Just watched Gangs of New York. What else did history class

[lectrobyte]

forget to tell me? I'd never heard of the "draft riots" before.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. You need to read more

forget what teachers spoon feed ya

[lectrobyte]

3. Sounds good. Any particular suggestions you had in mind, more

from a historical perspective? To give you an idea of my reading so far this year, I read Chomsky's Failed States, the highly overrated Consfessions of an Economic Hitman, and Chalmers Johnson's Sorrows of Empires. I just never realized the Civil War was fought in New York City before that movie though.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

8. Those are good

The People's History of the US by Howard Zinn is a good start

as well as another book called Lies my teacher told me.. by Lowen http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/

[Selatius]

10. Howard Zinn: A People's History of the United States.

US history from the point of view of the disempowered, the exploited, and the poor.

[lectrobyte]

16. Thanks, I'll give that one a look.

[LiviaOlivia]

61. Also read up on the 1886 Haymarket tragedy in Chicago.

eom

[eccles12]

68. Also read "Lies My Teacher Told Me" James Loewen.

History belongs to those who hold the power and control. Truth is often ignored.

[SaveElmer]

28. Read more than just Zinn...

He is a good read and a good historian, but he is a revisionist and contrarian.

By all means read his works, but read those from other perspectives as well if you want a rounded look at American History.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

29. Strongly second that opinion

[Greyhound]

42. The US version of history certainly needs a great deal of revision

perhaps then, the sheeple might begin to understand the revulsion that the rest of the world feels toward us.

We've been the bad guys for a long, long time. Actually the moments in history when we've been the good guys are so few as to qualify as aberrations.

[SaveElmer]

46. History is not a record of "good guys" and "bad guys"

Nation-States, like people, act primarily in their own self-interest. The United States is no different.

Aberrations to to this maxim occur when a nation is under the control of a dictator, or autocracy. In that case the self interest is with those in control, and those of the nation are generally secondary. There are gradations of this as we see in the U.S. now, where the Bush Administration is most concerned with the accumulation of power and wealth of its allies in business and politics. At some deep level they may have convinced themselves they are acting in the best interets of the country, but this is just delusional in my opinion. However I think it would be impossible to argue the same for the Clinton administration or the Carter administration for example.

Aberrations also occur when a nation acts above its own self interest on behalf of others. The United States finds itself in this last category as much or more than other nations. We of course have not seen that type behavior in the last 6 years, but certainly Bill Clinton was well respected in the world for his peace efforts, and the U.S. was viewed in a more positive light. And certainly the same could be said for the Carter administration as well, at least in some areas of the world.

Zinn takes a look at U.S. history from the bottom up, which is absolutely a valid thing to do. He is a revisionist and contrarian, which means he goes into a project looking to upset the standard view of things. And this is fine too because he is not trying to hide his purpose, as long as he does not distort the evidence, or citations he uses. But there are other perspectives on U.S. History that are just as valid, and not all conventional views of American history are wrong. It is really necessary for folks to take it all in and come to their own interpretation. Often this will mirror a favored author or view, often it will be a synthesis of many views...but in all cases it will be better informed.

[Greyhound]

47. So your argument is that perception is reality?

Sorry not buying that load.

The US throughout its history has initiated and supported the subjugation, murder, and enslavement, or millions of people all over the world. By the 20th century, or thereabouts, we (our government and corporations) became the number one perpetrators on the planet, repressing our own citizens, as well as those of other countries.

There is right and there is wrong, when we chose to do wrong we are guilty of wrongdoing, whether we say it or not. It would be different if we acknowledged that we are no different that nay other country, at least we could claim honesty, but that is not the case. Our whole national identity is made up of claims to be better than what came before us and that is simply a lie.

[SaveElmer]

49. So your contention then...

Is that the U.S. is more guilty of the murder and enslavement of people than say Nazi Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Cambodia under Pol Pot....?

We have repressed more people than say Britain in India?

Please...the U.S. is certainly guilty of repression and murder in the name of self-interest...slavery, Indian removal and extermination, support for dictatorships etc are certainly examples of this. But the U.S. and other democracies are characterized by the rebellion of its citizens, and a few great leaders who come along from time to time, against such tendencies, and to move their countries in a more ethical direction. It moves in fits and starts, but it does move.

And I do not dispute that U.S. based corporations exploit workers in other countries. I do not contend that Americans as human beings are any more exceptional than others in the world, but a republican form of government and democracy certainly are in that it allows the correction of these abuses through the political system.

edit: Interrupted mid-post

[RoyGBiv]

53. Well said ...

I posted my comments later in the thread before reading this, so sorry for the redundancy.

[Kagemusha]

2. Not my specialty in history but, the draft riots were definitely real.

I think they didn't want to emphasize such things because well, you know, Vietnam, draft protests.. the idea of draft riots, even as a dry subject in history class, would be seen as encouraging more of the same and inappropriate for a patriotic teacher, perhaps?

[Retired AF Dem]

4. The draft riots in that movie had nothing to do with Vietnam

The biggest draft riots in this country was due to Northerns not wanting to be drafted to fight those slave owner southerns. Being anti-slavery was cool as long as you didn't have to die for it.

