On... Something. It is freedom-related
Hazel here, so hippies, commies, and yankees beware this time.
I watched Gangs of New York from the beginning yesterday, and it got me curious about the New York City Draft Riots (especially seeing as the movie itself is terribly inaccurate... still a good story, though). Thus, I turned to the glorious and incredibly accurate internet to find out more.
The draft riots took place in 1863, predominantly in response to the union drafting men into military service for the Civil War. The mob consisted mostly of Irish and German immigrants, who were rather low in society at the time. Naturally, there were other contributing factors. There was the option of paying a $300 fee to get out of service, but that was a helluva lot, which made the immigrants feel that they were being forced to go fight in a "rich man's war." There is also, of course, the fact that there was a growing number of freed blacks, who threatened the job security of the immigrants. Learning about all this made me think about a few topics. Primarily: drafting, social class, and the Civil War in general.
Drafting
I think everyone should know by now what drafting is: basically, forced military service. As somewhat of an extremely strong libertarian (small-l, of course), I pretty much believe that forcing anyone to do anything is completely wrong (unless, of course, said person in question committed a crime... er... a bad crime. The kind that hurts people, more or less.). Drafting is forcing people to leave their friends and family to go put their lives on the line for a cause that they may or may not agree with.
There is, of course, the viewpoint that men--at the very least--should have an obligation of some sort to defend their country when it is in danger of invasion, falling apart, or whatever cause the politicians come up with (up with which the politicians come? Alright, I give up). Now, I do feel that people should have a certain amount of pride in their country, but I draw the line at trying to make them do so. Plus, there's always the fact that not everyone is cut out for military work. Granted, more soldiers is always better than less, but forced recruitment is probably only necessary in dire situations (I'm thinking Helms Deep, or maybe tribal warfare). If there are only a few citizens able to fight, then your chances of winning are very slim unless you use all of them, but when there's an entire country-full to choose from, then an all-volunteer army is really far better overall.
It's better because people don't tend to like being forced to do something--especially by some far-away outside force. When they're drafted, they resent having to leave their families for something that--to them--may seem completely pointless. Resentment towards the side for which they're supposedly fighting can potentially make them far worse soldiers than a volunteer would be.
Social Class
This is just a quick little observation that I've made from reading about these riots. In the New York Draft Riots, members of the mob assaulted black people or symbols of the rising status of blacks in the society. Their primary concern was about being forcibly sent off to war, so why take their anger out on those of lower status than themselves?
As I said before, the number of free blacks was threatening their job security. Immigrants--the Irish in particular--were in the lower caste, working as maids and the like--just work that's generally looked down upon. Then the slaves from the south were emancipated and were moving up into their areas. They were probably willing to work for less, seeing as they were used to working for nothing, and they were exempt from the draft due to the fact that they were not citizens until 1868.
I'm just seeing a bit of a parallel between that and more recent times. After all that, blacks took up those lines of work more than anyone, but now illegal immigrants seem to have taken over because--due to their non-citizenship status--they can be paid far less for the same work that the black people used to do (or... according to my mom they did. I don't think I was born yet). I just found that interesting--take from it what you will.
The Civil War--In General
This tends to be a bit of a sensitive topic--especially here in the south--but here goes.
Look, dude, the south was not fighting for slavery. The war began over the issue of slavery, but it was not clear-cut "we want to keep slaves" vs. "we love black people!". Naw, the south wanted the option of getting rid of slavery some way besides immediate abolition. They wanted state sovereignty as opposed to federal control... and apparently the federal government didn't want that. Therefore, they seceded... but the federal government surely didn't want that, and thus the Civil War began.
Ah... then the emancipation proclamation came, and while it's near impossible to tell without extra interpretation what it's really saying (you think run-on sentences are bad now? Sheesh!), the war was then officially "about" slavery. Reading through the interpretation, though, it seems to have been more of a political move than anything. It only freed slaves in the states that were still rebelling against the union by the time it was actually put in place, along with allowing them to sign up for military service (and the union needed soldiers at that point, hence the draft a few months later (yes, I know, it was intended to just get more volunteers) that ended up spurring this post). I'm just saying, history is not always the exact way the victors have written it.
I think I'll go watch some Firefly or Serenity now. Feeling a bit browncoat-ish.
I watched Gangs of New York from the beginning yesterday, and it got me curious about the New York City Draft Riots (especially seeing as the movie itself is terribly inaccurate... still a good story, though). Thus, I turned to the glorious and incredibly accurate internet to find out more.
The draft riots took place in 1863, predominantly in response to the union drafting men into military service for the Civil War. The mob consisted mostly of Irish and German immigrants, who were rather low in society at the time. Naturally, there were other contributing factors. There was the option of paying a $300 fee to get out of service, but that was a helluva lot, which made the immigrants feel that they were being forced to go fight in a "rich man's war." There is also, of course, the fact that there was a growing number of freed blacks, who threatened the job security of the immigrants. Learning about all this made me think about a few topics. Primarily: drafting, social class, and the Civil War in general.
