Talk:Plug Uglies

Plug Uglies
We received an e-mail from Tracy Melton who has written a book on the Plug Uglies.

It stated that he tried to change it from a New York gang to a Baltimore gang but was reverted. He has rewritten the article under a username. Please don't change the article back without sources.

Capitalistroadster 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add a note on my entry to "Plug Uglies." As indicated above, I have written a book on the Plug Uglies--Hanging Henry Gambrill. While (extensively) researching the book, I found that, despite the frequent reference to them in historical writing about New York, there was no Plug Ugly gang in that city. All references to the New York Plug Uglies trace back to Herbert Asbury's Gangs of New York. Asbury, who was not a historian and did not follow scholarly usages, likely came across the Plug Uglies while doing his research in old newspapers. On June 1, 1857, the Baltimore Plug Uglies were involved in a riot in Washington, where they had gone to help political friends boss a local election. President James Buchanan called out the U.S. Marines to preserve order. Instead, the marines shot and killed several citizens. Accounts of the riot appeared in newspapers nationally. At the same time, stories of a Dead Rabbit riot in New York also appeared. It seems that Asbury, intentionally or unintentionally, incorporated the Baltimore Plug Uglies into his story. Again, there are no references to Plug Uglies in New York prior to his book. But there are numerous newspaper and contemporary literature references to the Plug Uglies in Baltimore. The OED, for example, traces the word to the Baltimore rowdies in the 1850s. Tyler Anbinder's excellent book Five Points, a detailed history of the New York neighborhood where the Plug Uglies supposedly operated does not mention them at all. The Plug Uglies were a Baltimore gang. My entry on Wikipedia is an attempt to correct a common misconception that has been handed down for almost eighty years. Tracy Matthew Melton


 * Capitalistroadster,
 * I believe there has been a misunderstanding, however as the original author of said article, the changes made were a blanking of the original article (including the original source) by 152.163.100.204, an anonymous IP with a history of vandalism. While I used multiple sources in compiling the original article (in which only one source is disputed), the authors claim the Plug Uglies were a Baltimore based gang are, as far as I know, based on opinion. Had Mr. Melton contacted me on my User page instead of simply twice blanking and rewriting the original article I would not have assumed it to be vandalism. While not a professional scholar such as Mr. Melton, I do have a strong knowledge of street gags of the 19th and early 20th centuries having contributed the majority of street gangs (including the Baltimore based Bloody Tubs). I have since incorporated both versions into the article as I feel the former text includes at least some valid information. I would be more then happy to discuss the matter with Mr. Melton further either on his or the article talk page. MadMax 03:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I certainly did not intend to offend in changing the original article. This is my first Wikipedia contribution, and I may not have been following proper etiquette. I only wish to begin to correct a very deeply ingrained historical inaccuracy. Virtually all descriptions of the Plug Uglies written since Asbury's book list the Plug Uglies as a New York gang. I include here Luc Sante's Low Life, Burrows and Wallace's Gotham, and Scorcese's Gangs of New York, as well as most online references. Unfortunately, Asbury's colorful description has stuck. Honest, diligent research could lead to the erroneous conclusion that they were a New York gang. As I note, though, all contemporary references are to the Baltimore Plug Uglies, several of whom became well known national figures. I note many of these references in my book. As added evidence, online keyword searches of the New York Times dating back to the early nineteenth century are available online. A keyword search of "Plug Ugly" or "Plug Uglies" turns up numerous references to the Baltimore Plug Uglies but zero to any Plug Uglies in New York. I fully understand how anyone looking at the previously available secondary sources would conclude that the Plug Uglies were a New York gang. It took me a great deal of hard research to come up with the true story. For a long time, I assumed that they were also a New York gang. I ask that the entry be returned to describe them as a Baltimore gang until the author of the original New York entry has the opportunity to check out the veracity of my account. I hope this entire discussion is helpful in achieving a better understanding of the past and how we come to know and understand it. And, as an aside, the true story of the Plug Uglies is much more fantastic than the one that appears in Asbury. Tracy Matthew Melton


 * Mr. Melton,
 * While I certainly don't doubt your claims of an existing Plug Uglies in the Baltimore area, as you've obviously have been able to accumulate enough for a book on the subject, I feel your assumptions that the Plug Uglies of New York to be non-existent might perhaps be premature. The Plug Uglies, at least what I know about them, have a large place in New York's criminal history as the dominating power, arguably eclipsing the Dead Rabbits, during the declining years of the Bowery Boys as well as participating (or according to some claims instigating) in rioting during the Police Riots of 1857 and the 1863 Draft Riots. I should also point out that newspapers, especially in the 19th century were usually far from impartial, particularly in their political views. However, assuming your claim is correct, there would be quite a very large gap in New York's history. This would assume that either:


 * a) The Bowery Boys maintained their power in New York as the nativist rival to the Dead Rabbits. However, if this were possible, it seems odd that New York would be spared from the other cities of the Nativist-Tammany Hall rivalry of the period.


 * b) The Dead Rabbits was the dominating gang throughout Manhattan, thus with the Know-Nothing Party having minimal influence in New York (although with nativist sentiment at its height I find this unlikely).

