Unite the Right

[Okeefenokee]

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.

[Smitty-48]

Like the South Vietnamese climbing the embassy walls and clinging to the wheels of airliners in the withdrawal from Saigon.

[Alexander PhiAlipson]

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.

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!

[Speaker to Animals]

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 It was repealed when the democrats came back into power.

[katarn]

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.

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.

[Ex-California]

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.

Exactly. Why do we have to argue about semantics.

[katarn]

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!

There's a nice (probably apocryphal) story there too, where Wheeler, very old, has the enemy on the run and turns to his men and says "Come on boys, we got the Yankees on the run!"

[katarn]

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.

Sometimes, more with history than other things, it's more about settling details than bickering semantics. They sound similar, but working from the same story is important.

[Smitty-48]

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.

Indeed, despite all of Penner's crowing about Appomattox Courthouse, the Yankees essentially handed everything back, up to and including indentured servitude just short of de jure; Planting Aristocracy assymetrical victory in the wake of symmetrical defeat.

[TheReal_ND]

Sure. Show me how blacks proved themselves worth fighting over. I'll wait. See back then people weren't jammed up with pc nonsense. They probably saw what was coming down the line. If the North ever fought with passion against the South it was because they were very pissed off at importing Africans to begin with. And that isn't hate speech that's understandable. Hell, people spend all their money to get away from the ghettos.