Draft Riots Reading 2

Bias. Ever since we had first saw pictures from Harper’s Weekly, I have been curious to learn more about them. I did not realize that there was such a large scale between the political parties of the time. The Democrats saw the draft riots as “legitimate protests by working people against their loss of rights and the inequalities of the new draft law,” while the Republicans saw them as “a much more insidious challenge to the social order and urged ‘an immediate and terrible’ federal reaction to quell the disturbance.” It did not surprise me, then, to learn that Harper’s Weekly supported the side of the Republicans. They viewed the Irish and the rioters in such a negative light that they gave rise to the ideas that they were incredibly violent and savage. They also took the low road and showed Irish men beating a helpless black man and his young daughter. People will do anything as long as cute children are involved, as seen in many advertisements today. This video has recently gone viral (http://www.urlesque.com/2010/09/13/cute-girl-catchy-dance/?icid=main%7Cmain%7Cdl8%7Csec3_lnk3%7C170285) showing a cute young girl dancing, and then to have everyone around her join in. In actuality, they are selling you a cell phone. Does this really work? Now and then? And why can’t people see through this?

Colonel Henry O’Brien was violently murdered by the Irish during the draft riots. That part is true. However, comparing pictures from competing newspapers sheds light on what you should believe and look at when trying to determine what actually happened. Once again, Harper’s Weekly made the Irish look evil, as Colonel O’Brien was helpless. However, the less biased Frank Leslie’s Illustrated Newspaper showed him as a less weak man, not being attacked by a mob but by a few people. So which one do we believe? Now, we know how biased Harper’s Weekly was against the Irish and for the Republicans. Were people aware of how twisted their view was back then? I would guess not, as they bought into what was being said. In actuality, O’Brien was killed in revenge for having killed a woman and her child earlier. Both cartoons left that out.

This was also the first mention of women being involved in the riots. I honestly did not think that women would be out in the streets fighting at this time, but now that I reflect upon it more, it makes sense. They would lose the men they loved to the drafts. Husbands, brothers, fathers, friends. Not only did the women participate, they were as violent and full of rage as the men were. Honestly, I cannot blame them. If I were in that situation, I would have fought too. Would you?

What did surprise me was how the rioters went after easy targets – mainly the wealthy New Yorkers and the Africans Americans. They were not prepared to fight back, the wealthy were hated for being able to pay their way out of the draft, and the African Americans were blamed for having started the war. “As long as rioting wracked the city, African Americans would be targeted by the rioters.” The second day confirmed that there would be no stopping the rioters, and the cause again the draft was deep in their minds and hearts. I was impressed, however, with the fact that the money that was given to the government to pay away the draft was used to rebuilt the places that the mob destroyed. I don’t think that the riots should have lasted as long as they did, because the political leaders spent their time figuring out how to stop the riots. Why did they have nothing prepared?

Draft Riots Reading 1

After Martin Scorcese’s 2002 film Gangs of New York was released, it received ten Academy Award nominations. It grossed almost two hundred million dollars worldwide and received many positive reviews.  Gangs of New York is undeniably a great film, interlacing beautiful cinematography with outstanding performances by the actors. However, how many people look beyond this? Gangs of New York is not a made up story – it is based on actual events. Although an entertaining film, it is not entertaining to think about the blood bath that was the Draft Riots of New York City.

The Draft Riots were the bloodiest civil disturbance in New York. This also took place during the Civil War, the bloodiest event in American history. The 1860’s were not a joyful time for our country. When the riots occurred, people did not care to focus on the reasons behind the riots, but they focused on the fact that the riots were happening themselves and all of the violence that came with them. It gave the people of the country something to talk about other than the fight over slavery. According to the article, “There would have been no draft but for the war – there would have been no war but for slavery.” This statement implies that if slavery never existed, then the Civil War would have never happened, and thus no one would be drafted, and there would be no riots. But is it reasonable to play “what if”? Just because there was no slavery, does not mean that a war would have never started. There were plenty of disagreements in creating this country other than slavery. The most important thing we can learn about history is that we cannot look at the past through a present lens. Different eras leave different views of history, as views of the world change over time.

Only recently have the motivations and causes of the draft riots have been studied. My question is: why has no one looked at this sooner? Personally, I find the other side of a story to be very interesting. Looking at things from one perspective provides an unfinished look at history. I remember when I went to see the musical Wicked for the first time. I felt ashamed that I was naïve and did not look at the reasons as to why the Wicked Witch was evil. There are always reasons behind a person’s actions. Maybe they are not as evil or violent as they seem on the surface. Ever since then, I refuse to accept just one side – everyone’s perspective is important.

The rioters used the street as their stage to let the world know what they believed in and what they stood for. The cities allowed them the witnesses they needed to get their voices heard. One of the drawings showed rioters addressing the crowd from the roof of a building. It shows that they gathered a following by standing on pedestals and preaching their ideas. As the newspapers and journals drew the rioters as barbarians, barely human, and unattractive, they refused to acknowledge that there was another reason behind their fighting other than just causing violence. I strongly believe it is important to stand up for what you believe in. However, is it honorable to stand up for what you believe in if it leads to violence and destruction?