If you were Black and woke up in NYC on Monday, July 13, 1863, things got terrifying quick. For Black New Yorkers, there was no reprieve. Black life was dispensable to white mobs & law authorities. The Civil War, poverty, & rabid racism in 19th-century New York explains the events of that week. For Black Americans, the NYC Draft Riots were a heinous episode in an already brutal age. But it didn’t happen in a vacuum.
Competition for jobs, poor living and working conditions, political opportunism, and deep-seated prejudice, as well as chronic alcoholism and gangsterism—-all in the context of the Civil War and slavery made for a very combustible mix in 1863.
The New York City draft riots did not occur spontaneously.
This is what happened before.
[the following thread may contain objectionable language and sentiments]
The United States witnessed a significant influx of Irish immigrants in the early 19th century due to a devastating famine in Ireland from 1845 to 1849. However, upon arriving in America’s rapidly growing industrial cities, the Irish faced new obstacles. Coming from predominantly rural backgrounds, their agricultural skills were of little value in the industrial economy of places like New York.
In fact, over 70% of Irish immigrants in New York ended up working in low-paying, unskilled jobs. As a result, living conditions for Irish immigrants in New York were grim, with overcrowded and unsanitary neighborhoods plagued by crime and gang violence. These desperate circumstances led the Irish to heavily rely on the Democratic Party for support, widening the gap between them and the predominantly Protestant and nativist Republican Party.
New York City was a hotbed of social conflicts, encompassing divisions between the rich and the poor, natives and immigrants, Protestants and Catholics, and Republicans and Democrats. Gang rivalries, winners and losers of industrialization, and other factors also contributed to the tensions. The Democrats, aligned with the Catholic Church, were cautious of the abolitionist movement, while the Republicans staunchly opposed slavery.
Riots were a common occurrence during this period, and the Irish played a prominent role in some, such as the anti-abolitionist riots of 1834. Thus, the 1863 Draft Riots, though shocking, were not entirely unprecedented, but rather part of a longstanding tradition of violent social protest.
Before the large influx of immigrants in the 1840s and 1850s, various occupations in New York, such as longshoremen, hod-carriers, brickmakers, whitewashers, coachmen, stablemen, porters, bootblacks, barbers, hotel and restaurant waiters, were predominantly held by Black men.
Black women, on the other hand, often worked as domestic maids, cooks, scullions, laundresses, and seamstresses, earning relatively good wages and maintaining job security. However, the significant arrival of white foreigners, especially after the Irish famine of 1846, drastically changed the landscape.
The influx of unskilled Irish immigrants flooded the jobs that were previously occupied by Black Americans. Desperate for any wages, the Irish reduced the earnings of Black workers
Frederick Douglass even remarked on the situation, urging Black Americans to learn trades or face unemployment, as they were continuously being replaced by newly arrived emigrants who were considered more entitled to the jobs due to their hunger and skin color.
The Irish immigrants and Black New Yorkers found themselves in direct competition for unskilled jobs, particularly in the field of longshore employment. The issue escalated in December 1854 when striking Irish workers were replaced with Black strikebreakers, leading to racial violence.
While the extent of Black labor being the main problem for the Irish is debatable, it was perceived as a significant threat. Aside from labor competition, Black New Yorkers were associated with abolitionism which clashed with the views of Irish Catholics in the city.
At a Democratic rally in October 1860, James W. Gerard, a prominent lawyer and candidate for Congress, warned Irish and other immigrant laborers that the Republican party aimed to emancipate the laboring population of the South, resulting in Black labor overtaking white labor.
Consequently, anti-Republican and anti-Blackness had different targets but shared common grievances.
General Leslie Combs, speaking at a Democratic mass meeting, similarly declared that if the slaves were liberated, they would compete with white laborers for jobs in various industries. Pro-South businesses also pressured their employees to vote for the fusion Democratic ticket, using the preservation from Black competition as an incentive.
The NY Herald, known for its anti-Black sentiments, published editorials in 1860 campaign predicting catastrophe if Lincoln were elected, millions of Blacks would flood the North, refuse to work, burden Northern workers with taxes, and steal from Northern industry.
Despite patriotism, the narrative of competition persisted.Following the attack on Sumter, Democratic newspapers continued to raise concerns about Black labor upon emancipation.
The Society for the Diffusion of Political Knowledge, an anti-emancipation propaganda group in NYC, published a letter by Henry Clay 2 decades earlier as its 1st pamphlet. The letter warmed a dire future for whites in the North if slavery were abolished.
The NY Weekly Caucasian, a fervently anti-emancipation publication, celebrated the opposition of the Metropolitan Record, the official organ of the Catholic Archbishop of New York, to the war.
Democratic leaders and journalists succeeded in convincing the Irish that resisting the draft meant refusing to fight for their own economic well-being,
In 1862, Republican and abolitionist leaders, including Horace Greeley, recognized the impact of the labor competition argument, particularly among the Irish working class.
