Battle of New York City

[Rab Tull]

"This turmoil erupted in July 1863 into a bloody battle between New York's citizens alongside the State militia, and the Federal government's regular forces. History books call this the ‘Draft Riot,’ as if this was a spontaneous outburst against conscription. That term disguises the magnitude of this well-planned defiance against Lincoln's brutal policies against the North.

This ‘riot’ was actually a brilliant military defense of the Empire State against the invasion of its sovereignty. It was the ‘Battle of New York City,’ the longest engagement of the entire war and the only major urban battle. It surpassed Gettysburg in length of time, geographic scale, and approached it in casualty numbers. It more resembled the house-to-house fighting at Stalingrad or Berlin in the Second World War.

General William Tecumseh Sherman, in a speech to Congress, clarified the magnitude of the Northern war when he stated that the Union army had three million men in the field, and that half of them were fighting the war against the loyal states."

Full article here

Real history is fascinating indeed!

Grace & Peace, Rab

 

[Agrippa]

The article has quite a few errors.

The article doesn't mention the racial aspect of the riot. One reason Irish immigrants opposed the draft was because they saw the war as an attempt to free blacks who would then steal their jobs (by working at lower wages).

The reason Boston had fewer draftees than New York wasn't because it was a Republican city. It was because Bostonians had already volunteered in large numbers. The object of the draft wasn't to raise troops directly, rather, it was designed to encourage men to volunteer. It succeeded in this measure.

‘It has never been known how many perished in those awful days. According to the lowest estimate, some 1,200 of the rioters must have been killed and five to six times that number wounded; but they hid their losses as far as possible and disposed of their dead in silence and darkness.’

This means that the citizen-militia suffered about 8,400 casualties. And, as a standard rule, an attacking army takes three times as many killed and wounded as the defenders. Then, the Union army and police had losses of 25,200. The combined total of 33,600 is higher than the greater slaughter at Antietam and close to those at Gettysburg.

I mean, do I even have to respond to this? The article claims that 26,000 Union troops entered the city (16 regiments, which I'll assume were at full strength, 1,000 men each, though they wouldn't be after Gettysburg, and 10,000 men at a later date). That would mean that ever Union soldier was killed or wounded. Come on. The article takes a generalization and applies it to this situation as a law. It ignores that fact that while the Union troops were armed with cannon and rifled muskets, the crowd had few weapons. This is perhaps the greatest error in the entire article.

While it is true that conscription continued after the riot, the article fails to mention that Lincoln reduced the quota by 1/2.

The article over-exaggerates the post-riot conditions. It goes on about all this despotism, yet it fails to acknowledge that only 443 people were arrested and only 67 of those were convicted for an average sentence of 5 years each.

It claims a strong Federal presence in NYC following the riots, but the opposite is true. Lincoln distanced himself from the post-riot situation, which allowed local Republican and Democrat politicians to wrestle for control and William Tweed (a Democrat) won. He pushed for the convinctions of rioters, not Washington.