Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Anti-Lincoln Gangs of New York
Lew Rockwell ^ | 1/4/02 | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Posted on 01/06/2003 5:58:13 AM PST by billbears

Martin Scorcese’s new movie, "The Gangs of New York," is remarkable in that it accurately portrays the New York City working class’s violent opposition to the Lincoln administration during the War for Southern Independence. At one point in the movie, as the caskets of dead New Yorkers are piled up on the docks, a large crowd chants, "New York should secede!" "New York should secede!"

In another scene Irish immigrants who have been in the U.S. for only a few days are told to sign one piece of paper that grants them citizenship and another one that enrolls them in the Union army. They are completely unaware of their fate: One immigrant asks, "Where are we going?" "Tennessee" is the answer, to which he responds: "Where’s that?" These men were to go down south to ostensibly teach the grandchildren of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry what it really means to be an American. Thousands of them would be slaughtered after being ordered by General Ulysses S. Grant to charge into Robert E. Lee’s well-entrenched army.

The climax of the movie is the New York City draft riots of July 1863. The government began enforcing Lincoln’s conscription law, accurately depicted in a newspaper headline in the film as "The First Federal Conscription Law." The wealthy Republican industrialists and bankers who were the backbone of the Republican Party saw to it that Lincoln’s conscription law would spare their own male children by allowing one to buy one’s way out of the draft for $300. This led to violent protests against the inequity of "a rich man’s war." In the film a young draftee confronts one of Lincoln’s conscription enforcers by screaming into his face, "Who the hell has $300?!" "Who the hell has $300?!"

The draftees knew perfectly well who has $300, so that in mid July of 1863 they went on a week-long rampage, targeting the houses and property of the Republican Party elite of New York City. New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, who had become a Republican Party mouthpiece, is shown running for his life from a dinner party at a palace-like residence in the good part of town as the draft protesters break the windows and loot the house. As Iver Bernstein wrote in The New York City Draft Riots, "Rioters tore through expensive Republican homes on Lexington Avenue and took – or more often destroyed – pictures with gilt frames, elegant pier glasses, sofas, chairs, clocks, furniture of every kind."

Scorcese and his producers obviously did their homework and must have read Bernstein’s book. All during the scene of the draft riots there is a reading of headlines describing the events. Having read extensively about the draft riots myself, I recognized almost all of this script as being accurate, such as the burning down of a black orphanage and of the offices of Greeley’s newspaper.

Another perfectly accurate portrayal is the hunting down and murdering of any and all black people who were unfortunate enough to be on the streets of New York. Since Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation had recently declared emancipation to be a purpose of the war, the draft protesters vented their hatred for Lincoln and his war on the hapless black people of New York City. There are scenes in the movie of black men being beaten to death and lynched, which once again is perfectly accurate.

Just as realistic is the scene where thousands of federal troops are called up from the recently concluded Battle of Gettysburg and ordered to fire indiscriminately into the crowds. Hundreds of unarmed draft protesters, including women and children, are gunned down and are shown laying dead in the streets. This really happened, and is well documented in Bernstein’s book and elsewhere, but most Americans have never heard of it (naturally). Gunships are also shown bombarding the parts of the city where the rioting was taking place.

An eyewitness to the riots was Colonel Arthur Fremantle, the British emissary to the Confederate government who happened to be heading back to England at the time from the Port of New York. In his memoirs of his time with Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia entitled Three Months in the Southern States, Fremantle wrote of the riots:

The reports of outrages, hangings, and murder, were now most alarming, the terror and anxiety were universal. All shops were shut: all carriages and omnibuses had ceased running. No colored man or woman was visible or safe in the streets, or even in his own dwelling. Telegraphs were cut, and railroad tracks torn up. The draft was suspended, and the mob evidently had the upper hand. The people who can’t pay $300 naturally hate being forced to fight in order to liberate the very race who they are most anxious should be slaves. It is their direct interest not only that all slaves should remain slaves, but that the free Northern Negroes who compete with them for labor should be sent to the South also.

Scorcese and his producers must also have read Fremantle’s book as well as The Fremantle Diary, which also discusses the draft riots.