[leesa]

19. Well, more like they weren't much more than slaves themselves.

They were barely surviving themselves and there was the fear of job competition from black people. There was rascism involved and it was an ugly time for laborers.

[Kagemusha]

21. The draft riots in that movie had to do with drafts.

And I'm simply saying that ANY riot over ANY draft is not history that quite a few people who are into American national greatness want to see mentioned. Some people think there is history best left forgotten and this would be one of them.

I'm well aware what the draft riots in that movie were about. I was referring to teachers treating the subject as a leper.

[SOS]

41. The rioters were furious

that the wealthy could buy their way out of America's first draft for $300.
Once the riots started they turned on the blacks, hanging them from lampposts and setting them on fire. They even burned down a black orphanage.
Being "anti-slavery" had nothing to do with it.

[Book Lover]

45. A bit more than that

Those with the means could purchase their way out of the draft openly. The open injustice of the draft system helped fueled the riots.

[Yupster]

24. The draft riots don't fit into history because

they happpened in the north and northerners killing African-Americans by the dozens doesn't fit the template of northerners good and southerners racist.

The riots started just a day after Gettysburg, and were suppressed in part by troops right from the battlefield.

It's a real what if of history. What if Lee had won at Gettysburg? The draft riots could havce spread to many different cities and with a Confederate armyfree to roam around Pennsylvania, it could have led to a quick peace and Confederate independance.

You'll hear people like Shelby Foote saying the Confederacy never had a chance to achieve independance, but I disagree. I think there were a few times in the war that if things went a bit different, history would have been different.

[HockeyMom]

5. Educated in NYC 40 years ago

I had never heard of the draft riots either. It was not until I started tracing from family tree (Irish side) that I learned about that and the Conscription Act. My Great Grandfather served in the Civil War in the place of a wealthy man from Connecticut.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Here's another interesting omission from American history

During the Revolutionary period the British government offered freedom to any slave (and family) who could escape to British held soil and offer his aid to the British cause. Around 100,000 slaves escaped.
The story of how American slaves won freedom is told in Rough Crossings, by Simon Schama.

[citizen snips]

7. I saw it in the movie theater.

and it is a good movie.

[UTUSN]

9. Here's something: ZINN on the Mexican War

*********QUOTE**********

From, A People’s History of the United States by Howard ZINN (paperback)

p. 149: We take nothing by conquest, thank God

…. “Violence leads to violence, and if this movement of ours does not lead to others and to bloodshed, I am much mistaken.“ ….

p. 150: In the White House now was James Polk, a Democrat, an expansionist, who, on the night of his inauguration, confided to his Secretary of the Navy that one of his main objectives was the acquisition of California. His order to General Taylor to move troops to the Rio Grande was a challenge to the Mexicans. ….

Ordering troops to the Rio Grande, into territory inhabited by Mexicans was clearly a provocation. ….

p. 151: “A corps of properly organized volunteers…would invade, overrun, and occupy Mexico. They would enable us not only to take California, but to keep it.” It was shortly after that, in the summer of 1845, that John O’Sullivan, editor of the Democratic Review, used the phrase that became famous, saying it was “Our manifest destiny to overspread the continent allotted by Providence for the free development of our yearly multiplying millions.” Yes, manifest destiny.

All that was needed in the spring of 846 was a military incident to begin the war that Polk wanted. ….

The Mexicans had fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted, according to Colonel Hitchcock, who wrote in his diary, even b efore those first incidents: “I have said from the first that the United States are the aggressors…. We have not one particle of right to be here….”

P. 152: Polk recorded in his diary what he said to the cabinet meeting: “I stated … that up to this time, as we knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. ….

The country was not “excited and impatient.” But the President was. …. Polk spoke of the dispatch of American troops to the Rio Grande as a necessary measure of defense. As John Schroeder says (Mr. Polk’s War): “Indeed, the reverse was true; President Polk had incited war by sending American soldiers into what was disputed territory, historically controlled and inhabited by Mexicans.”

Congress then rushed to approve the war message. “The disciplined Democratic majority in the House responded with alacrity and high-handed efficiency to Polk’s May 11 war recommendations.” …. p. 153: Debate on the bill providing volunteers and money for the war was limited to two hours, and most of this was used up reading selected portions of the tabled documents, so that barely a half-hour was left for discussion of the issues.

The Whig party was presumably against the war in Mexico, but it was not against expansion. ….Also they were not so powerfully against the military action that they would stop it by denying men and money for the operation. They did not want to risk the accusation that they were putting American soldiers in peril by depriving them of the materials necessary to fight. The result was that Whigs joined Democrats in voting overwhelmingly for the war resolution, 74 to 4. ….

