Draft Riots Reading 3

The conclusion of the Draft Riots was brought about in part by the removal of the draft lottery from the city. With a new date for the reinstatement of the lottery a month or so away, the government, both state and federal levels, had time to prepare for another battle or to create a set up to make another successful riot impossible. When the draft commenced, "the federal government stationed ten thousand federal troops in the city" to ensure that another riot would either not occur or the attempt of one would become a suicidal mission. I am sure that the government would have received some hint or idea that a mob of protesters was forming the first time and have been able to send troops in to protect the city and quell the riots. It was apparent through the readings that there was little to no action at night, giving the government time to rally some federal troops together to protect the citizens. The mob was savage and out of control, but I think quick and objective actions could have spared some lives and subdued some of the savage chaos.

One concept I found interesting in these last readings compared to the previous days' reading of the riots was the attempt to integrate a religious aspect into the angry mob in hopes of preventing any more havoc. Although sickly, Archbishop John Hughes spoke to thousands of the rioters, primarily the Irish-Catholics, to create an atmosphere which was non violent. The mob had spent days chasing and killing people, burning buildings, looting houses, and turning into savage beasts. Police forces tried to help some, but the mob was too many to use much force against. Perhaps a religious approach would get the people to behave and act civil once more. In the daily paper announcing the proposed speak by Hughes, it read "If they have any respect for the episcopal authority, to dissolve their association with reckless men who have little regard for the Divine or human law." This I found most interesting because it is basically scolding the religious man for if he has any respect for his faith he will stop marching around with men who have seem to lost their morals. This statement would make people step back form their situation and really look at what they have been doing, and notice that they have been sinning and be convinced to stop the violence no matter the cause.

The question I wanted to propose was how were the people who were prosecuted chosen? There were so many people rioting and destroying lives and property that it must have been difficult to nail down everyone involved in murder, therefore I want to know how if the choosing of the prosecuted was deliberate or random just to satisfy some of the local Republicans.

Draft Riots Reading 2

As the draft riots commenced on the second and third day, the mob seemed to always have a meeting time and place even if it wasn't precisely spoken. They all new where to find each other. Once again, African Americans were the target of the mob's anger because of the chain effect mentality they held about the draft, the war, and slavery. The continuance of the riots exhibited the unfolding of the savagery in the people as well as the developing role of the lower class and working class women participating in the riots.

Often times mob behavior will take humans from civilization to barbarism, allowing the people to leave their moral compass behind and be guided by the sadistic actions of the masses. Almost every drawing which was published in newspapers depicted the rioters as savage and inhumane. The cartoons "How to escape the draft," "Looting of a Drug Store," and "Murder or Colonel O'Brien" all provide images where the attackers have lost their human qualities and have become savages, with no true reasons for attacking the people they killed or burning the houses of the innocent. The descriptions of the diagrams describe the rioters as "animalistic" and "exhibiting animal-like features" which compares to the same imagery used in other written articles and excerpts from the era including multiple works from J.T. Headley, commenting that "the spirit of hell seemed to have entered the hearts of these men" and by William O. Stoddard the idea that the protests "unchained these wolves from their dens of sloth and self-indulgence and crime." These implications of inhumane behavior demonstrate how dangerous the aggressors were to their victims as well as to the law enforcement and the government as the two worked to both protect the victims and try and negotiate terms with the lawless murderers to bring the rioting to a close.

The idea I found most intriguing in the set of second riot readings was the mentioning of the involvement of women in the riots. Women of the upper classes during the 1860s were not as involved in politics or the economy, in part because women were discriminated against by the male population for their supposed inferiority and frailness. Also, it was considered the men's duty to provide for the family. In the lower and middle classes however, the women needed to be more involved in political, economical, and social matters because often times they were forced to work to provide for their family and males and females had more equality in the lower classes. One of the depictions of the murder of colonel O'Brien includes women in the photo because "women had long participated in the rough-and-tumble politics of the streets in working-class neighborhoods." Women lived hard life styles and were not going to be sitting around while the men trashed the streets because the draft affected their families and they needed to protest too. An exert from a book by William O. Stoddard on the murder of Colonel O'Brien also proceeds to mention that when he was taken from the threshold of his home, "both males and females took part in the brutal transaction." The savage behaviors as mentioned in the paragraph above were not descriptions for only men. The women's mentality was a bloodthirsty, murderous, and thieving mindset as well as all the men. The women had just as much at stake as anyone else and would not go down without a battle.

In regards to the damage that was done and the money which was appropriated for the New York rioters, I am curious as to whether the citizens of the city had taxes placed on them afterwards to help pay for the damage they created or if the government took care of the payment by itself, possibly in fear that it could cause another uprising from the mob.

Draft Riots Reading 1

The New York draft riots were some of the bloodiest civilian occurrences in our nation's history, and I find it hard to believe that this is the first that I have learned of this gruesome event. I have taken part in numerous history classes, but never have I covered this important event in detail let alone in passing. I am thankful I have the chance to be made aware of the draft riots which took place in the city. If only high school classes could go more into depth on topics such as this one.

One fact which was a common thread through a few of the primary sources was the idea that the mob and rioters were a very mixed group of citizens yet they all seemed to work together to destroy homes, offices, and people. Frank Leslie's picture which was published in a newsletter depicted men wearing various outfits to show the diversity of the rioters. A couple of the men are wearing what appears to be work clothes or just clothes of lower quality, one man is wearing a suit with striped pants, and the last man on the right is wearing a soldier's uniform. The anger that touched many citizens in the United States over the draft, unified the rich and the poor and anyone in between to fight for a cause which they believed in. This idea of diversity was also reinforced in the article by J.T. Headley where he comments that "a more wild, savage, and heterogeneous-looking mass could not be imagined" also showing the unity of the mob through their anger and their common goal to destroy anything and anyone who is correlated with the draft.