"The Gangs of New York" is truly remarkable for its accurate portrayal of anti-Lincoln protesters in New York City in 1863, which has to be the most politically incorrect movie segment of the past several decades. This should pique the public’s curiosity about the true history of Lincoln’s war. It is a good prelude to an even more stunning cinematic event about Lincoln’s war, the movie "Gods and Generals," which is scheduled for release on February 27.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: dilorenzo; dixie; movies; newyork; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last
Hadn't seen the movie yet, but may have to give it a chance this weekend
1 posted on 01/06/2003 5:58:14 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Aurelius; GOPcapitalist; stainlessbanner; 4ConservativeJustices; sheltonmac
Another example of abe's 'peaceful' actions. Southern ping
2 posted on 01/06/2003 5:59:16 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Every one of those New York rioters was a Democrat, just as were their Confederate rebel pals in the South. See www.republicanbasics.com for the truth about the Grand Old Party.

3 posted on 01/06/2003 6:07:48 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
Every one of those New York rioters was a Democrat, just as were their Confederate rebel pals in the South. See www.republicanbasics.com for the truth about the Grand Old Party.

LOL. I hate to break it to the party loyal but many things Democrats of that time espoused were what Republicans of today believe. See party flip-flop from 1940-1970. Thanks. Don't need to go to another worship abe site

4 posted on 01/06/2003 6:14:28 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Grand Old Partisan
"Every one of those New York rioters was a Democrat."

And you know this because...? Are you implying that only leftist liberals would protest an unjust war?

5 posted on 01/06/2003 6:15:42 AM PST by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sheltonmac
During the Civil War, if you were against the Constitution and the U.S. flag you were a Democrat. Patriots were Republicans. New York City has always been Democrat.

6 posted on 01/06/2003 6:19:03 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: billbears
I saw it on Saturday. Three hours long: I don't think I blinked throughout the whole movie and wished it had gone on for another 3 hours. It was very un-PC as Rockwell says. Do not miss it.
7 posted on 01/06/2003 6:20:14 AM PST by Pharmboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Strange, I had the curious idea that if you came to this country and wanted to live here, you fought for it when you were needed. The Irish immigrants weren't forced to bear an unfair share of the fighting. Read McPherson's book; the Irish regiments on both sides fought extremely well in many notable engagements, but Irish immigrants actually constituted less of a percentage of the Union Army than their share of the population would indicate. Moreover, rich men fought in the war on both sides; often, ther richest man in a northern town would clothe, feed and arm his volunteer regiment from his town in return for leading it. A fine example is Robert Gould Shaw of Massachusetts, from one of the wealthiest families in the state, who died leading the 54th Regiment of free black men into battle in Charleston. If Lincoln was so unpopular with the troops "forced" into the Union Army, why is it that the Union troops were given leave to go home in 1864 to vote and voted for Lincoln in overwhelming numbers? In addition, the idea of New York's secession wasn't a sometime thing; the mayor of the heavily-cotton dependent seaport pushed for it before the war even began. In reply, Lincoln said "its like the doorstop of the home deciding its going to play house on its own".
8 posted on 01/06/2003 6:22:37 AM PST by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
The immediate cause of the draft riots of the workers was their conscription for military duty. The New York "World" of Saturday, July 18, 1863, editorially regards the riots as the "spontaneous outburst of popular passion, primarily at the draft, next at the $300 exemption clause..." which provided that the propertied class could shift the blood tax which the war demanded on to the shoulders of the working class. Section 80 of the Regulations of the War Department made provision for "Certificates of exemption (and discharge) from the draft by reason of having provided a substitute or of having paid commutation money," $300. As J. T. Headley recounts the situation in "The Great Riots of New York," "most of those drawn were laboring men, or poor mechanics, who were unable to hire a substitute....

This paragraph is from an article written in the 1930s and can be found at :"http://www.weisbord.org/FourSixSeven.htm". Some interesting reading at this website and gives one an insight into the liberal psyche.

9 posted on 01/06/2003 6:26:14 AM PST by scouse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Ok, folks. Repeat after me:

"Lincoln was EEEEeeevvvvvvvvvilll.....Lincoln was EEEEEeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvilllll....."

