Talk:New York City draft riots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article New York City draft riots has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anti-war (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject New York City (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject United States History (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Death (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

State militia at the time of the riots[edit]

The article on the New York State Guard, where the link from 7th Regiment New York State Militia, points out that the unit was attatched to federal forces and stationed in Baltimore from June 18 to July 5, 1863, while Gettysburg was July 1 to July 3. It looks like they were stationed at Frederick at the time they had to run back to New York City. It seems the riots themselves were the unit's first major action.

Personally, I'm kind of curious about where the idea of sending battle-hardened Gettysburg veterans to put down the riots came from, it sounds like something thought up to move newspapers at the time. Guppy313 03:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

YEs but in addition to the 7th came the 152nd New York Volunteers, the 26th Michigan Volunteers. (were they from the Gettysburg campaign.) I think Frederick MD counts as part of the gettysburg campaign. Rjensen 04:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
A Michigan unit was involved? That brings me to a question concerning one of my pet issues; if the troops were serving in their federal capacity, did the federal government act out of its own initiative (which wouldn't be surprising at the time), or was it at the request of Albany? If it was at the request of the state, was it the legislature or the governor doing the requesting?
Basically, I'm curious about the trend I see of state governors side-stepping the state legislatures in asking for federal assistance against "domestic Violence" even though they should only have the authority when the state legislature "cannot be convened." For example, the 1992 Los Angeles Riots happened when the California Legislature was taking a three-day weekend, but it was otherwise in session when Governor Pete Wilson asked President George H. W. Bush for federal troops. Personally, I'm curious how far back this trend goes. Guppy313 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It turns out Secretary of War Stanton was acting at the request of Mayor Opdyke, so it was essentially the federal government acting on its own initiative. Guppy313 13:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath (Casualties)[edit]

While the casualties while listed under the aftermath are definitely factually accurate (greater than 100 dead), they seem to be highly underreported compared to estimates given by Asbury in Gangs of New York (1927). He lists the following "conservative estimates":
-2,000 killed (mostly rioters)
-8,000 wounded

with what I assume are breakdowns of the above totals

-3 police killed and hundreds of police injured
-at least 50 soldiers killed
-18 Negroes lynched and 70 disappeared (probably also lynched)
-more than 100 buildings burned (including two Protestant churches), and 200 looted
-property damages of at about $5,000,000 ($80,000,000 in 2006 dollars) not counting loss of business activity

-only 20 people convicted with average sentence of 5 years

Asbury may not have been the most unbiased author, but none of the estimates are unreasonable and should be included in the article unless directly contradicted by an author with more reliable sources.

--Gprimos1 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Added that sources differ on counts Jailerdaemon (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Searchtool.svg Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Bernstein2291 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

GA Sweeps Review: Pass[edit]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment[edit]

I've found numerous sources which state the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was used during the Riots, and their CO was killed. They aren't mentioned in this article. Any idea why? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Rioters Mainly Irish?[edit]

The primary source used here may not be trustworthy, anti Irish sentiment was at an all time high at the time. A newspaper accusing a commonly scapegoated ethnic group may not be entirely accurate. Perhaps this should be changed to say "newspapers of the time blamed the Irish" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.241.83 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

and Mainly does not mean 80% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.204.47 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
80% -- and I don't know where that number comes from -- would be accurately described as "mainly" or "mostly" or "predominantly", et al. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that most of the rioters were Irish, however, that's because most of the city's criminals were Irish. The article heavily implies that virtually all the violence was committed by ordinary working-class Irish Americans. The initial protesters were made up of Irish laborers but the bulk of the looting and violence was carried out by the old Bowery and Paradise Square gangs (ala "Gangs of New York"). There's not a single mention of New York's underworld in the entire article. 71.184.39.252 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Fictional Portrayals[edit]

A Wish After Midnight by Zetta Elliott portrays the riots in the climax of the story as well.--98.150.18.203 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark Steyn commentary[edit]