My apologies for the delay in my reply. MadMax 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the lengthy reply. Again, I think the discussion is only productive of a better understanding. I offer the following evidence for my contention that the Plug Uglies were exclusively a Baltimore gang and that Asbury erroneously attributed them to New York.

The Plug Uglies as a Baltimore gang:
My book offers hundreds of contemporary citations describing the career of the Plug Uglies. They were not an obscure group. They published notices for meetings. Over six years, friendly articles described their political activities, as did hostile ones. My book identifies more than three dozen men who were members of the gang. Each one was only included if there were two clear references to their membership in the gang. Leading members included John English, James Morgan, John Wesley Gambrill, Henry Gambrill, Paul Placide, Wesley Woodward, and George Coulson. I have long files on all of these figures and several more. There is absolutely no question that they were a well-identified, well-known Baltimore gang.

The Lack of Evidence of the Plug Uglies as a New York gang:
I have read most of the books now listed on this entry, and many more. None of them that I have read list any primary sources showing the Plug Uglies in New York. Without any primary sources, where is the evidence that the Plug Uglies existed in New York?

As noted above, because of the frequent mention of the Plug Uglies in New York, I long assumed that they existed. However, contemporary accounts of the origins of the Baltimore Plug Uglies name, published in the 1870s, (discussed in the book) did not mention any New York gang. I began to look back through the secondary sources and realized that they all traced to Herbert Asbury's Gangs of New York. Because I wanted to get things right, I ended up making an extensive search for the New York gang but could not find any contemporary evidence. Sources consulted:

--Read dozens of books on nineteenth-century gangs and violence generally. None offered contemporary citations on the Plug Uglies.

--Extensively sampled, really read, New York newspapers for key periods (i.e. election campaigns) from 1830s-1850s and found zero references to Plug Uglies. Dead Rabbits yes, Plug Uglies no.

--Used the online New York Times to keyword search Plug Ugly and Plug Uglies. I found numerous references to the Baltimore Plug Uglies, zero to New York Plug Uglies. This search tool allows for an essentially comprehensive search of all articles in this New York paper for the entire period during the nineteenth century when the paper was published. Why does it make no references to New York Plug Uglies?

--Searched the American Memory page on the Library of Congress website. Again lots of references to Baltimore Plug Uglies in the nineteenth century, zero to the New York Plug Uglies.

--Have several times "googled" Plug Uglies and followed every gang reference under this name. Again, zero contemporary references to New York Plug Uglies.

[On this point, I note that four websites are now listed in the entry. Three simply repeat the uncited description offered by Herbert Asbury in Gangs of New York. The other, The Legend of Old Smoke Morissey incorrectly lists Baltimore gangs (Plug Uglies, Tigers, Black Snakes, Rip Raps, Hard Timers Embolts [Eubolts], Screwbolts etc.) as New York gangs. I have numerous sources, dozens of them cited in the book, showing that these also were Baltimore gangs. All of them in fact appear in published contested congressional election testimony from Baltimore during this period. The Rip Raps and Tigers are discussed extensively in my book. The description of the death of one member of the Black Snakes [Charles Nally] also appears. It is of course extremely unlikely that gangs with precisely the same names as those in Baltimore also operated in New York. Someone again got hold of a list of Baltimore gangs and inserted them into the true New York story. I assume someone other than the author of this article since I have seen this mistake repeated several times. I think this only further demonstrates how prevalent these mistakes are.] [I also note that two of the websites describe the New York Plug Uglies as an Irish gang [one that being Irish was required to be in the gang] but that another describes them as a nativist gang. How could they be both?]

--Checked index to George Templeton Strong's diary (edited by Allan Nevins). He mentions the Dead Rabbits but provides zero references to New York Plug Uglies.

--Oxford English Dictionary provides the earliest known literary references to words. Under Plug Uglies, all the earliest references (mid-1850s when gang was active) are to the Baltimore Plug Uglies, zero are to any New York Plug Uglies.

--Tyler Anbinder's excellent book Five Points, a long, exhaustive history of the very neighborhood where the New York Plug Uglies supposedly dominated makes no mention of them. And the book does extensively discuss crime and violence in the neighborhood during the period when Asbury places them there. Why didn't Anbinder find any Plug Uglies?

--Again, Baltimore Sun published a lengthy discussion of the origins of the name of the gang. It made no reference to any New York Plug Uglies. New York gangs did appear periodically in the newspaper's accounts so it was not a matter of ignorance.

So, I have made a very diligent search for primary sources that would show that there were Plug Uglies in New York but have never been able to find a single contemporary source. Unless at least one solid contemporary source can be cited, I think the conclusion has to be that writers, working in good faith, have unintentionally been repeating Asbury's error.

I have even offered a very plausible explanation for Asbury's error. On the very days (June 2-4, 1857) that national newspapers were publishing stories of a large Dead Rabbits riots (the Police Riots mentioned) in New York (something he obviously read for the book), they were also publishing accounts of a deadly riot in Washington involving the (Baltimore) Plug Uglies. He apparently then put them in New York.