10 posted on 01/06/2003 6:26:42 AM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #11 Removed by Moderator

To: billbears
bump .... hmm maybe I'll have to go check this one out.
12 posted on 01/06/2003 6:28:34 AM PST by Centurion2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laconic
Fewer than 10% of Union soldiers were draftees, compared to nearly half for the Confederates. Also, when their three-year enlistments ended in the summer of 1864, 3/4 of the Union army volunteered to re-enlist for the duration. Rebel armies, on the other hand, started to melt away.
13 posted on 01/06/2003 6:30:02 AM PST by Grand Old Partisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: laconic
Absolutely...
14 posted on 01/06/2003 6:30:32 AM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sc-rms
"lincoln did not have a contract with the people to do what he did"

Sounds like a pro-reparations argument.

15 posted on 01/06/2003 6:31:10 AM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: billbears
What party flip? In 1940, most Democrats were against color-blind policies. Today, most Democrats are also against color blind policies.
16 posted on 01/06/2003 6:31:27 AM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #17 Removed by Moderator

To: billbears
Martin Scorcese’s new anti war film....to awaken a sense of vietnam era draft resistance and rioting if GW tries to bring back the draft....
Re-vitalizing the lie...that only the poh be goin' off tuh war....
Most of the Vietnam vets were volunteers...white with two years of college...
California's white middle class hit the hardest....per capita
The whorlywood liberal elite.....strikes again..and dumb ass Americans line up and pay a premium for their brainwashing....
Heh though.....dats entertainment
18 posted on 01/06/2003 6:46:13 AM PST by joesnuffy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
This article is naive.

NYC secession was a dead letter by the time of the draft riot (Jul., 1863). The City's corrupt former mayor, Fernando Wood, had proposed NYC secession in Jan., 1861, 2 1/2 years earlier. In 1862 Wood was denied renomination by Tammany based in part on his extremism and he was defeated by a Republican, George Opdyke, in a three-way race that fall. Elsewhere, Democrats did very well in the election. The moderate Opdyke was mayor at the time of the riot.

At the time of the riot, Lee was retreating across the Potomac. Grant was besieging Vicksburg a thousand miles away. No New York regiments were serving with Grant. New Yorkers served with Meade in Maryland or garrisoned DC and other points.

The draft was a bigger factor in the manpower-starved South than in the North. Only 8% of Union soldiers were conscripted in the Civil War compared to 25% of Confederate soldiers. So if there's a draft bogey, it's Davis, not Lincoln. The governors of Georgia (Joe Brown) and North Carolina (Zebulon Vance) were bitter opponents of the draft, the Confederate national government, and Davis.

The level of violence in the riot is unknown. Estimates of deaths range from below 100 to above 3,000. Most historians lean toward the lower figure.

The riot was the most violent civil disturbance in U.S. history excluding the Civil War itself. The movie dramatizes it into a revolution. It wasn't. The civil authorities lost control of much of the City for two days. Elsewhere and outside the city, life went on normally.






19 posted on 01/06/2003 6:46:50 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Hadn't seen the movie yet, but may have to give it a chance this weekend.

I saw it last Friday, and the only surprise to me is that Tommy took this long to work it into one of his columns. I have no doubt that you will find it as 'historically accurate' as DiLusional did.

20 posted on 01/06/2003 6:54:09 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Grand Old Partisan
Fewer than 10% of Union soldiers were draftees, compared to nearly half for the Confederates. Also, when their three-year enlistments ended in the summer of 1864, 3/4 of the Union army volunteered to re-enlist for the duration. Rebel armies, on the other hand, started to melt away.
Under the Union draft act men faced the possibility of conscription in July 1863 and in Mar., July, and Dec. 1864. Draft riots ensued, notably in New York in 1863. Of the 249,259 18-to-35-year-old men whose names were drawn, only about 6% served, the rest paying commutation or hiring a substitute--Source: "Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War" Edited by Patricia L. Faust

And while we're at it, perhaps you could tell us about abe's 'volunteer' army in '61, an action mind you which caused several other states that hadn't yet to secede

22 posted on 01/06/2003 6:58:13 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
The riot was an ethnic attack by the Irish against Blacks and local authorities -- draft officials, police, fire fighters, and the militia. It was class oriented only in the sense most Irish were members of the under class and working class. WASPs were represented in all classes.