The theme of murdering and lynching the black population was present in both the primary sources as well as in the movie, Gangs of New York. In another exert from a book by J.T Headley covering the attack on the colored orphan asylum, the rioters attacked this long standing unit because "there would have been no draft but for the war- there would have been no war but for slavery. But the slaves were black, ergo, all blacks are responsible for the war." Even if the children involved had no direct connections to slavery, the mob needed to target their anger at something and chose the race which they believed should be held responsible for the entire draft necessity. In Gangs of New York, a colored man in the Dead Rabbits gang was beaten and lynched for his color, with the same picture which shows the murder and mutilation of William Jones in the primary source packet flashing before the screen, as if the murder of the gang member was symbolizing the lynching of William Jones. The cruelty which the mob stopped too was disgraceful and disgusting to read about and watch in the movie. An event like the discrimination and savageness which these citizens displayed in New York City are unimaginable to me in today's world.

After watching the movie and partaking in the readings, I am more clear as to the reasons supporting the mob's motives, however I would be interested in a primary source written by someone who was actually in the mob. I believe this in sight would help to further develop a perspective on the motives for the riots. The question I have is what became of the aftermath of the draft? Did New Yorkers still get drafted? Were there repercussions for their actions?

Five Points

During orientation here at Stonehill, I was one of the lucky candidates asked to take the CLA testing. A portion of this exam included writing an essay to support or refute a statement regarding America's nickname of "the land of opportunity" and how the growing gap between the rich and poor might suggest otherwise. I chose to support the statement, with one of my focuses of the paper targeting urban American centers where poverty was common and the living conditions were anything but sanitary. Five Points in New York (circa 1860) would definitely be a section of the nation which would immediately refute any inclination of America being a land full of wondrous opportunities.

According to the primary sources, Five Points was filthy, it was filled to the brim with gangs making their name known, prostitutes flaunting their bodies because it was the only thing they possessed, and men and women who had no where else to go. Five Points encaptures its victims; "those who once enter into this diabolical traffic are seldom saved" (Foster, 220). There are no means of escape form the dreadful and horrible life of those unfortunate souls who befall this fate. It is an easy ride to the depths of this mess and an impossible climb out.

During the prime days of Five Points, the Civil War had also overtaken the United States, inclusive of the Draft which Lincoln had to utilize. New York draft riots emerged as a consequence of the draft as angry civilians rebelled against the government. The citizens of Five Points, primarily the gangs, were suspects of these riots. Destined for a terrible and rancid life, war might not be a far step from the life the gang members were living already. After all, the gangs waged war against each other all the time. Why then would members object to being sent off to fight for a greater cause?

I believe that the gang members and citizens of Five Points in New York did not object to the actual act of fighting for the nation but held objections to the politics behind the draft. The draft allowed for the rich upper class men to pay their way out of fighting to spare their lives while the poor and unfortunate people had no choice but to answer their country's call for help. They had lived lives of destitution and were enslaved in the American system and the only means of escape that America was providing them with was to fight, and almost inevitably die. America as a land of opportunity should not place higher value on some one's life based solely on the amount of monetary profits which a person makes.

The question I hold after reading these articles and analyzing the pictures, lays in the necessity of a run down area of a city like Five Points in the seemingly grand and opportunistic view we hold of America. I want to know how Americans can be so indifferent to this level of poverty in the 1800s as well as today in our very own country. How did a place like this occur in our history and how can education of similar situations help to teach Americans about what they can do to help?

"Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts"

I have never thought about how someone should go about studying history before reading this article. In all of my previous years of learning, history was always taught either through text book readings or lecture notes in class. This is the manner which I figured history would always be taught. It never occurred to me that a more intellectual way of figuring out what occurred so many years ago is to uncover details and information from the primary sources themselves. When Alston was trying to deduce whether Lincoln was a racist or not through a series of documents handed to him, "his expertise lay not in his sweeping knowledge of this topic but in his ability to pick himself up after a tumble, to get a fix on what he does not know, and to generate a road map to guide his new learning" (21). Alston did not assume anything, as did other participants, but instead drew questions from words which Lincoln used which he himself did not understand the context of. I myself have never used this technique, but instead assume many things based on my previous knowledge, which I now know is not the smartest tool to use. Also, the majority of the time I have come in contact with historical documents, I have been searching for articles which support some thesis that I have already created. Reading this article has taught me that primary documents should not be used to find information but to search for new knowledge and formulate more questions.

Another idea which I found to be intriguing is the idea that the past should not be looked at as a culture to relate to and is not one that is to look familiar. Instead, the past should be looked at as unfamiliar and unrelatable as if the American culture 100 years ago was a foreign nation to America today. The idea that if you don't study history you are doomed to repeat it, does not ring true for all events. An event in the past may have resulted in terrible consequences then, but just because it didn't work then doesn't mean it will fail now. As we learned in the book How We Decide, the brain is quick to learn from its mistakes and often times our intuition picks up on the bad choice to make before we even realize it with our logical mind. We may see a historical mistake and our mind might steer us away from the same error, but put into a different year is a whole new context for a situation to be in. What might seem like the wrong decision may actually be the right one or the other way around. We can't look at the past through today's eyes and apply the same rules and guidelines to the present.

The biggest question that came to my mind while reading this was the section regarding how history should be presented through writing. I was wondering if addressing the readers in the form of "you" or by using "I" would be more beneficial to the readers in terms of how they interpreted the information they were given. If the text spoke more to you would it be more engaging or too biased?