In the Senate, there was debate, but it was limited to one day, and “the tactics of stampede were there repeated,” according to historian Frederick Merk. The war measure passed, 40 to 2, Whigs joining Democrats. …

Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was not yet in Congress when the war began, but after his election in 1846... …. …His “spot resolutions” became famous--he challenged Polk to specify the exact spot where American blood was shed “on the American soil.” But he would not try to end the war by stopping funds for men and supplies. …. …he said, “…The declaration that we have always opposed the war is true or false, according as one may understand the term ‘oppose the war.’ …. The marching an army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and property to destruction… ….With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary supplies….”

p. 154: Accompanying all this aggressiveness was the idea that the United States would be giving the blessings of liberty and democracy to more people. This was intermingled with ideas of racial superiority, longings for the beautiful lands of New Mexico and California, and thoughts of commercial enterprise across the Pacific.

p. 156: The churches, for the most part, were either outspokenly for the war or timidly silent. ….However, one Baptist minister, the Reverend Francis Wayland, president of Brown University, gave three sermons in the university chapel in which he said that only wars of self-defense were just, and in case of unjust war, the individual was morally obligated to resist it and lend no money to the government to support it.

p. 157: As the war went on, opposition grew. ….The abolitionists, speaking through William Lloyd Garrison’s Liberator, denounced the war as one “of aggression, of invasion, of conquest, and rapine--marked by ruffianism, perfidy, and every other feature of national depravity…” ….

p. 158: Where was popular opinion? It is hard to say. After the first rush, enlistments began to dwindle. The 1846 elections showed much anti-Polk sentiment, but who could tell how much of this was due to the war? ….

p. 160: We know much more about the American army--volunteers, not conscripts, lured by money and opportunity for social advancement via promotion in the armed forces. …. At first there seemed to be enthusiasm in the army, fired by pay and patriotism. … This initial spirit soon wore off. ….

p. 161: By late 1846, recruitment was falling off, so physical requirements were lowered, and anyone bringing in acceptable recruits would get $2 a head. Even this didn’t work. …. And soon, the reality of battle came in upon the glory and the promises. ….

p. 163: Meanwhile, by land and by sea, Anglo-American forces were moving into California. …. It was a separate war that went on in California, where Anglo-Americans raided Spanish settlements, stole horses, and declared California separated from Mexico--the “Bear Flag Republic.”

p. 165: After Taylor’s army took Monterey (Mexico) he reported “some shameful atrocities” by the Texas Rangers, and he sent them home when their enlistment expired. But others continued robbing and killing Mexicans. ….The U.S. bombardment of the city (Vera Cruz) became an indiscriminate killing of civilians. ….

p. 166: It was a war of the American elite against the Mexican elite, each side exhorting, using, killing its own population as well as the other. …. P. 167: As often in war, battles were fought without point. …”He had originated it in error and caused it to be fought, with inadequate forces, for an object that had no existence.” ….

p. 168: “Although they had volunteered to go to war, and by far the greater number of them honored their commitments by creditably sustaining hardship and battle, and behaved as well as soldiers in a hostile country are apt to behave, they did not like the army, they did not like war, and generally speaking, they did not like Mexico or the Mexicans. …. The glory of the victory was for the President and the generals, not the deserters, the dead, the wounded. ….

p. 169: Mexico surrendered. There were calls among Americans to take all of Mexico. The Treaty… llll just took half. ….The United States paid Mexico $ million, which led the Whig Intelligencer to conclude that “we take nothing by conquest….Thank God.”

**********UNQUOTE*************

[UTUSN]

13. and ZINN on Vietnam

*********QUOTE******
From ZINN, A People’s History of the U.S.

p.470: For a few weeks in September, 1945, Vietnam was--for the first and only time in its modern history--free of foreign domination, and united from north to south under Ho Chi Minh.

p.471: After the Communist victory in China in 1949 and the Korean war the following year, the United States began giving large amounts of military aid to the French. By 1954 …. The U.S. was financing 80 percent of the French war effort.

p. 472: As the Pentagon Papers put it: “South Viet Nam was essentially the creation of the United States.”

p. 473: When Kennedy took office in early 1961 he continued the policies of Truman and Eisenhower in Southeast Asia. Almost immediately, he approved a secret plan for various military actions in Vietnam and Laos…

p. 474: Under the Geneva Accords, the United States was permitted to have 685 military advisers in southern Vietnam. Eisenhower secretly sent several thousand. Under Kennedy, the figure rose to sixteen thousand, and some of them began to take part in combat operations.

p. 475: The Pentagon historians wrote that when Eisenhower met with President-elect Kennedy in January 1961, he “wondered aloud why, in interventions of this kind, we always seemed to find that the morale of the Communist forces was better than that of the democratic forces.”

p. 476: The Tonkin Resolution gave the President the power to initiate hostilities without the declaration of war by Congress that the Constitution required. The Supreme Court, supposed to be the watchdog of the Constitution, was asked by a number of petitioners in the course of the Vietnam war to declare the war unconstitutional. Again and again, it refused even to consider the issue.

p. 478: The CIA in Vietnam, in a program called “Operation Phoenix,” secretly, without trial, executed at least twenty thousand civilians in South Vietnam who were suspected of being members of the Communist underground. ….

After the war, the release of records of the International Red Cross showed that in South Vietnamese prison camps, where at the height of the war 65,000 to 70,000 people were held and often beaten and tortured, American advisers observed and sometimes participated. ….

