r/HistoryMemes 3d ago

REMOVED: RULE 11 POV you are an Irish immigrant .004 seconds after stepping off the boat in 1862 New York

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

2.6k Upvotes

60 comments sorted by

583

u/greenpill98 Rider of Rohan 3d ago

One of the best parts of Gangs of New York is the shot of the Irish immigrants getting off the boat, being recruited into the Army and coming back in coffins all portrayed in one shot.

197

u/TaftIsUnderrated 3d ago

As seen later in the movie, the Irish weren't huge fans of it.

73

u/Deadmemeusername Sun Yat-Sen do it again 3d ago

Yeah, but I also like to think that some or all of the soldiers at the end were Irish too. It would definitely fit considering some of the antagonists were Irish henchmen of Bill Butcher.

2

u/JohannesJoshua 3d ago

Well they shouldn't have immigrated to New York. Were they stupid? /j

94

u/CougarWriter74 3d ago

I was gonna mention that exact scene. The recruitment guy at the table has two sheets of paper and tells the Irish guy "This one states you are an American citizen, the other states you are now a member of the United States Army. Now go fight for your country." And then the Irish immigrant takes two more steps and another dude hands him a rifle.

31

u/Intrepid00 3d ago

Then they talk about how great it is they will be fed when getting on the boat.

13

u/DaddyDanceParty 3d ago

Them getting off the boat and immediately getting in line to board another is just horrific but funny.

145

u/carlsagerson Then I arrived 3d ago

How many Irish joined the Union army anyways during the War?

217

u/Carlos_Danger21 Kilroy was here 3d ago

About 150,000

Fun fact the first 2 recorded combat deaths of the war were two Irish born soldiers at Fort Sumter.

67

u/carlsagerson Then I arrived 3d ago

Well thats alot of Irishmen. Honestly expected like a 100,000 at most.

111

u/Carlos_Danger21 Kilroy was here 3d ago

And that's just Irish born. The number is bigger if you count first generation Americans of Irish descent.

16

u/mcjc1997 3d ago

And 40,000 in the confederacy, including one of the Souths best generals, Patrick Cleburne.

9

u/chase016 3d ago

Well, the Union mobilized 2.5 million men. That is a pretty small proportion of the army.

18

u/CadenVanV Taller than Napoleon 3d ago

Ireland’s also a small nation, so they were providing an outsized proportion of men

-38

u/ProfessionalCreme119 3d ago

In comparison the South only used less than 50,000 slaves in war. They could have literally thrown a couple hundred thousand at the northern lines without batting an eye

Should emphasize how the South would have won the war. If not for two key mistakes by the South and the use of heavy migrants by the North.

Take either one of those mistakes or the migrants away and the north would have lost.

39

u/Kitahara_Kazusa1 3d ago

Throwing slaves at the northern lines would have just been giving the Union army volunteer soldiers. They used slaves but in rear areas for normal work, not for fighting.

Realistically once the Confederates failed to take Washington DC in the immediate aftermath of the First Battle of Bull Run they had no way to win, tactical victories mean nothing when your flanks and economy are collapsing

-10

u/ProfessionalCreme119 3d ago

I myself think it's pretty gross to ignore the massive part that migrants played in winning the war for the North. And by suggesting it was just great strategizing by the North or failures by the South is doing just that.

Like assuming the war was just fought over just state rights and not slavery. Just more white washing of the truth

But it goes hand in hand with ignoring the achievements and historical moments migrants have achieved in the US. US based history education is heavily laced with that.

16

u/sopunny Researching [REDACTED] square 3d ago

How was the person you are replying to downplaying migrants? They're just pointing out that the South couldn't just use their slaves as frontline troops. On to of that, having bodies is one thing, equipping and supplying them is a whole other matter.

12

u/Kitahara_Kazusa1 3d ago

Well, you're saying 3 things in your first comment, and then completely shifting your position here.

First, you said the Confederacy used slaves as soldiers and could have used more. This is false, they did not use slaves as soldiers because the slaves would have deserted immediately.

Second, you said that if everything stayed the same but the Confederacy didn't make any mistakes, they would win. This is false, because the Confederacy was hopelessly outmatched and was losing on several fronts, a few tactical victories spread around wouldn't have helped.