Certain editors have been trying to rv the Mark Steyn comments, which are neither contentious nor amateurish. The last such editor replaced Steyn's comments with positive reviews of the film by the New York Times (a left-wing partisan publication anyway) and Richard Roeper. Mark Steyn is not a film reviewer; he is a political commentator and pundit, and his commentary refers to the fictional and almost ahistorical crux of Scorsese's rather anti-Protestant film. This is not about how many stars the film got from different reviewers or how good the performances may have been. Quis separabit? 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Protestant= portraying how protestants actually acted at the time. Okay— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.232.58 (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Protestant= portraying how protestants actually acted at the time.
Hmmm. ... tell me, just how did besieged Protestants in New York act at the time? I can't ask them since they have been extirpated. I certainly am not going to take the word of Martin Scorcese, whose film on the subject was almost complete fiction. Sorry you didn't realize that. Should I ask such non-biased sources as Pete Hamill, and his hatemongering younger brother, Denis, or Finley Peter Dunne or Andrew Greeley (the priest who made millions writing soft-porn and apologetics) or Peter Sheridan or Denis Donoghue or Tim Pat Coogan? Please enlighten me. By the way: two Protestant churches were burned down during the riots, not any Catholic churches. Quis separabit? 19:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
And how did Irish Catholics act when their turf was threatened? Ever hear of the 1919 Chicago race riots which helped build Boss Daley's political career? Or even when there was no threat (i.e. the 1904 pogrom of Jews in Limerick)? Quis separabit? 19:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Considering how much work has been done by historians on ethnic and minority history in recent decades, there seems to be an overreliance in this article on dated sources (e.g., 1863, 1899) Current scholarship should be used for more about context, background and interpretation. The New-York Historical Society produced a landmark exhibit on Slavery in NY (2005-2007), including material on the Draft Riots. Parkwells (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate References and Further reading[edit]

Two lists, to make it clear for readers what was used in the article. Parkwells (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"The riots were the largest civil insurrection in American history."[edit]

I find this sentence, from the lede, very confusing, particularly since the preceding sentences ends by noting that they occurred during the Civil War. Was not the war "the largest civil insurrection"? Perhaps someone with access to the Foner work cited can explain this but it seems to warrant explication in the text of the article.Czrisher (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gettysburg and the draft riots[edit]

One can say that the draft riots broke out when the casualty lists for the Battle of Gettysburg hit the streets. Anger at the loss of so many was surely the trigger for all the pent up frustration of the New York masses. The third New York corps, mostly from New York City, was particularly hard hit. General Sickles had led them, against orders, to "The Wheat Field" and "The Peach Orchard" directly on to the flank of the Confederate army and so was just about wiped out. He was a New York politico who was known for having shot his wife's lover and gotten away with it. He would have been up on charges if he had not lost his leg there and so left the army. The crowds knew all this and the idea of being forced to be cannon fodder sent them in to the streets, where Southern sympathizers targeted them on to the blacks, who were not subject to the draft at that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.215 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

100 or 11 blacks[edit]

Both the intro and the "Monday" section of the article includes a claim about "100 black people" killed. In the latter section, the claim is sourced to (Leslie M. Harris, "The New York City Draft Riots", excerpt from In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863, University of Chicago Press, 2003). I checked that source, (which names several of the victims), but no claim of "100 black people" could be found, instead, it says "In all, rioters lynched eleven black men over the five days of mayhem".

I first corrected this from a tablet on which I accidentally hit edit before I could finish the edit comment, with the unfortunate consequence that Parkwells thought I merely miss the source. On second try, Rms125a reverted it with the comment "rv unsourceable (for now) ref", which I don't quite get: the source is already in the article. 188.127.135.58 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I see Rms125a reverted his/her revision, rendering the above obsolete before I finished it :-) 188.127.135.58 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem. I am always ready to admit when I make a mistake. Although I think it should be noted that while 11 blacks were lynched, obviously more died than that, which is where the 100 number may come in. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacks citizens[edit]

Blacks were either citizens or they were not. To say that "Black men were excluded from the draft as they were largely not considered citizens" cannot be correct. What people considered was not the point, what the law said was. Blacks were citizens. The fact that they were exempt from the draft was a separate matter.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

YES IT IS[edit]

The New York City draft riots were, for the most influential and emblematic purposes of mankind, the worst race riots in American history. And that is just for starters.shyjayb 04:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talkcontribs)