By the end of the Vietnam war, 7 million tons of bombs had been dropped on Vietnam, more than twice the total bombs dropped on Europe and Asia in World War II--almost one 500-pound bomb for every human being in Vietnam.

p. 479: Thousands of Americans came to his defense. Part of it was in patriotic justification of his action as necessary against the “Communists.” Part of it seems to have been a feeling that he was unjustly singled out in a war with many similar atrocities. Colonel Oran Henderson, who had been charged with covering up the My Lai killings, told reporters in early 1971: “Every unit of brigade size has its My Lai hidden someplace.” Indeed, My Lai was unique only in its details.

p. 483: By early 1968, the cruelty of the war began touching the conscience of many Americans.

********UNQUOTE*****

[bleedingheart]

11. The Renters Riots in New York...

[Kickoutthejams23]

12. New York City

Was a confederate stronghold during the civil war. That is why Lincoln had to divert troops from Gettysburg to take care of the unrest there.

The American History version of the Civil war for students is so simplified and watered down that facts would tend to just confuse them.

In fact NYC was a always pro slavery as King George found to his detriment when he freed the slaves there during the revolutionary war.

[hedgehog]

36. I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

There is a difference between being a Confederate stronghold and having draft riots. New York had as varied a population then as it does today. Remember, it was Irish cops who stepped in sometimes to protect blacks from Irish mobs. This is a story with all shades of gray.

[RoyGBiv]

54. No, it was not ...

New York was *not* a Confederate stronghold, not in any sense of the word.

The New York draft riots -- and they were not unique, btw, just better known -- took place, in a nutshell, partially as a consequence of the Emancipation Proclamation, which had been put into effect in January of that year. Lincoln had changed the meaning of the war from one purely of preserving the Union, a concept which New Yorkers supported as fully as anyone else, to one of preserving the Union and emancipating slaves. New Yorkers were not "pro-slavery," but many were racists on varying levels, particularly the Irish and other immigrant groups who forsaw an influx of newly freed slaves coming to New York to compete with them for jobs. The draft was then viewed by many as a form of slavery that would force them to risk their lives to free a people who would then compete with them while trying to feed their families. They weren't willing to die for that.

This has not thing one to do with the Confederacy or supporting it.

[Kickoutthejams23]

55. Among other things New york did was print all the confederate money.

It was an anti-republican democratic stronghold. Through lynching and fire they drove out almost the entire black population they even burned the black orphanage with the orphans still in it. Lincoln and other republican leaders were scared to visit. And the wall street crowd depended on southern Cotton contracts with the Europeans.

Again I recommend Gotham: the history of New York till 1898.... New York was pro slavery and pro democrats. Sad but true.

[RoyGBiv]

57. Citations, please ...

Something other than "Gotham."

I need primary citations, not verbal legends put into print.

"Confederate money" was printed by a number of sources. Individual states issued their own currency as well as the national government. The Confederacy was so flooded with banknotes, and the confusion about worth so incredible, that the value of the currency declined steadily over the course of the Confederacy's brief existence to the point it was literally not worth the paper it was printed on. One might be led to wonder just how, if all this were printed in New York, it managed to make its way through the blockade and through lines of battle to be distributed so widely and regularly.

Even if all this were true -- and it's not -- this does not make New York a "Confederate stronghold." New York City was essentially pro-Democrat, and many Democrats were ardently pro-Union. It was not "pro-slavery" in the sense that term is typically used. Nor were the residents anti-slavery. They were, by and large, anti-Black.

Your understanding of the cotton trade is incorrect. The textile industry ended up finding all the cotton it needed in other markets, particularly Egypt. As you may know, the "King Cotton" strategy of the Southern states didn't work, and this is why.

[Kickoutthejams23]

59. Here is a pretty good synopsis. As for historical resorces pretty

much any historical research on NYC in the early 1860's is about its pro-southern leanings.




In 1860, there were several different directions NYC could go. One option would be to stay firm and represent the ideals of capitalism, freedom, and liberty, which had made the city so strong. To side with the nation that their grandparents had liberated from tyranny, only eighty years before. Another option is to side with NYC's oppressed southern brothers, who feel as though the federal government is imposing upon their constitutional rights. With a Republican in office, there would be an end to slavery and their whole way of life.

Surprisingly it was the latter, that NYC adopted first. There are several important reasons for this. First, NYC merchants, fearing that if the south formed a new nation, it would lower its tariffs and make NYC's ports obsolete. There was a great fear that New Orleans, not NYC, would be the major port city to the continent, and would control all imports heading to the vast lands west of the Mississippi river and all cotton exports. NYC's dominance of goods imported and exported had lasted for almost 200 years, and many feared it would be over.

Another reason New Yorkers were southern sympathizers was the debt owed to NYC merchants by the south, which had accumulated to over 200 million dollars. Many feared if the sectional conflict had continued, the debt would not be paid. But if NYC sided with no one and was neutral, the difference between philosophies would not interfere with its commerce and payment of debt. The flow of cotton, which made so much money for NYC, would not stop. Many NYC residents also had families and owned homes in the south. What would these individuals do?