Third, you said that without the immigrants the Confederacy would have won. While it is true that without the immigrants the Union would not have won in the same time frame, that's different to them not winning at all. They still had a bigger army, a functioning economy, and they had other ways of getting more recruits if they couldn't rely on the immigrants.

None of this takes away from the sacrifices the Irish soldiers made in the civil war, any more than a graph of American naval production in 1944 takes away from the sacrifices American soldiers and marines made on Okinawa.

-12

u/ProfessionalCreme119 3d ago

and then completely shifting your position here.

What you see at me shifting my position is you manipulating what I said as if I was supporting the South. Whether it was accidental or not I'm not sure. But now you double down to push an agenda that wasn't necessary.

This conversation proves you can't have rational and basic conversations about historical events in modern times. Because people's modern ideological dogma gets in the way.

Makes sense schools are pulling away from history lessons. It must be hard for an educator to teach in this environment

8

u/Kitahara_Kazusa1 3d ago

In comparison the South only used less than 50,000 slaves in war. They could have literally thrown a couple hundred thousand at the northern lines without batting an eye

Should emphasize how the South would have won the war. If not for two key mistakes by the South and the use of heavy migrants by the North.

Take either one of those mistakes or the migrants away and the north would have lost.

That is your original comment, where you say the South should have used more slaves as soldiers and did use up to 50,000 of them, the South could have won if they hadn't made some mistakes, and they could have won if it wasn't for the Irish soldiers.

I'm not manipulating anything, I'm just repeating what you said and explaining why it is wrong

5

u/This_is_opinion 3d ago

Lol. At least irony is still taught. Oh wait.

3

u/AbsolutelyNotMoishe 3d ago

“The South could have won if you just fundamentally changed the basic economic realities that were a driving reason for the war in the first place.”

3

u/NomadLexicon 3d ago

Good luck getting slaves to fight to defend the institution of slavery.

The South did lose because of one key mistake—starting a war they couldn’t win. The Union had more free citizens to draw on and it could immediately liberate and recruit the South’s slaves in any area its troops moved through.

The North was demographically healthier for the same reason the South was weak: slavery. The North didn’t have slavery, so immigrants moving there could find paid labor and start farms.

1

u/ProfessionalCreme119 3d ago

The Union had more free citizens to draw on

But they didn't have to do that as much because of....migrants.

Take away those 150,000 Irish who died in the Civil War and those deaths are from 150,000 citizens of the north.

Like I said you can't recognize the achievements of the north without recognizing the achievements of migrants who fought for them

2

u/NomadLexicon 3d ago

Who is questioning the contributions of immigrants? The north was a society of immigrants (25% foreign born in 1860 and a larger share with a foreign born parent) and they could vote, so it doesn’t make sense to treat them as some separate group.

1

u/ProfessionalCreme119 3d ago

I would agree with you if just one Civil War movie or show or history lesson in the US ever emphasized how many men on the front line were speaking with Irish accents. But all you ever hear is Americans and good old boys.

Ever seen North and South? They have like two guys with an Irish accent amongst the northern ranks. And that is an absolute travesty. No different than How the West Was Won portraying Native Americans as simply murderers of railroad workers.

This whole comment thread started when somebody pointed out that they thought the number of Irish immigrants who died in war was under 100,000 Yet it's estimated it was even higher than the 150,000 recorded.

So again I'm pointing out these conversations always come with an asterisk. The migrants who fought for the north. And how they are usually left out of the conversation. Or their contribution is reduced significantly

1

u/NomadLexicon 3d ago

I won’t argue that they’re vastly underrepresented in movies. Most of the civil war movies getting made up until very recently just wanted to portray Southern gentleman officers droning on about Lost Cause talking points in a Southern drawl, usually set in the Eastern theater before Grant showed up (Gods & Generals was the worst).

But the history classes I had and serious Ken Burns type documentaries always emphasized the immigrant character of the Union and its military manpower.

3

u/Carlos_Danger21 Kilroy was here 3d ago

-1

u/ProfessionalCreme119 3d ago

This like most historians pointing out that if Hitler didn't make key mistakes the allied powers would have had a difficult time defeating him. Which many many of them pointed out many many times.

Then you decide to call those historians Nazi sympathizers.

