Martin Hash.com

Alexander PhiAlipson wrote:

Speaker to Animals wrote:They actually did *not* join in large numbers. There were a few regiments (famous), but it wasn't that many. There were more blacks than Irish, and every state on both sides had Irish brigades.

And, really, why should they have fought? For what? The federal government didn't want to free them and only did so when it became strategically advantageous. Hell, Uncle Billy left a ton of them to die after he marched through.

Don't forget that other Jefferson Davis, and the incident at Ebenezer Creek. Wikipedia downplays it a bit--by a bit I mean by thousands--and Sherman supported the action.

Okeefenokee wrote:

Alexander PhiAlipson wrote:

Speaker to Animals wrote:They actually did *not* join in large numbers. There were a few regiments (famous), but it wasn't that many. There were more blacks than Irish, and every state on both sides had Irish brigades.

And, really, why should they have fought? For what? The federal government didn't want to free them and only did so when it became strategically advantageous. Hell, Uncle Billy left a ton of them to die after he marched through.

Don't forget that other Jefferson Davis, and the incident at Ebenezer Creek. Wikipedia downplays it a bit--by a bit I mean by thousands--and Sherman supported the action.

Jesus Christ.

Okeefenokee wrote:I really thought the fact that civil rights for black Americans taking a full century to come about after the civil war would dampen a lot of this fairy tale bullshit about the north being a 21st century land of racial integration in 1865.

Penner wrote:

California wrote:

Penner wrote:


https://dp.la/primary-source-sets/sets/ ... civil-war/

Now that you have been proven wrong you are trying turn this into that I was wrong.

I really think that source is dishonest. To think that for one second that there wasn't a racial component is simply ignorant

Well, the people who rioted were the ones who were being drafted into the Union army and there did exist a loophole BUT it was something design that only the rich can afford to do and since blacks weren't considered full citizens they were excluded from the draft (although, they did join the Union army in very large numbers). Plus, we are talking about something that is commonly called, "Draft Riots" and not "Workers' Riots" or whatever. They did murder/lynch a bunch of blacks who were living in NYC at the time as well but the main cause of that riot was because of the draft and how totally fucked up the ass they were in resisting being drafted.

katarn wrote:

Penner wrote:

California wrote: I really think that source is dishonest. To think that for one second that there wasn't a racial component is simply ignorant

Well, the people who rioted were the ones who were being drafted into the Union army and there did exist a loophole BUT it was something design that only the rich can afford to do and since blacks weren't considered full citizens they were excluded from the draft (although, they did join the Union army in very large numbers). Plus, we are talking about something that is commonly called, "Draft Riots" and not "Workers' Riots" or whatever. They did murder/lynch a bunch of blacks who were living in NYC at the time as well but the main cause of that riot was because of the draft and how totally fucked up the ass they were in resisting being drafted.

From the sources you guys have posted, it seems like this:
Draft riots start about drafts, because people don't want to fight.
Don't want to fight because the war is now specifically to free slaves, which could threaten their jobs in peacetime.
Soon, the predictive wrath of the crowds turns towards blacks.

It pretty clearly involves slavery and race as well as drafts.

Alexander PhiAlipson wrote:

Okeefenokee wrote:

Alexander PhiAlipson wrote: Don't forget that other Jefferson Davis, and the incident at Ebenezer Creek. Wikipedia downplays it a bit--by a bit I mean by thousands--and Sherman supported the action.

Jesus Christ.

O, and that Confederate guy--Joe Wheeler--was later in overall command of our forces when the USA took Cuba. His statues have got to go!

California wrote:

katarn wrote:

Penner wrote:
Well, the people who rioted were the ones who were being drafted into the Union army and there did exist a loophole BUT it was something design that only the rich can afford to do and since blacks weren't considered full citizens they were excluded from the draft (although, they did join the Union army in very large numbers). Plus, we are talking about something that is commonly called, "Draft Riots" and not "Workers' Riots" or whatever. They did murder/lynch a bunch of blacks who were living in NYC at the time as well but the main cause of that riot was because of the draft and how totally fucked up the ass they were in resisting being drafted.

From the sources you guys have posted, it seems like this:
Draft riots start about drafts, because people don't want to fight.
Don't want to fight because the war is now specifically to free slaves, which could threaten their jobs in peacetime.
Soon, the predictive wrath of the crowds turns towards blacks.

It pretty clearly involves slavery and race as well as drafts.

Exactly. Why do we have to argue about semantics.

Speaker to Animals wrote:

Okeefenokee wrote:I really thought the fact that civil rights for black Americans taking a full century to come about after the civil war would dampen a lot of this fairy tale bullshit about the north being a 21st century land of racial integration in 1865.

It didn't, though. The first civil rights act was passed in 1875. It was repealed when the democrats came back into power.