Then on December twentieth, 1860 South Carolina, after a special state assembly, declared that the state would secede from the union. In January to June nine other states joined them; Mississippi on January ninth, Florida on the tenth, Alabama on the eleventh, Georgia on the nineteenth, Texas on the first of February, Virginia on the seventeenth of April, Arkansas on the sixth of May, North Carolina on the twentieth, and Tennessee on the eighth of June, all just went and seceded. These states then came together and formed the Confederate States of America.

What about the lesser sort, the dockworkers, street sweepers, the lower class, how did they feel about the fragile future of their nation. They especially feared that their jobs would be lost to former slaves who would under bid them every chance they had. Blacks had been used as strike breakers in the past and many residents in NYC; especially the Irish, who originally had taken the jobs traditionally held by black men, feared that they would be out of work.

At the time of Abraham Lincoln's election, there was a rift forming between the powers in control in Albany, and the Mayor of NYC, Fernando Wood. Wood felt that Albany had too much control over NYC; he was especially passionate about the Metropolitan police, who took their orders from the governor. Wood felt that the police who patrol his city should answer to him, that the city itself could and should have more control over its everyday activities. This animosity toward Albany and Police Superintendent John Kennedy was displayed when the police seized the steamer Monticello, which was traveling from NYC to Savannah, with a cargo of contraband goods including several muskets. Mayor Wood apologized to Governor Toombs, of Georgia; in a written letter stating how he regretted what had happened and that he lacked the authority to prevent the seizure of the arms.

With the nation imploding and a rigorous battle for more self-rule of his city, Mayor Wood made the greatest, and most controversial proposal of his life.

Wood proposed that if the south leaves the Union, and forms its own nation, that NYC should also leave the union and the rest of New York State, as a "Free City". The idea was supported by few, but opposed by many. One such supporter was the New York Daily News, whose chief editor was Benjamin Wood, Fernando's brother. Benjamin praised the idea and the courage that the mayor displayed in his proposal. Unlike the Daily News, most papers denounced Wood's idea. For instance the Evening Post remarked, "It had never suspected Wood of being a fool, and inquired if the city should take along the Long Island Sound, the New York Central Railroad and the Erie Canal (1). Another newspaper, the Tribune stated, " Fernando Wood evidently wants to be a traitor; it is lack of courage only that makes him content with being a blackguard" (2).

Many prominent businessmen in NYC supported Wood's idea, but only if the Union was" dissolved or on the verge of dissolution" (3). The idea of a Republic of New York was not a bad one if there were two separate nations. With its vast ports and low tariffs, NYC would still be the trade capital of the western hemisphere. Being a free city that made its money on tariffs alone, Wood wanted a town whose monetary problems could be dealt without the need to tax its people.

Arguing for a free city, Wood said "Instead of supporting by her contributions in revenue two-thirds of the expenses of the U.S., become also, equally independent? As a free city, with a nominal duty on imports, her local government could be supported without taxation upon her peoples…Thus, we conclude, we should live free from taxes, and have cheap goods nearly duty free…When disunion has become a fixed and certain fact, why may New York City disrupt the lands which bind her to a venal and corrupt master - to a people and a party that have plundered her revenue, attempted to ruin her commerce, taken away the power of self-government and destroy the confederacy in which she was the proud empire city" (4).

Being a free city would have made NYC neutral in the disagreement between the north and the south, and would not sever those historically profitable ties between the two. Mayor Wood never imagined that if fighting broke out, that NYC would not side with the south. Wood stated, "New Yorkers would not fight for the inferior Negro race" (5).

[RoyGBiv]

63. Question/observation ...

First, what is this from? A title? The citations don't mean a thing without being linked to something.

Second, while the discussion in this piece is largely accurate, it describes a state of being at the beginning of the war, not 1863, when things had changed dramatically. Indeed, _Northern Editorials On Secession_, a two volume collection of editorials issued by newspapers prior to and immediately after secession and then after the initiation of hostilities, shows clearly a major change of thought between the time of the threat of secession and the actual event. Even Horace Greely, who could never by any stretch of the imagination be called pro-slavery or even pro-Confederacy, issued an editorial asking that the "erring sisters <should be allowed to> go in peace." After Ft. Sumter, that all changed.

George Frederickson's _The Inner Civil War_ examines this process and how intellectuals in the Union formed and changed their opinions on the concepts of secession, Union, and even slavery as the war progressed. In summary, while some were pro-Union from the start, others were moderately to strongly pro-secessionist in the sense of at least believing the seceded states should not be brought back into the Union by force of arms. Financial matters figured heavily into these calculated opinions. Industries that relied on the Mississippi River for import and export or who did lucrative trade business with Southern states echoed the financiers and textile merchants along the East Coast. What they didn't want was a war that would interrupt business, and their solution for avoiding it varied as their opinions on the meaning of Union varied. After hostilities were initiated by Confederate forces in Charleston harbor, however, the vast majority of opinions on the matter changed. "Erring sisters" became "wayward sisters," and those who had sought reconciliation were beating the drums of war and financing their own enlistment campaigns to quell what they were by then calling a rebellion.