New York City elected a Republican mayor in Nov., 1862, eight months before the riot. The previous Democrat secessionist mayor, Fernando Wood, had been denied renomination by Tammany. Then as now, WASP blue collar workers voted Republican. Skilled WASP blue collar workers voted overwhelmingly Republican.



23 posted on 01/06/2003 6:58:42 AM PST by Man of the Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I have no doubt that you will find it as 'historically accurate' as DiLusional did

LOL. Well the Sandburg/McPherson brainwashings no longer work on me Non. Hopefully your eyes were opened to at least some of the truth when you saw the movie

24 posted on 01/06/2003 6:59:42 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Have you consulted with an attorney yet?

You may have excellent grounds to sue Mr. Lincoln posthumously.

Good luck and keep us posted on how it turns out for you.

25 posted on 01/06/2003 7:13:09 AM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Well the Sandburg/McPherson brainwashings no longer work on me Non.

So instead you and Tommy turn to that well known historian Martin Scorsese. Well, that does explain a lot about Tommy's comlumns.

Hopefully your eyes were opened to at least some of the truth when you saw the movie.

Oh yes, I'm now conviced that all Irish thugs looked like Leonardo DiCaprio and all Irish streetwalkers look like Cameron Diaz.

Seriously, the story line is crap but Daniel Day Lewis is worth the price of admission alone

26 posted on 01/06/2003 7:15:58 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: billbears
And after the NYC draft riots, the Tammany Hall folks got money in the budget to pay the $300 for those unable to secure the money by other means. Thus began the great New Yorker attitude that the governement should pay for eveything.
27 posted on 01/06/2003 7:24:02 AM PST by pikachu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: laconic
If Lincoln was so unpopular with the troops "forced" into the Union Army, why is it that the Union troops were given leave to go home in 1864 to vote and voted for Lincoln in overwhelming numbers?

Bears repeating.

Walt

28 posted on 01/06/2003 7:37:01 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sc-rms
lincoln did not have a contract with the people to do what he did. They did not give him permission to go to war against the South.

Yes, they did. Lincoln's initial call in April, 1861 for 75,000 volunteers was met to overflowing. --That-- call was authorized by the Militia Act of 1792.

Only 6% of Union soldiers were produced by the draft. Between 1/4 and 1/3 of CSA soldiers were drafted; in fact, the so-called CSA government extended the enlistments of most of the insurgent army involuntarily. This is one of the reasons the rebel army was rent by desertions later on.

Walt

29 posted on 01/06/2003 7:44:02 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: billbears
In his memoirs of his time with Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia entitled Three Months in the Southern States...

Fremantle also predicted an inevitable rebel victory.

Walt

30 posted on 01/06/2003 7:48:21 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Hundreds of unarmed draft protesters, including women and children, are gunned down and are shown laying dead in the streets.

Tommy, Tommy, Tommy.

What were all these dead people laying?

Their bodies were probably lying in the streets.

Walt

31 posted on 01/06/2003 7:50:29 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Seriously, the story line is crap but Daniel Day Lewis is worth the price of admission alone

For some reason, Day-Lewis hasn't made a movie since 1997. I hope to see "Gangs" this week.

Walt

32 posted on 01/06/2003 7:51:49 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BKT
Lincoln was the ultimate racist - he wanted to return all slaves to Africa and replace them with new (white) Irish immigrants who could work the newly invented agricultural machinery, which he felt the blacks were incapable of. He also wanted to kill off the Indians who were brazen enough to expect the US to honor their treaties with them. No one exactly forced him to order the deaths of thousands of Americans in battle, either. He WAS evil.
33 posted on 01/06/2003 7:59:52 AM PST by afz400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: afz400
Lincoln was the ultimate racist - he wanted to return all slaves to Africa and replace them with new (white) Irish immigrants who could work the newly invented agricultural machinery, which he felt the blacks were incapable of.

And, pray tell, just what newly invented agricultural machinery was that? And why just the Irish? Why not the French, Germans, and Italians, too? Oh my God, could it be that Lincoln was even more racist that we thought????? Well, it's a damned good thing that the south had that bastion of tolerance, Jefferson Davis, running the show. All he wanted to do with Blacks was own them.