Republicans began actively refuting it at every opportunity. They and abolitionists argued that Black Americans migrated to the North to escape slavery and that ending slavery would halt this movement. They claimed that Black Americans had a strong attachment to their birthplaces and were better suited to the climate and agricultural work in the South.
Republicans argued that supporting emancipation was in the interest of white workers, including Irish laborers.
In his message to Congress in December 1862, President Lincoln acknowledged the argument of Black labor competition against emancipation and suggested colonization as a solution to reduce the supply of Black labor and increase demand and wages for white labor.
Before and after the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln denied the prediction of mass migration northward and the displacement of white workers, as he believed that Black Americans would remain in the South.
While information on the actual movement of freed Black Americans from the South to the Northeast is inconclusive, some migration did occur. Thousands of former slaves left states like MO, KY, TN, and MS for states in the Midwest.
Despite restrictive laws in some Midwestern states to prevent the immigration of contrabands and protect white employment, the exodus continued. Abolitionists condemned these state codes as extreme responses to the fear of Black labor competition.
Some Black Americans did settle in New York City, particularly in the Five Points neighborhood near the Irish community. During a longshore strike preceding the draft riots, it was reported that three carloads of contrabands arrived in Jersey City and crossed to New York via ferry. While it is suggested that these Black workers were emancipated slaves breaking the strike, there is no conclusive evidence.
During the draft riots, Black Americans, including contrabands, sought refuge in the Seventh Avenue Arsenal. An individual with an Irish accent interjected Archbishop John Hughes made a speech, proclaiming, “Let the niggers stay in the South!'
The Freeman's Journal and Catholic Register called for the expulsion, imprisonment, or extermination of Black people who had migrated from the South.
The available evidence does not support widespread desire among Black Americans to migrate to the North in 1862 and 1863. General Hunter, commander of the army's Department of the South in Port Royal, South Carolina, stated that only a few Black people had sought passes to the North since his arrival.
A superintendent in charge of contrabands in Washington, D.C., also found no significant desire among former slaves to emigrate to the North.
The extent of the movement of the enslaved from the South who could potentially compete was an issue but the evidence suggests that it was not substantial.
Thus, political leaders and journalists in New York exploited the fear among white workers that freed Black people would compete for jobs.
By June 1863, some contrabands (freed Black people) were competing with white workers in the North. The press reported incidents such as hostility from navy yard workers in Washington, D.C. towards Black calkers and the replacement of white domestic servants with Black contrabands in St. Louis.
The agitation for state laws to ban the immigration of Black people from the South during the Civil War also indicated the existence of job competition.
@Deglassco Thank you for this thread! It gives so much more detail to the little I knew about how so many Irish in the US were so viciously racist in this toxic world of white supremacy and in their determination to (in a sense) firmly establish themselves in white America.
It also (for me, I mean) complements and contextualises the work I've read from @Limerick1914
The appointment of Black men to positions in the custom house, replacing Irish Democrats and allegedly depressing wages, fueled resentment. The substitution of Black workers for whites on a New York harbor ferry line in July 1862 and rumors of contrabands taking jobs in Pennsylvania for low wages added to the discontent.
In August 1862, a mob of Irishmen in Brooklyn targeted Black workers in 2 tobacco factories. Incited by talk of competition from black workers & fueled by alcohol the mob broke in shouting, "Down with the nagurs!" and attempted to attack the Black employees.
One factory closed entirely, and the proprietor of the other promised not to hire any more Black workers, demonstrating the effectiveness of mob violence in reducing Black labor competition.
In New York City, gangs of Irishmen regularly assaulted Black men. A secret organization of workingmen that emerged at this time even included a warning about the perceived danger of emancipated slave labor in their statement of principles. White longshoremen also refused to work with Black men.
The most intense competition and violent consequences occurred in the longshore field, where the majority of workers were Irish. The 1st recorded longshore strike in New York took place in February 1836, with workers parading through the streets and picketing near the docks. While the work required a level of specialized competence acquired through years of experience, it was physically demanding, dangerous, & characterized by irregular employment.
The irregularity of work led to unstable earnings, averaging only three or four days a week at low wages, which hindered a steady standard of living for longshoremen. The unpredictable nature of their employment and their presence around the piers seeking work often led longshoremen to frequent waterfront bars and engage in drinking.
In April 1855, strikes erupted among longshoremen in lower Manhattan, resulting in mobs of Irish longshoremen assaulting Black workers on the waterfront and driving them away while shouting "Drive off the damn niggers" and "Kill the niggers.” It is estimated that around two hundred Black longshoremen were employed at that time, receiving regular wages.
During these disturbances, 100s of white longshoremen participated in violence, with police intervention preventing lynching incidents.
The outbreaks extended beyond the waterfront, with longshoremen targeting and attacking Black porters, cartmen, and laborers throughout lower Manhattan. The pro-slavery press in New York played a role in fueling prejudice and reinforcing the belief that white labor would be displaced by an influx of Black workers.
During June 1863, longshoremen in New York City were engaged in strikes for higher pay, while other related occupational groups, such as workers on canal boats, barges, and freight handlers, also successfully struck for wage increases. Strikes among Erie Railroad employees occurred as well, leading to the hiring of strikebreakers and violent clashes with old employees.
The longshoremen's animosity towards Black workers was evident, as they displayed a determined and bitter attitude, driving away any Black men attempting to work on the docks or in downtown hotels and restaurants. This violence resulted in the exclusion of many Black workers from their previous jobs.
These instances illustrate the fears and tensions arising from job competition between Black and white workers, leading to violence, mob attacks, and demands for restrictions on Black labor.
During the election campaigns of 1860, and following the Emancipation Proclamation and the adoption of the draft act in March 1863, dire predictions were made about the consequences of emancipation.
This is the second part thread on the New York City draft riots. Tomorrow, I will post the overall timeline and do a wrap up from the perspective of black New Yorkers.
—Anti-Negro Riots in the North, 1863. New York: Arno Press and the New York Times, 1969.
—Bernstein, Iver. The New York City Draft Riots: Their Significance for the American Society and Politics in the Age of the Civil War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Hirsch Jr., Leo H. “The Free Negro in New York.” The Journal of Negro History 16 (1931): 415-453.
—Paludan, Phillip S. A People’s Contest: The Union and the Civil War, 1861-1965. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1988.
—Strong, George Templeton. The Diary of George Templeton Strong. Edited by Allan Nevins and Milton Halsey Thomas. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1988.
@Deglassco
This is so informative and well described, thank you! It truly shows the value of an intersectional approach: racialization processes and labor history must go hand in hand.
Also, omg that whole '[insert displaced racialized group] are taking our jobs!!' sure goes a long way back... and bodes poorly for current and future climate migration crises ...
@Deglassco
Thank you again for this informative presentation. I had previously read historical narratives about these events, but of course they were presented from white perspectives, and unconcerned with the underlying racism. They simply reflected the dominant white, establishment perspective.
@Deglassco Perhaps I am being a little jaded here but it always seems that society needs an enemy. If it wasn't the Irish, it was the Italians. If it wasn't Jews, it was some other creed. It's the wealthy that keep us fighting each other, distracted, and desperate. Imagine if we all came together. We would be unstoppable.
@Deglassco the first utterance of the n-word for my ears to hear was from a Catholic nun. Second was from my dad. Racism and American Catholicism go together as pedo priests and American Catholicism.
@Deglassco Was Lincoln’s policy thinking taken from the American Colonization Society that settled free/freed Black people in what is now Liberia? (Supplementing my vague memory of history lessons with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia)
This also helps me to answer a question posed recently by @BlackAzizAnansi : How did your ancestors/families benefit from colonialism? (Which: yikes….)
@JohnCrowden Colonization, as put forth by the American colonization society, involved relocating Black Americans, once freed from slavery, to colonies in Africa.Lincoln believed that colonization could serve as a solution to the problem of racial inequality and potential conflicts between the newly freed slaves and the white population. To his mind, he thought this would prevent racial tensions from escalating in the United States.
@Deglassco This is precisely why history is important. When certain politicians, like the governors in Florida and Texas, try to deny children the opportunity of learning the truth about our past, they are harming all of the children. I grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and not one textbook and not one teacher from K to 12 taught me anything about the massacre that took place in my hometown. I didn’t learn that truth until long after I had graduated high school. I still resent that.
@Deglassco This seems very similar to what happened in Brazil a bit later.
Unemployment and the implied threat of hunger / homelessness are the pillars of capitalism. As soon as one group tries to organize — revealing that all value is indeed created by workers — another group is used to increase workforce reserve and make sure the worth of each individual is reduced in the eyes of the market.
@Deglassco I am specifically referring to the Brazilian policy of encouraging massive poor European immigration, first as a racist “whitening” strategy but also as a form of controlling workforce by increasing unemployment rates and making sure former slaves couldn’t negotiate their wages : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_politics_in_Brazil?wprov=sfti1
The Catholic Church was cautious about abolition. Given the fact they ran Native boarding schools, one which abused my inlaws, well into the 1960’s why doesn’t that surprise me.
Also I’m so glad I was looking for this thread, I took yesterday off online and almost missed it. Thank you as always Professor, now off to finish
@Deglassco There is an excellent podcast on the causes and impacts of the Great Irish Famine (hopefully available outside UK) from the BBC. Fascinating to consider this wider impact in NY, a generation later. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0003rj1
@Deglassco@blackmastodon@BlackMastodon this is a fantastic thread, describing the context of race relations in NY during the civil war. I'm still reading it!
@Deglassco@blackmastodon@BlackMastodon If you have a chance, please share the terrible history of the NYC land grab to make what is now Central Park, truly deplorable
Add comment