The idea of New York secession was a fleeting thought put forth by radical elements and never had a chance in hell of being carried forward. Some authors like to highlight it because it makes good drama. Other use it as a part of a moral equivalency argument. It's most significant meaning, however, is in the context of understanding that Northern opinion on secession was not unified prior to the firing on Sumter, which in turn highlights the fact that the very idea of secession was not as concrete as modern-day "the Confederates were traitors" crowd like to believe.

By the way, back to a point you made earlier, I'm curious if you can tell me what the printing press in Charleston, SC was doing for most of the war.

[Kickoutthejams23]

66. Ah the History channel lied to me on the money.

No really here is the link. http://www.virtualgettysburg.com/VG/currency.html


Damn I hope that Peter Jennings special on UFOs was on the level
:spank:

Agh. New York certainly had Southern sympathies during the war. What amazes me is the US junior high school textbooks that make the Civil war so black and white. As if they are scared to show the shades of grey. (unintended pun)

[RoyGBiv]

67. The History Channel does that ...

They also have built entire presentations around that quack who claims FDR intentionally allowed Pear Harbor to be bombed. He gets center stage. The historians who have done exhaustive work examining the matter are left with sound bites. Since they put a lot of the dissenters on, it gives the appearance of an even-handed presentation, or even one lopsided against the quack, but they only let one individual make an argument, then limit those who disagree to presenting a sentence or two.

No disagreement on the "Southern sympathies" angle, nor on the "black and white" manner in which history is presented, especially in high schools. In fact much of what I've been saying here is that the matter has a lot variables.

[Kickoutthejams23]

69. Glad to find another history fan.

:toast:

[Yupster]

60. If you check E-Bay,

you can buy a $ 20 Confederate bill today for around $ 20, so the people who saved them did see them keep their vale in a weird kind of way.

Of course that's no interest for 130 years.

[RoyGBiv]

65. LOL!!!

Well, at least that's better than the effective negative interest rate people were getting for their Confederate bonds at the time. They'd be issued at something like 8%, but with the inflation rate what it was, that was a losing propsition.

[Cerridwen]

14. Try "A People's History of the United States" by Howard Zinn

A few more interesting tidbits here and there your history teachers may have left out.

The 2003 edition includes information from the Clinton presidency and info about 9/11.

Here's a link to one at Powell's Books

http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=0060528370

edit to add: looks like other folks had Zinn in mind, too. :D

[lectrobyte]

23. Zinn is definitely on the reading list now. Thanks for the link.

[AX10]

15. "History" classes in grade school teach you very little about what...

actually happened.

[grasswire]

17. most people don't know about the coup attempt on FDR

Do you? It was thwarted only by U.S. Marine General Smedley Butler, who ratted out the plotters at the last minute. The plotters were the elite industrialists -- the usual suspects. They asked Butler to participate and lead a military coup, as they despised FDR's economic policies.

[lectrobyte]

22. I feel like I just woke up in another country. Thanks.

[Greyhound]

48. Even more revealing is the fact that the congress refused to investigate

or prosecute the perpetrators simply because they were all "pillars of the community", IOW, they made lots of large political "contributions" to the right politiwhores. So, instead of rotting in jail or being shot as traitors, they were allowed to continue to work to undermine our nation and what we have today is the direct result of that particular sell-out.

[Totally Committed]

18. Those who control government,

control history. (Literally and figuratively.)

TC

[Beacho]

20. On aspect of the draft that fueled the draft riots

When the draft was instituted there was a 'buy out' clause. I think the amount was three hundred dollars, which was a large chunk of change if you were a Irish immigrant living in The Five Corners. There was also a clause where you couild get out of it by getting someone to take your place. This fueled an already tense situation amongs the immigrant population in NY, as the class implications of these policies are obvious.

[Kickoutthejams23]

25. Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898

Is a must read. Covers the five points and draft riots. Real American history.

[Autumn Colors]

26. I had a year of N.Y. STATE history & never that

I can understand this not being discussed in U.S. History in school, but I grew up in New York State and our school taught a full year of New York State history in 7th grade.

I felt so ignorant watching that movie, having grown up only 60 miles from NYC, having had a year of NY State history, and still hearing about this for the first time from a Martin Scorsese film.

Go figure...

[Bill McBlueState]

27. I'll second the recommendation of Loewen's book

I found "Lies My Teacher Told Me" to be really accessible, even entertaining. And I'm not a historian or anything.

[SaveElmer]

30. It was a great movie...

Though I can be a stickler for looks, and the Union soldiers didn't look too authentic. Uniforms were all wrong...and too clean...

Many of these men were brought in after just having fought at Gettysburg. And they would have looked like it...

[LTR]

31. GONY was a highly underrated movie

Very good, though the whole romance thing seemed to bog it down a little. Cameron Diaz was, for the most part, a distraction. I did like the whole thing between Amsterdam and Bill The Butcher. Daniel Day-Lewis did a phenomenal job, and DiCaprio wasn't bad either. The actor portraying the infamous Boss Tweed, Jim Broadbent, gave probably the most believable character performance in the movie. From what I've read about him, the character seems very spot-on.