34 posted on 01/06/2003 8:04:32 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: BKT
"Yeah. But we beat 'em. Had to burn a few houses down though. Too bad. Yawn."
Not a big yawn. Sherman took 60,000 troops and attacked 10,000 mainly under-age Southern kids with no weapons to speak of. And then he disgraced Jesus' birth by presenting Savannah to Lincoln as a "Christmas gift". What a an a-hole he was. And you're one for thinking he was anything but a POS.
35 posted on 01/06/2003 8:08:45 AM PST by afz400
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Man of the Right
This article is naive.
No, but it is intended to fool the naive.
36 posted on 01/06/2003 8:26:22 AM PST by drjimmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: afz400
Lincoln was the ultimate racist - he wanted to return all slaves to Africa and replace them with new (white) Irish immigrants who could work the newly invented agricultural machinery, which he felt the blacks were incapable of. He also wanted to kill off the Indians who were brazen enough to expect the US to honor their treaties with them. No one exactly forced him to order the deaths of thousands of Americans in battle, either. He WAS evil.

None of that is supported in the record.

President Lincoln did support relocation schemes during 1862. He -never- suggested that anyone be forced out of the country. He wanted to get the shooting stopped. When neither white nor black would agree to relocation or emancipated compensation, he quickly swung to the other tack and vigorously supported enlisting large numbers of black soldiers. President Lincoln dropped support for colonization after the beginning of 1863. He supported voting rights for black soldiers also.

Lincoln dealt equitably with the indians. In the 1862 Minnesota indian uprisings, he forbade the hanging of 260 indians (out of 303) that federal authorities had already marked for death.

Abraham Lincoln was a great and good man, and his reputation can stand attacks from ignoramouses like you.

Walt

37 posted on 01/06/2003 8:33:59 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: afz400
"What a an a-hole he was. And you're one for thinking he was anything but a POS."

I can't believe how much this issue affects people who never had to live thru it. (No, Civil War reenactments don't count).

Maybe you could sue Lincoln as well.

38 posted on 01/06/2003 8:34:34 AM PST by Sam's Army
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: afz400
Not a big yawn. Sherman took 60,000 troops and attacked 10,000 mainly under-age Southern kids with no weapons to speak of.

Where was Hood's army? Where were the other rebel armies? Allowing armies of 60,000 to roam around and plunder -- that sounds like bad plannning by the secesh to me.

Walt

39 posted on 01/06/2003 8:37:07 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: afz400
Lincoln was the ultimate racist - he wanted to return all slaves to Africa and replace them with new (white) Irish immigrants who could work the newly invented agricultural machinery, which he felt the blacks were incapable of.

In discussions with General Grant in the fall of 1864, Robert E. Lee refused to treat captured black Union soldiers as prisoners of war. Sounds to me like he was more racist than President Lincoln.

Walt

40 posted on 01/06/2003 8:40:09 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Well this article certainly does a better job of portraying what the hell this movie is about than the advertising has done....
41 posted on 01/06/2003 8:42:32 AM PST by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: billbears
This should pique the public’s curiosity about the true history of Lincoln’s war. It is a good prelude to an even more stunning cinematic event about Lincoln’s war, the movie "Gods and Generals," which is scheduled for release on February 27.

Cool; that's the anniversary of Lincoln's Cooper Union speech that brought him to national prominence. I mean, all he said in that speech was that the framers of the government had favored an end to slavery and federal control of the territories.

That made the slave power just go --nuts--.

And the war came.

Walt

42 posted on 01/06/2003 10:27:04 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
It is an excellent movie with this year's Academy Award winner as best actor. Why bb is shocked that it shows the historical truth about the riots is a mystery since there has never been any doubt about who was rioting or why. Nor that the RAT machine hated Lincoln and supported efforts to destroy the Union. Nor that the RAT machine based its power on criminality, corruption and vote fraud. Nor that the RAT-controlled immigrant areas were filled with police corruption and violence on a massive scale.

When those gangs "rumbled" there were pitched battles often with thousands involved and deaths and maiming galore.

Gangs of today are no where near as violent.
43 posted on 01/06/2003 10:34:11 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Most of the grandchildren of Thomas Jefferson were from his union with Sally Hemmings and were Unionist in sentiment. Jefferson never supported secession ever. As bad as his policies were they never went that far. Thus, it is deceptive to refer to him in this respect. Not that the author cares about deception.