Drafting
I think everyone should know by now what drafting is: basically, forced military service. As somewhat of an extremely strong libertarian (small-l, of course), I pretty much believe that forcing anyone to do anything is completely wrong (unless, of course, said person in question committed a crime... er... a bad crime. The kind that hurts people, more or less.). Drafting is forcing people to leave their friends and family to go put their lives on the line for a cause that they may or may not agree with.
There is, of course, the viewpoint that men--at the very least--should have an obligation of some sort to defend their country when it is in danger of invasion, falling apart, or whatever cause the politicians come up with (up with which the politicians come? Alright, I give up). Now, I do feel that people should have a certain amount of pride in their country, but I draw the line at trying to make them do so. Plus, there's always the fact that not everyone is cut out for military work. Granted, more soldiers is always better than less, but forced recruitment is probably only necessary in dire situations (I'm thinking Helms Deep, or maybe tribal warfare). If there are only a few citizens able to fight, then your chances of winning are very slim unless you use all of them, but when there's an entire country-full to choose from, then an all-volunteer army is really far better overall.
It's better because people don't tend to like being forced to do something--especially by some far-away outside force. When they're drafted, they resent having to leave their families for something that--to them--may seem completely pointless. Resentment towards the side for which they're supposedly fighting can potentially make them far worse soldiers than a volunteer would be.
Social Class
This is just a quick little observation that I've made from reading about these riots. In the New York Draft Riots, members of the mob assaulted black people or symbols of the rising status of blacks in the society. Their primary concern was about being forcibly sent off to war, so why take their anger out on those of lower status than themselves?
As I said before, the number of free blacks was threatening their job security. Immigrants--the Irish in particular--were in the lower caste, working as maids and the like--just work that's generally looked down upon. Then the slaves from the south were emancipated and were moving up into their areas. They were probably willing to work for less, seeing as they were used to working for nothing, and they were exempt from the draft due to the fact that they were not citizens until 1868.
I'm just seeing a bit of a parallel between that and more recent times. After all that, blacks took up those lines of work more than anyone, but now illegal immigrants seem to have taken over because--due to their non-citizenship status--they can be paid far less for the same work that the black people used to do (or... according to my mom they did. I don't think I was born yet). I just found that interesting--take from it what you will.
The Civil War--In General
This tends to be a bit of a sensitive topic--especially here in the south--but here goes.
Look, dude, the south was not fighting for slavery. The war began over the issue of slavery, but it was not clear-cut "we want to keep slaves" vs. "we love black people!". Naw, the south wanted the option of getting rid of slavery some way besides immediate abolition. They wanted state sovereignty as opposed to federal control... and apparently the federal government didn't want that. Therefore, they seceded... but the federal government surely didn't want that, and thus the Civil War began.
Ah... then the emancipation proclamation came, and while it's near impossible to tell without extra interpretation what it's really saying (you think run-on sentences are bad now? Sheesh!), the war was then officially "about" slavery. Reading through the interpretation, though, it seems to have been more of a political move than anything. It only freed slaves in the states that were still rebelling against the union by the time it was actually put in place, along with allowing them to sign up for military service (and the union needed soldiers at that point, hence the draft a few months later (yes, I know, it was intended to just get more volunteers) that ended up spurring this post). I'm just saying, history is not always the exact way the victors have written it.
I think I'll go watch some Firefly or Serenity now. Feeling a bit browncoat-ish.
That sounds the least silly, despite breaking the idiotic rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition; I always wonder what the person who came up with that rule was high on.
As for the Civil War: this is why the phrase "States Rights" is so uncommon these days. The war was over autonomy and federalism; when the South lost, the proponents of those topics were at the helm of the CSA and got completely ousted.
Ditto for the Confederate Flag, which to some is functionally equivalent to a KKK hood.
Given the measures the Constitution set up against hasty mob actions with serious consequences not easily undone (passing an amendment, impeaching a president, electing an idiot to Congress), I don't think that it would have been far off to restrict secession therein. I mean, West Virginia is still West Virginia.
Your statement about the Proclamation also tracks with what I recall from US History, that one of Lincoln's advisers pushed him to issue the proclamation and make the war about slavery, which it hadn't necessarily been before. It was a motivational tool, so to speak.
But that's not how the victors necessarily recorded it.
-Hober (Comment this)
The thing about secession, though, is that it seems to have been somewhat (murkily) restricted in the constitution (Article 1, section 10), so it is more of a complicated subject. However, the union was on its way to becoming an empire, and the states in the confederacy saw that more and more power was being given to the federal government. I haven't gotten quite far enough into this yet to be sure, but there don't seem to have been too many options for them to be able to keep their sovereignty. It was put up with it, attempt a revolution, or leave; they chose the latter.
I plan on learning more detail when school starts and I'm within walking distance to D.H. Hill, but that's what I've gathered so far. I'm just surprised they actually taught you the truth about the proclamation in US History. I must have kept getting the short end of the stick in public school. (Comment this)