As for the story, there is a lot of creative and dramatic license going on here, but does give an adequate 'Cliff's Notes' account of the atmosphere of Civil War-era New York. Living conditions in Five Points, Tammany Hall corruption, immigration and the Draft Riots were covered adequately in this film. Some of the made-up stuff is a bit ridiculous (Ironclads firing into New York, for one), but it's a good background for further reading (like Asbury's original book "The Gangs Of New York", which in its own right was deemed lurid and sensational.

Wikipedia (I know, I know) has a pretty decent page about the draft riots, with some good reference materials listed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Draft_Riots

Also, if you have the DVD, I highly recommend watching the documentaries on Disc 2.

[hedgehog]

35. I would trust the movie for catching the emotions of the time,

but I would be very dubious of exact "facts" . It's easy to rememeber something as having happened that never did. Now I am going to have to go and look up to see if iron clads actually fired into New York or if i have confused that with British navel ships firing on Dublin. .

[LTR]

37. There is a lot of missing history regarding the Five Points

After all, New York basically buried the entire area. Literally. The courthouse and Foley Square sit there now.

Lots of the history of that era was written by pulp authors and sensationalistic journalists, so actual events in many cases may have been exaggerated. Much like the stories of the Old West.

Usually, movies depicting the mid-1860s era are either about the Civil War or the Old West. One of the things I liked about GONY is that it's one of the few movies taking place in that era that is about something else (though the Civil War does provide somewhat of a backdrop). It was about different types of people (rich and poor) living their lives in a harsh time.

[hedgehog]

39. My father has been studying the family history in recent years.

He gets a bang telling me about this one or that one who lived in Hell's Kitchen. Like other immigrant groups, the Irish tended to stay with a relative or buddy from the old country when they first came over. As a result, a lot of grandparents, uncles and aunts going back a few generations passed through Hell's Kitchen. What cracks my dad up is that he remembers some of these people, and they were gentle people devoted to family, hardly the stereotype. Of course, others were alcoholics who gave the family no end of worry, but that's a story for another day.

[MrPrax]

50. I liked it!!

In reading this thread, I can understand NOW why the critics were trashing it for it's 'questionable' history -- many critics like Americans, don't know much about the history of the Five Points Riots and the later Draft Riots.

I thought Scorese was being quite subversive with the Diaz character -- one great scene is where she is pleading with DiCaprio about moving to California.

She is basically saying: 'look, the future is out west, we Americans move to the next opportunity and don't think that our small urban neighbourhoods are part of Ireland, women who look like me will become the icon of American beauty, I am paying for your ticket, your in love with me, you have nothing keeping you here in New York except a feud...what the hell is your problem!!!'.

DiCaprio's character rejects her for a blood feud with the Republicans!! "The blood stays on the blade." as the Son repeats the mistakes of the Father.

If you notice then the next scenes of DiCaprio is walking with the his Democrat buddies during the riot, and they are stopped in their tracks by a huge rampaging elephant!!! and then the bastards start shelling the city!!

The movie is sly and hilarious at times...highly recommended, especially for Daniel Day Lewis's performance which is a stand-out among moviedom villians...

[dogday]

32. I did not know you could pay money

to stay out of the war either.... but then again nothing changed there, right?

[LTR]

34. Very true

In fact, one of our presidents (I think it was Cleveland) did this very thing. $300 bucks bought a replacement for fighting in the Civil War.

[SpiralHawk]

33. Karmic tidbit: US government has broken or violated every single treaty

it has ever entered into with a Native American nation. That's about 400 sacred and legally binding vows that have been trashed by the U.S.A.

That's not an opinion; it's a historical fact.

What kind of karma do you get when you break a legal and spiritual vow?

What kind of karma when you break about 400 legal and spiritual vows?

What is the government of the U.S.A. doing in your name and with your money?

[proud patriot]

38. Read Howard Zinn's "people's history of the united states"

I highly recommend it

[hedgehog]

40. Can someone mention a book that handles these topics in a

more even handed manner? Zinn is good, but I'd like a second opinion.

The Cartoon History of the United States by Larry Gonick is a good book with a lot of foot notes and references.

[RoyGBiv]

52. Which events?

The draft riots?

See Post #51.

Zinn is a good historian and a good writer. As you may have surmised, his _People's History_ is a good, necessary work. It is not the be-all, end-all to understanding American history, particularly when concerned with specific events. He'll give you an overview, viewed from a bottom-up context, which is fine in and of itself. But, it leaves a lot out, which is intentional on his part because he is clearly and admittedly presenting a particular point of view.

For whatever my opion is worth, Zinn's scholarship is weakest during the period of the mid-19th century, particularly on events leading up to and during the Civil War. He picks up steam again after it. I'm not sure of the reason for this but suspect it has something to do with his approach, the previously mentioned "bottom-up" view. The Civil War and its causes and consequences can certainly be viewed from that perspective, but doing so masks a lot of what was taking place "at the top." To truly try to understand all this -- not that complete understand is possible -- one has to consider the events from many angles, and Zinn doesn't do that for this period very well.

[proud patriot]

62. Is there a reason you don't think Zinn is even handed ?

Is it something you heard or have you read something that
left you feeling like you didn't get the whole story by Zinn?

