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.
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
Right. The Ken Burns' "Civil War" covered the riots and pretty much included everything Tommy Delusional was able to turn into internet dross.
Walt
"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)
-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
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
There is a very simple way to negate any possibility of vote fraud from influencing the outcome of an election and that is to make sure you run unopposed. It worked for jefferson Davis.
Please provide a link to information supporting this falsehood that hasn't been researched by discredited historians. The DNA that has been tested proves more likely that it was someone in the family but not Jefferson. But keep spreading the lie
Jefferson never supported secession ever. As bad as his policies were they never went that far
I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, & as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions indeed generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.Nope, he never advocated the right of secession < /sarcasm>I have the utmost confidence in the honest intentions of those who concur in this measure; but I lament their want of acquaintance with the character & physical advantages of the people who, right or wrong, will suppose their interests sacrificed on this occasion to the contrary interests of that part of the confederacy in possession of present power. If they declare themselves a separate people, we are incapable of a single effort to retain them. Our citizens can never be induced, either as militia or as souldiers, to go there to cut the throats of their own brothers & sons, or rather to be themselves the subjects instead of the perpetrators of the parricide.--Thomas Jefferson 1787
. "If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form," the author of the Declaration of Independence said, "let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."--Inaugural Address 1801
Only if they don't understand the Constitution - two possible responses:
Jesus, billbears, the 'error of opinion' Jefferson was talking about was those advocating dissolving the Union.
However, Burbidge IS a first hand account!
"We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. I know, indeed, that some honest men fear that a republican government can not be strong, that this Government is not strong enough; but would the honest patriot, in the full tide of successful experiment, abandon a government which has so far kept us free and firm on the theoretic and visionary fear that this Government, the world's best hope, may by possibility want energy to preserve itself? I trust not. I believe this, on the contrary, the strongest Government on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the law, would fly to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Sometimes it is said that man can not be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question."
I must be missing that part. Where was it again?
Abe is great, Abe is good, let us thank Him for our food. By His hand, we must be Fed(eral), give us Abe our daily bread. Amen.
No state had published any secession documents as of November 6, 1860.
Even if they had, those documents were null and void and without force, as the Supreme Court said, as certainly proved to be the case.
Walt
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.