>But of course if you look at it with 2023 goggles which you should never do.

It's important to understand the context of actions taken by historic figures. Beyond that it's up to individuals to choose how they judge the actions of people in the past. Context is very important, and I have no love for people who feel a need to criticise others for their own gain or virtue signal, whether in a historical discussion or not.

That said I'm reading the book here https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/9104/pg9104-images.html

And I can only find references to things like "Spaniards", "Indians" or "The French" similar terms in the preface and chapter 1. Any reference to race seems to be of a group of people.

>The American armies, on the contrary, were composed of the armed settlers of Kentucky and Ohio, native Americans, of English speech and blood, who were battling for lands that were to form the heritage of their children. In the West the war was only the closing act of the struggle that for many years had been waged by the hardy and restless pioneers of our race, as with rifle and axe they carved out the mighty empire that we their children inherit; it was but the final effort with which they wrested from the Indian lords of the soil the wide and fair domain that now forms the heart of our great Republic.

So I got to Chapter 2

>The first point to be remembered in order to write a fair account of this war is that the difference in fighting skill, which certainly existed between the two parties, was due mainly to training, and not to the nature of the men. It seems certain that the American had in the beginning somewhat the advantage, because his surroundings, partly physical and partly social and political, had forced him into habits of greater self-reliance. Therefore, on the average, he offered rather the best material to start with; but the difference was very slight, and totally disappeared under good training. The combatants were men of the same race, differing but little from one another. On the New England coast the English blood was as pure as in any part of Britain; in New York and New Jersey it was mixed with that of the Dutch settlers—and the Dutch are by race nearer to the true old English of Alfred and Harold than are, for example, the thoroughly anglicized Welsh of Cornwall. Otherwise, the infusion of new blood into the English race on this side of the Atlantic has been chiefly from three sources—German, Irish, and Norse; and these three sources represent the elemental parts of the composite English stock in about the same proportions in which they were originally combined,—mainly Teutonic, largely Celtic, and with a Scandinavian admixture

I think /u/historycat95 might have meant chapter 2. Roosevelt does seem to talk a fair bit about the nationalities of the servicemen in both navies, though it does seem like he uses "race" as something other than nationality, what we might call ethnicity these days.

I'm mostly just skimming though, it's entirely possible I'm just missing the part being referenced.

I think you're talking about basically the same concept as Minuted described below you. You shouldn't be downvoted. You're taking his use of the term "race" like what I interpret that quoted text to mean -- a group of people, but not like Whites / Blacks / Chinese.