I find his work amazingly more even handed then any history
books . Which is why I enjoy his work enough to recommend .

You get all perspectives from Zinn IMO :hi:

[RoyGBiv]

64. I don't believe you do ...

Zinn explores an approach to studying history known as the "bottom up" approach, which is reflected in the title. Proponents of the approach call it examining real history as it affected real people rather than studying the history of a bunch of elitist, dead white men. Put less derisively, Zinn's approach is to study history from the perspective of common people, regardless of ethnicity or religious affiliation or whatever, rather than from the perspective of politicians and governments and the grand events that shaped the world in which these common people lived.

As was noted in a message up-thread, this is certainly a valid approach, and as I said in my reply here, it's a necessary approach. However, it, like its opposite, does not give "all perspectives." It, by definition, gives one perspective, even if that perspective can be defined as the perspective of millions of individuals. The opposite approach does the same thing, even if it can be defined as the perspective of varied political, financial, etc. interests.

Zinn also has an unapologetic agenda in mind when he writes. I admire that agenda, frankly, and I don't believe it takes away from the soundness of his work. However, in terms of presenting a broad picture, it fails to do so. Zinn is sympathetic to certain interests or people and makes no apologies for it. Again, I admire that, admire mostly the fact that he clearly exposes what so many historians try to claim isn't true, to wit the fact that all those who examine history have an agenda when they write, some less innocuous than others.

[FILAM23]

43. I remember it from US history circa

6th grade.

[newburgh]

44. "Low Life" by Luc Sante

Very detailed look at NYC low life at that time. Deals with the backdrop of all of this. Amazing resourced book.

It's good to know others were just as surprised as me about the facts brought out in GONY. I hated history in school, but I absorbed a lot. I couldn't believe I would have missed this. (Now I'm living in part of that history. I own a very prominent lawyer's house from that time who defended Boss Tweed, the railroad barons and Henry Ward Beecher. May explain the body found under the porch when they dug under it to expand the basement in the '20's.)

[RoyGBiv]

51. That movie is not "history"

The historical accuracy of that movie is about on par with what you learn in a high school history class, which is to say a lot of legend combined with some truth to make a good story. My biggest irritation with it is that it glosses over the complex web of political corruption that made up New York politics, and yes I said "gloss over" knowing how much corruption it shows. What's depicted in the movie is barely the tip of an enormous iceburg.

It also might be noted that the real person upon whom the character "Bill" was based was dead at the time of the events in this movie.

The draft riots certainly happened, and they were subdued by elements of the Union army that had just been through the hellish storm of Gettysburg. No naval ships bombarded downtown, however.

If you want a better, although not exhaustive by any means, account of the gang wars in New York in the 19th century, read the book upon which the movie is loosely based, _The Gangs of New York_ by Herbert Asbury and Jorge Luis Borges. Note that this is an "informal history," which basically means a lot of it can't be documented, and it is more "a story" than a historical study.

For more on the New York City draft riots, read _The New York City Draft Riots: Their Significance for American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War

The New York City Draft Riots: Their Significance for American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War_ by Iver Bernstein.

[lectrobyte]

70. A lot of good sources. Thanks much!

[Igel]

56. Lots of stuff.

Hundreds of years of history in the US, and that's just for European settlers.

Then there's American pre-history, European history, African (pre)history, Australian history and prehistory ... Far too much to cover.

So they pick and choose by their own lights. They don't tell you about some stuff because it's unpleasant: draft riots or the Muslim slave trade. Others just aren't important: Han and Bantu expansionism and the genocide of the peoples they subjugated, Ivan the Terrible's dispersing of the inhabitants of Novgorod across N. Russia. Some are too trivial: The Russo-Persian wars from the late 1700s and early 1800s (hell, even my Russian history class in college covered that period without so much as a whisper about those wars).

In college history we spent a few days on the Columbia University demonstrations. Then again, the professor (abd at Columbia, dissertating on late 19th century porn) did his undergrad at Columbia as well, and was one of the protesters. Our American history class focused on Lowell, MA, and a sort of socio-economic history. Civil War was done in a day, but the late 19th century labor movement took a couple of weeks. American Indians? Not hardly a word.

[LostinVA]

58. The Draft Riots were real, and very notorious

Black peple torn limb from limb, orphanages attacked, etc. It was only partly a "draft riot," and mainly a bunch of thugs destroying stuff and killing people. Mob rule.


BUT: the US Navy certainly did NOT fire on NYC. Ugh. That part drives me bonkers.

[aikoaiko]

71. History is rated X. One typically doesn't get to it until adulthood...

...sadly.

There's a famous history of science article by Stephen Brush that asks the question, 'Should the History of Science be rated X?" because the truth about science is rarely discussed until graduate school for most disciplines.

Read up, but be critical of who you read. There are just as many authors who will blow sunshine up an exodus orafice as there are teachers and they come from all sorts of ideologies. It really is tough to decide who is telling you the truth.

[Raydawg1234]

72. Maybe your classed didn't go into too much depth.

Those riots are no secret. General history classes don't cover much more than Fort Sumter and Gettysburg.