Like most descendents of great men, TJ's and Henry's never amounted to much so who cares what they thought anyway.
44 posted on 01/06/2003 10:42:39 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Why bb is shocked that it shows the historical truth about the riots is a mystery since there has never been any doubt about who was rioting or why.

Right. The Ken Burns' "Civil War" covered the riots and pretty much included everything Tommy Delusional was able to turn into internet dross.

Walt

45 posted on 01/06/2003 10:43:00 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyPapa; billbears
Make sure to hit the head beforehand, it's a LONG movie. To say that Day-Lewis carries the movie would be an understatement. He saves the movie from DiCaprio, who is basically a joke.
46 posted on 01/06/2003 10:43:55 AM PST by jpl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: laconic
why is it that the Union troops were given leave to go home in 1864 to vote and voted for Lincoln in overwhelming numbers?

"On election day, federal soldiers, armed with bayonets, guarded the polls and arrested suspected Southern sympathizers; many of these soldiers also voted illegally."

-Sobran, February 2001

*********

"He (Gen Burbridge) began by saying, he was no speaker nor politician, that he stood before the large rebel element, he knew to be before him, to represent the power of the Sword in the hands of the Govt, and to say that the men who did not vote for Mr Lincoln, would be proved the enemies of that Gov't, and would be treated as such after the election. As for those who sympathized with the South, he would send them South, if he had to"

-General William Preston of Kentucky (October-November 1864 elections)

47 posted on 01/06/2003 11:13:19 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
"On election day, federal soldiers, armed with bayonets, guarded the polls and arrested suspected Southern sympathizers; many of these soldiers also voted illegally."

-Sobran, February 2001

Did you cut and paste that? Nevermind.

Wasn't it you that quited David Donald on Lincoln's "bayonets" in New York?

"But there were limits to what Lincoln would do to secure a second term.

He did not even consider canceling or postponing the election. Even had that been constitutionally possible, "the election was a necessity." "We can not have free government without elections," he explained; "and if the rebellion could force us to forego, or postpone a national election, it might fairly claim to have already conquered and ruined us." He did not postpone the September draft call, even though Republican politicians from all across the North entreated him to do so. Because Indiana failed to permit its soldiers to vote in the field, he was entirely willing to furlough Sherman's regiments so that they could go home and vote in the October state elections -but he made a point of telling Sherman, "They need not remain for the Presidential election, but may return to you at once."

Though it was clear that the election was going to be a very close one, Lincoln did not try to increase the Republican electoral vote by rushing the admission of new states like Colorado and Nebraska, both of which would surely have voted for his reelection. On October 31, in accordance with an act of Congress, he did proclaim Nevada a state, but he showed little interest in the legislation admitting the new state. Despite the suspicion of both Democrats and Radicals, he made no effort to force the readmission of Louisiana, Tennessee, and other Southern states, partially reconstructed but still under military control, so that they could cast their electoral votes for him. He reminded a delegation from Tennessee that it was the Congress, not the Chief Executive, that had the power to decide whether a state's electoral votes were to be counted and announced firmly, “Except it be to give protection against violence, I decline to interfere in any way with the presidential election.”

"Lincoln", pp. 539-40 by David H. Donald

Walt

48 posted on 01/06/2003 11:18:58 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
"He (Gen Burbridge) began by saying, he was no speaker nor politician, that he stood before the large rebel element, he knew to be before him, to represent the power of the Sword in the hands of the Govt, and to say that the men who did not vote for Mr Lincoln, would be proved the enemies of that Gov't, and would be treated as such after the election. As for those who sympathized with the South, he would send them South, if he had to"

This is very interesting I guess, but it doesn't explain why the head of the Republican National Party approached Lincoln and asked him not to run for re-election because he had no chance of winning.

There is always some voter fraud, but there is no compelling evidence that it was abnormal in the 1864 election.

You might want to be careful in this -- someone might ask why Lincoln's name didn't even appear on the ballot in most of the so-called seceded states in 1860.

Walt

49 posted on 01/06/2003 11:28:05 AM PST by WhiskeyPapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

< /Ignore Wlat Shield Activated >
50 posted on 01/06/2003 12:24:14 PM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-90 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson