# Talk:New York City draft riots

The article on the New York State Guard, where the link from 7th Regiment New York State Militia, points out that the unit was attatched to federal forces and stationed in Baltimore from June 18 to July 5, 1863, while Gettysburg was July 1 to July 3.  It looks like they were stationed at Frederick at the time they had to run back to New York City.  It seems the riots themselves were the unit's first major action.  
Personally, I'm kind of curious about where the idea of sending battle-hardened Gettysburg veterans to put down the riots came from, it sounds like something thought up to move newspapers at the time.  Guppy313 03:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

YEs but in addition to the 7th came the 152nd New York Volunteers, the 26th Michigan Volunteers. (were they from the Gettysburg campaign.)  I think Frederick MD counts as part of the gettysburg campaign. Rjensen 04:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
A Michigan unit was involved?  That brings me to a question concerning one of my pet issues;  if the troops were serving in their federal capacity, did the federal government act out of its own initiative (which wouldn't be surprising at the time), or was it at the request of Albany?  If it was at the request of the state, was it the legislature or the governor doing the requesting?
Basically, I'm curious about the trend I see of state governors side-stepping the state legislatures in asking for federal assistance against "domestic Violence" even though they should only have the authority when the state legislature "cannot be convened."  For example, the 1992 Los Angeles Riots happened when the California Legislature was taking a three-day weekend, but it was otherwise in session when Governor Pete Wilson asked President George H. W. Bush for federal troops.  Personally, I'm curious how far back this trend goes.  Guppy313 23:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
So much disinformation on this subject. No Gettysburg troops were sent to NYC. Complete myth. Two volunteer regiments from the defenses of DC were sent and three NY State militia regiments that were in PA and Maryland and not at Gettysburg.  The New York militia had been mobilized in June and sent to guard Harrisburg and Frederick, MD. Most of this large force came from New York City. Stripped of its militia, a draft never have been held in NYC. In any event, most of the rioting had subsided by the time the reinforcements arrived. The NYPD were the real heroes fighting the mob and by the third day the draft had been suspended so there wasn't anything left to be mad about.  And for heavens sake whoever wrote this thing ought to get their facts straight. It wasn't a downtown riot. All the deadly fighting took place in the midtown wards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4915:6E00:549:BCB5:4345:1B12 (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
It turns out Secretary of War Stanton was acting at the request of Mayor Opdyke, so it was essentially the federal government acting on its own initiative. Guppy313 13:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
No units that fought at Gettysburg were send to New York City to deal with the draft riots. None. Zero.  More than 20 regiments of militia were mobilized at NYC in June, 1863, and sent to defend Harrisburg, which was the target of the Confederate invasion.  Some of the units were sent to Frederick, MD.  Some of the New York units skirmished with Confederates just outside Harrisburg.  A brigade including NYS units skirmished with JEB Stuart's cavalry at Carlisle, before Stuart figured out that he was supposed to be at Gettysburg. See "Great Militia Mobilization" for an excellent recap of the action and bickering between Stanton and state governors at 

The 7th Regiment's return to NYC to deal with the draft riots wasn't a "major action".  Most of the rioting had already subsided by the time it reached the city, and the regiment's action was a relatively unopposed sweep of its assigned neighborhood to recover arms that had been looted from the armories.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.35.160 (talk) 20:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC) 

While the casualties while listed under the aftermath are definitely factually accurate (greater than 100 dead), they seem to be highly underreported compared to estimates given by Asbury in Gangs of New York (1927).  He lists the following "conservative estimates":
-2,000 killed (mostly rioters)
-8,000 wounded
with what I assume are breakdowns of the above totals
-3 police killed and hundreds of police injured
-at least 50 soldiers killed
-18 Negroes lynched and 70 disappeared (probably also lynched)
-more than 100 buildings burned (including two Protestant churches), and 200 looted
-property damages of at about $5,000,000 ($80,000,000 in 2006 dollars) not counting loss of business activity 

-only 20 people convicted with average sentence of 5 years
Asbury may not have been the most unbiased author, but none of the estimates are unreasonable and should be included in the article unless directly contradicted by an author with more reliable sources.  
--Gprimos1 00:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Added that sources differ on counts Jailerdaemon (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
+)(+apolo+)(=11+MISSION+IN+SPACE+did+NOT+FINSHED++)(+BENEDICTXVI777+)(+has+ben+call+TO+FINSHED+SPACE+UNSEEN+SEEN+MOVE  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.55.233.99 (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC) 

 Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). Bernstein2291 15:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
It is stable.

It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned):  b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
Overall:
a Pass/Fail: 
There are material factual inaccuracies and distortions in the article which is afflicted by traditional American Nativism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:491F:A00:A93B:57E6:40B3:754D (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2025 (UTC) 

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "World History-Americas" articles. I made several corrections throughout the article. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a good article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've found numerous sources which state the 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was used during the Riots, and their CO was killed. They aren't mentioned in this article. Any idea why? --Daysleeper47 (talk) 15:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Colonel Henry O'Brien was trying to reform the 11th, whose two year term of service had expired. When he had his men fire over the heads of a crowd, little Ellen Kirke who was at a window was shot dead. Later in the day when O'Brien returned to the neighborhood by himself he was ambushed by enraged neighbors and beaten to death. Why wasn't this in the article? Because whoever wrote the article didn't to his/her homework and even peek at Adrian Cook's detailed draft riot study, "The Armies of the Streets." Most of the riot dead were actually white civilians shot by the US army. The shooting of civilians gravely aggravated the already unhappy crowds.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4915:6E00:549:BCB5:4345:1B12 (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2025 (UTC) 

The primary source used here may not be trustworthy, anti Irish sentiment was at an all time high at the time.  A newspaper accusing a commonly scapegoated ethnic group may not be entirely accurate.  Perhaps this should be changed to say "newspapers of the time blamed the Irish"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.241.83 (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 

and Mainly does not mean 80%  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.204.47 (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
80% -- and I don't know where that number comes from -- would be accurately described as "mainly" or "mostly" or "predominantly", et al. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It's true that most of the rioters were Irish, however, that's because most of the city's criminals were Irish. The article heavily implies that virtually all the violence was committed by ordinary working-class Irish Americans. The initial protesters were made up of Irish laborers but the bulk of the looting and violence was carried out by the old Bowery and Paradise Square gangs (ala "Gangs of New York"). There's not a single mention of New York's underworld in the entire article. 71.184.39.252 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

A Wish After Midnight by Zetta Elliott portrays the riots in the climax of the story as well.--98.150.18.203 (talk) 04:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Riot by Walter Dean Myers Addresses issues of race and class during the 1863 draft riots.

Certain editors have been trying to rv the Mark Steyn comments, which are neither contentious nor amateurish. The last such editor replaced Steyn's comments with positive reviews of the film by the New York Times (a left-wing partisan publication anyway) and Richard Roeper. Mark Steyn is not a film reviewer; he is a political commentator and pundit, and his commentary refers to the fictional and almost ahistorical crux of Scorsese's rather anti-Protestant film. This is not about how many stars the film got from different reviewers or how good the performances may have been. Quis separabit?  17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Anti-Protestant= portraying how protestants actually acted at the time. Okay— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.232.58 (talk) 07:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 

Anti-Protestant= portraying how protestants actually acted at the time.
Hmmm. ... tell me, just how did besieged Protestants in New York act at the time? I can't ask them since they have been extirpated. I certainly am not going to take the word of Martin Scorcese, whose film on the subject was almost complete fiction. Sorry you didn't realize that. Should I ask such non-biased sources as Pete Hamill, and his hatemongering younger brother, Denis, or Finley Peter Dunne or Andrew Greeley (the priest who made millions writing soft-porn and apologetics) or Peter Sheridan or Denis Donoghue or Tim Pat Coogan? Please enlighten me. By the way: two Protestant churches were burned down during the riots, not any Catholic churches. Quis separabit? 19:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
And how did Irish Catholics act when their turf was threatened? Ever hear of the 1919 Chicago race riots which helped build Boss Daley's political career? Or even when there was no threat (i.e. the 1904 pogrom of Jews in Limerick)? Quis separabit? 19:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
From a non-religious view, Protestantism is much more related to American Colonialism and the White Ango-Saxon Protestant dominant culture (thus creating a myriad of "others".) Furthermore, racism by the variants of American Protestantism/anti-Europeanism that pushed anti-intellectualism via the death of the learned gentlemen, theological fundamentalism, and emphasis on practicality.  

Considering how much work has been done by historians on ethnic and minority history in recent decades, there seems to be an overreliance in this article on dated sources (e.g., 1863, 1899) Current scholarship should be used for more about context, background and interpretation. The New-York Historical Society produced a landmark exhibit on Slavery in NY (2005-2007), including material on the Draft Riots. Parkwells (talk) 14:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Two lists, to make it clear for readers what was used in the article. Parkwells (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I find this sentence, from the lede, very confusing, particularly since the preceding sentences ends by noting that they occurred during the Civil War. Was not the war "the largest civil insurrection"? Perhaps someone with access to the Foner work cited can explain this but it seems to warrant explication in the text of the article.Czrisher (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

One can say that the draft riots broke out when the casualty lists for the Battle of Gettysburg hit the streets. Anger at the loss of so many  was surely the trigger for all the pent up frustration of the New York masses.   The third New York corps, mostly from New York City, was particularly hard hit.  General Sickles had led them, against orders,  to "The Wheat Field" and  "The Peach Orchard"  directly on to the flank of the Confederate army and so was just about wiped out.    He was a New York politico who was known for having shot his wife's lover and gotten away with it.  He would have been up on charges if he had not lost his leg there and so left the army.   The crowds knew all this and the idea of being forced to be cannon fodder sent them in to the streets, where Southern sympathizers  targeted them on to the blacks, who were not subject to the draft at that time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.9.215 (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 

Both the intro and the "Monday" section of the article includes a claim about "100 black people" killed. In the latter section, the claim is sourced to (Leslie M. Harris, "The New York City Draft Riots", excerpt from In the Shadow of Slavery: African Americans in New York City, 1626-1863, University of Chicago Press, 2003). I checked that source, (which names several of the victims), but no claim of "100 black people" could be found, instead, it says "In all, rioters lynched eleven black men over the five days of mayhem".
I first corrected this from a tablet on which I accidentally hit edit before I could finish the edit comment, with the unfortunate consequence that Parkwells thought I merely miss the source. On second try, Rms125a reverted it with the comment "rv unsourceable (for now) ref", which I don't quite get: the source is already in the article. 188.127.135.58 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I see Rms125a reverted his/her revision, rendering the above obsolete before I finished it :-) 188.127.135.58 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, no problem. I am always ready to admit when I make a mistake. Although I think it should be noted that while 11 blacks were lynched, obviously more died than that, which is where the 100 number may come in. Yours, Quis separabit? 19:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacks were either citizens or they were not. To say that "Black men were excluded from the draft as they were largely not considered citizens" cannot be correct. What people considered was not the point, what the law said was. Blacks were citizens. The fact that they were exempt from the draft was a separate matter.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
As Wikipedia itself states: "after the Emancipation Proclamation during the American Civil War, blacks became technically enfranchised as citizens although segregation and discrimination did not begin to break down until the twentieth century."  There were many communities of FREED blacks, even in the slave states, which is very surprising, but until Emancipation NO blacks were allowed the vote that I have ever read about (nor women needless to say) ... escaped blacks were USED against the Confederacy by the Union military as Property (the irony was too much even for them, they used the term 'Collateral') but mostly as builders of fortifications and laundresses, etc.  I've only heard of one instance of a black man ever being issued a gun by the military, and there's no evidence that he actually got it.

The New York City draft riots were, for the most influential and emblematic purposes of mankind, the worst race riots in American history. And that is just for starters.shyjayb 04:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shyjayb (talk • contribs)  


### Note
While this is true, "The riots remain the largest civil and racially-charged insurrection in American history" is a questionable claim at best. Surely the civil war itself was both bigger and racially charged?

I just noticed this article move request, which was approved (perhaps unwisely). Given that the name of the article was changed, the article and the infobox need to reflect that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

With the first citation, (from McPherson's Ordeal by Fire) 120 deaths are estimated as "recent research", with initial estimates at the time ("contemporary") being as high as 1200. It is basically a guess. This number does not get a citation itself, we're unsure where this "recent research" has come from. 
The second citation from VNY Draft Riots Aftermath also lists no citations, but claims "The 'official' death toll was listed at 119", but there seems to be no official death toll. This website goes on to say that many estimates from the time were also more than a thousand. 
Howard Zinn in A People's History of the United States says in the 2003 edition "On the fourth day, Union troops returning from the battle of Gettysburg came into the city and stopped the rioting. Perhaps four hundred people were killed. No exact figures have ever been given, but the number of lives lost was greater than in any other incident of domestic violence in American history." He goes on to cite a source (The Great Riots of New York) which describes the event, but also doesn't give a number.
I think it's clear that no number is agreed upon, and giving a "119-120" seems overly authoritative. It should say something like "Around 119-400", or maybe other citations should be found.
TheWerepyreKing (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

There was a source showing the inflation adjusted price of the $300 but I felt it was not enough. Altho purchasing power was adjusted it didn't contextualize the cost to the typical person. I included two sources for typical day laborer wages for 1863. I feel both are useful to convey the burden of the cost. 72.28.3.64 (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Regarding [who?] in the following sentence:

To prevent other parts of the city being notified of the riot, they[who?] cut telegraph lines.
It seems apparent that "they" refers to the rioters. I propose that "they" be replaced by "rioters" to provide disambiguation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawnvawn (talk • contribs) 21:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)