship at the unit level could be avoided by officers if they signed a statement that appeared on "Privilege" envelopes, also known as “Honor†envelopes to the effect that nothing that nothing in the enclosed letter could compromise military security. However, I have not seen any such endorsements on other covers of the Philippine-American War or the First World War, but I can’t think of any other reasons for the “endorsement†on this cover.
In addition, the last line of the “endorsement†also has those letters at the end, and they are clearly “U.S.U.â€
David wrote that the U.S. 24th Infantry was a black unit descended from the original Buffalo Soldiers. Now It seems that the sender of the cover was not in the the 24th Infantry, but in the 27th. Or not!
I would, once again, appreciate any of your thoughts on these questions.
Bob
P.S. It’s amazing how much time a “simple†cover can consume. I’m certainly getting my money’s worth out of it. Or you could say that it has, for a few dollars, certainly added to my store of ignorance!
Login to Like
this post
11:34:25am
Auctions - Approvals
re: A military postal history question
I believe that "USU" is actually "USN". CO could be "Care of". I believe that many troops were housed on ships in the harbor. Just a thought.
There are musters available for the Philippine American War and you could research the names to determine whether you are dealing with the 24th or 27th regiment - I believe that both were there.
Hopefully someone with vastly more knowledge than I have will be along and help out.
Login to Like
this post
re: A military postal history question
Bob's question begs a tad more explanation, some of which appeared in the Belgian thread. The 24th was an amalgamation of the 38th and 41st US infantry regiments, which were created after the civil war. both latter, and the subsequent 24th, were colored regiments. In all, between 1866 and 1900, there were 25 infantry and 10 cavalry regiments, with two of each branch being colored.
In 1901, regiments were slightly expanded, the 27th being one of them, specifically to serve in the Philippines.
It's clear that the ink seen here covers pencil originally used to address the cover; the hand of the ink writer appears the same throughout: corner card, addressee, AND censor. Was this added later, or was the censor helping? The censor's regiment would have been the same as the writer's, so I think there's little doubt that this is the 24th.
I find it interesting that, to me, it seems the censor is the "1st seepet" or, my guess, the "first sergeant" of the company. it might also be "1st Lieutenant" but the writer's I and L are pretty distinct, while his S are pretty ordinary.
In today's army, the first sergeant IS the soldier who runs the company. Was that the case then? Or were casualties high enough that there were no officers? or was it that a white officer wouldn't censor his black enlisted man's letter? I've never seen a letter censored by an enlisted man, if that's what I'm seeing now.
Fascinating. I wish I knew more.
David
Login to Like
this post
re: A military postal history question
Carol, you are correct, both regiments served in the Philippines
David
Login to Like
this post
re: A military postal history question
but i don't think USN would wash. This is not a Marine unit, but an army one.
there were also state units serving there; could the writer have meant USV, as in volunteers, which is how the state units were designated, but not the federal units?
Login to Like
this post
re: A military postal history question
Thank you David and Webpaper for your responses.
David is correct that the cover could not be a U.S. Navy cover. The U.S. Marines are the amphibious assault arm of the U.S. Navy, not something marines like to admit, but it's true. It's why navy hospital corpsman are assigned to the Fleet Marine Force (F.M.F.); that's how I came to be with the marines in Vietnam.
David's suggestion that "U.S.U." might actually be "U.S.V" for U.S. Volunteers is interesting, and the best explanation so far although those second "U's" certainly don't look like "V's". This is what Wikipedia says about the U.S.V.:
"United States Volunteers also known as U.S. Volunteers, U. S. Vol., or U.S.V. were military volunteers enlisted in the United States Army who were separate from the Regular Army.
Starting as early as 1861 these regiments were often referred to as the Volunteer Army of the United States but not officially named (codified into law) that until 1898.
During the nineteenth century this was the United States federal government's main means for raising large forces of citizen-soldiers needed in wartime to augment the small Regular Army and organized militia and National Guard. The U.S. Volunteers were the forerunner of the National Army in World War I and the Army of the United States in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War.
The U.S. Volunteers did not exist in times of peace. Unlike the militia, which, under the United States Constitution, each state recruited, trained, equipped, and maintained locally, with regimental officers appointed and promoted by state governors and not kept in federal service for more than nine months nor sent outside the country, the U.S. Volunteers were enlisted for terms of one to three years, and between 1794 and 1902 fought outside the country.
Regiments and batteries became known as "Volunteers" to distinguish between state and regular army units."
I too wondered about the possibility of a censor "helping" to speed the letter on its way. I have several WWII covers in which censor tape, used to close the letter after opening for examination, covered part of the original return address; censors took care to write the covered part of the address on the censor tape, as in this example:
Assuming that a unit censor (but what unit!?) wrote over the pencilled words, it's entirely possible that he was overwhelmed with work and rushed the job. Or his handwriting was like mine, i.e. godawful!
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: A military postal history question
Hi Bob
Your last posted image isn't necessarily military in nature, but civilian, and censored as such . The rate affixed to the cover would amount to 1/-3 pence, which was the rate required for 'clipper' mail.
The two postmarks are civilian as well.
Hope this helps & I hope I read your question correctly?
Chimo
Bujutsu
Login to Like
this post
re: A military postal history question
@Bujitsu,
No, of course it's not a military cover, but I do think that the censor's job was the same whether the mail was military or civilian — too many letters to censor, too little time. But I like the human touch of professionalism that is evident in the civilian letter, which seems to have been a factor in the censorship of in the military letter.
There was little difference in military and civilian censorship. The goal was always to limit the dissemination of military information that could be used by the enemy should the mail fall into the wrong hands.
Bob
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
02:40:37pm
re: A military postal history question
Of related interest? - this cover was opened by EXAMINER 3394.
According to records, this British censor group was stationed in Bermuda from April 1941 on.
Login to Like
this post
re: A military postal history question
Thank you for posting the image of that France-to-Indochine cover, nl1947. Can you read the date?
I have several pre-war and post-war covers from France to Indochina, or visa versa, but no wartime covers. A quick search of the major sources of postal history turned up nothing except a few covers posted prior to the Japanese invasion. I assume that your cover was posted before the Allies declared war on Japan.
Bob
Login to Like
this post
re: A military postal history question
True Bob, all mail, military or otherwise, was censored in a similar way.
I have a number of covers close, or similar to yours, bearing postage that would be the rate for Trans Atlantic Clipper mail postage. This is apparently a study all by itself.
Chimo
Bujutsu
Login to Like
this post