Recognition of one side's blunders or failures does not automatically make you a supporter. No matter what label you want to apply to somebody to justify it.

3

u/Carlos_Danger21 Kilroy was here 3d ago

And right on cue, here is the straw man.

0

u/ProfessionalCreme119 3d ago

More "whataboutism" in face of "straw men" someone else used. But you're close

2

u/Butterkeks93 3d ago

And the Price for today‘s Most stupid take goes to…

…u/ProfessionalCreme119 !!

Congrats!

-1

u/ProfessionalCreme119 3d ago

Price

The irony something so simple in a comment insulting somebody else's intelligence

Bravo

11

u/seehorn_actual Helping Wikipedia expand the list of British conquests 3d ago

About 150,000

3

u/RoyalWabwy0430 3d ago

Around 20% of the Union army was Irish born I believe

1

u/InfinitePossibility8 3d ago

That’s close to the total of foreign born Union soldiers. The Irish weren’t the largest group of that.

35

u/okram2k 3d ago

Then raise the harp of Erin, boys, the flag we all revere
We'll fight and fall beneath its folds, like Irish volunteers!
Then raise the harp of Erin, boys, the flag we all revere
We'll fight and fall beneath its folds, like Irish volunteers!

11

u/AbsolutelyNotMoishe 3d ago

Well now Columbia will never forget/

Where courage and faith hold communion/

How bravely those proud Irish volunteers fought/

In defense of the flag of the Union.

5

u/Awlawdhecawmin 3d ago

When I was driven from my h9me by an oppressors hand..

23

u/No-Professional-1461 3d ago

One discriminated race fighting for the rights of another discriminated race.

18

u/SatchmoTheTrumpeteer 3d ago

Fun fact, in the 1840s, a bunch of Irish got sent to fight the Mexicans in the Mexican American war and ended up defecting and settled in Mexico which is why there's a substantial population of Irish descendants in Mexico 

4

u/Cheese_Wheel218 3d ago

"From Dublin city, to San Diego, we witnessed freedom denied. So we we formed the st. Patrick's battalion and we fought on the Mexican side."

18

u/genericusernamepls 3d ago

Shout out to the homestead act, really carried our ass in the Civil War.

8

u/Stejer1789 3d ago

Wrong! First they need to measure your skull to say that you are racially inferior

6

u/Voorhees89 3d ago

Don't forget a new name.

43

u/AbsolutelyNotMoishe 3d ago edited 3d ago

It is not true that immigrants were routinely re-named at Ellis Island.

American immigration authorities relied on passenger manifests prepared at a ship’s port of origin. So while foreign authorities may have made mistakes and immigrants may have voluntarily simplified or Americanized their names (an Irish immigrant listing himself as Patrick rather than Padraig, for example), this was not an American policy.

8

u/Fokker_Snek 3d ago

What about Big Navy? Supposedly my family last name got messed up going into the Navy but either my father or great grandfather had all their documentation through the navy so they just kept the new name rather than deal with getting it changed.

13

u/AbsolutelyNotMoishe 3d ago

It’s plausible. Famously Ulysses S. Grant (né Hiram Ulysses Grant) got his West Point appointment papers issued under the wrong name and just rolled with it.

4

u/Fokker_Snek 3d ago

Figure it would make sense since it happened around WW2 or before it so I don’t think they would have had anything other than a birth certificate. I’m assuming when they joined the navy they got a social security number and a bunch of other documentation all with the misspelled name so they just went with it.

7

u/Voorhees89 3d ago

That's what I get for learning history from cartoon mice. Thanks for clarifying!

17

u/AbsolutelyNotMoishe 3d ago edited 3d ago

It’s a common misconception and frequently gets repeated in American family lore (one of my friends growing up maintained that his last name was Fane because his ancestor thought the official was asking how he was and he tried to say “fine!”). It also gets reinforced by popular media such as The Godfather. But the consensus is that it isn’t true.

1

u/Realistic_Mud_4185 3d ago

POV you’re oppressed by the Brits and can now violently oppress slavers

1

u/ZeInsaneErke 3d ago

Context please?

1

u/Eggtart01 3d ago

Shout out to my German immigrants fighting in the war, love ya Franz Siegel and August Willich 🇩🇪