You have a great knowledge of the literature on gangs and violence in the nineteenth century. Do any of the books offer any contemporary evidence for the New York Plug Uglies? I would certainly be anxious to know if they did. I could use it to build an understanding of a kindred group to one that I have spent several years researching, thinking about, and writing about. But,

Unless contemporary evidence of a New York gang can be offered, this entry should reflect what the sources show us. The same mistake repeated numerous times is still a mistake. People looking up this gang should be able to expect accurate info. Previously we all thought that the Plug Uglies were a New York gang. But now we have evidence that they were not. Of course, I think the entry should also discuss clearly this matter (something that my original entry did in too cursory a manner) so that readers who know the Asbury account will be clear on how the myth of the New York Plug Uglies came about.

On the questions about nativist gangs, there were certainly nativists in the city. Butcher Bill (Daniel Day Lewis's character) in Scorsese's Gangs of New York was an enormously popular figure among New York nativists. See Elliott Gorn's excellent essay, "Good-bye Boys, I die a true American:" Homicide, Nativism, and Working-Class Culture in Antebellum New York City," Journal of American History vol. 74 (September 1987). They just weren't Plug Uglies.

This discussion is not only informative but is what makes history fun and interesting. Tracy Matthew Melton


 * Mr. Melton,
 * Again my apologies for the lateness of my reply (a I had though this specific page was on my watchlist). You certainly present an overwhelming amount of evidence, much of which is hard to ignore. Interestingly enough, in adding details from Herbert Asbury's The Gangs of New York from the most recent update, I notice several inconsistencies as well. The most glaring of which, if you own or have access to the book, lists the gang as Plug Uglies, the, Bowery gang (pg. 364 of the index) yet on all referenced pages this is contradicted as the gang is stated as one of the early gangs of the Five Points (pg. 20-21). I've gone through Gangs of New York very carefully however specific information on the gang seems to be vague with the only verifiable information regarding their participation in attacking the Bowery Boys/Atlantic Guard hangout during the Police Strike of 1857 (pg. 102) as well as one of the juvenile gangs (the Little Plug Uglies) observed by Rev. L.M. Pease in the 1850s (pg. 221). Interestingly enough the gang is described as "gigantic Irishmen" on (pg. 21) although indicates the less criminal gangs of the Bowery section whose "membership was principally Irish" (which may further confuse matters on which district the Plug Uglies are claimed to be from). While it appears the Plug Uglies were allied with the Dead Rabbits, "who waged a bitter feud" against the Bowery Boys (pg. 27) during the 1850s, this is contradicted by Roger Touhy's article.

Unfortunately, with the exception of Gangs of New York, my references are limited to Jay Robert Nash's "Encyclopedia of World Crime" series (from which the majority of the "further reading" section is cited from). While this certainly has become an intriguing topic, you may wish to check your information with Roger Touhy (or even Allen May) and the official Herbert Asbury website. The problem I see is there are equally qualified sources online (and certainly more knowledgeable on the subject then I) which should at least have the opportunity to verify the information before considering changing the article to reflect your research. On a separate note, I do apologize for the slow response as well as the original misunderstanding (which after viewing the questionable history of the IP address, I had assumed would have been similar to the Slobbery Jim situation several months ago. I have enjoyed this discussion and I certainly hope to see more of your contributions in the future.

Also the existence of other Plug Uglies, is referenced at. MadMax 00:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Melton Response
I actually thought it was a pretty quick response. And I very much appreciate that the discussion has been very open and fair minded. Original misunderstanding is fine and in fact completely understandable.

I did take a deeper look at the online sources referenced. I think they really underscore my contention that accounts of the Plug Uglies have really been caught in an infinite loop. In pointing out how this works below, I am not at all disparaging any of the writers discussed. In fact, I think they have been absolutely proper in how they have done their jobs. My job as a historian is to dig deeply into the past and educate. Most of those discussed are engaged in different type projects and in all cases have done diligent research. Even Asbury, whom I am absolutely certain initiated the mistake, researched his books and brought great stories to a large audience. He took literary license though. That's okay. It was not his approach to do extremely meticulous and time-consuming research across a century of crime. He probably would have confessed to this. He wanted to write good stories and make a living doing it. It just so happens that I have dug deeply into an area where he did so and can now correct this error. Now for the infinite loop:

The official Asbury website is a great resource for anyone looking for more info on a once very popular writer. At the bottom of the webpage that mentions the Plug Uglies, they properly offer a list of sources consulted. The ones listed are the right places to begin looking. They include Gangs of New York. They also include several relevant books from the nineteenth century (which are thus primary sources). I have looked through all but one of these--none mention the Plug Uglies. That is fine. The page covers much more than the Plug Uglies. Now one of the more recent books, Edwin G. Burrows's and Mike Wallace's magesterial Gotham (1999), does mention the Plug Uglies on page 633. The description perfectly matches (but does not plagirize) Asbury and Luc Sante's Low Life (I have read other cited books for this section and they do not discuss Plug Uglies). So in citing both books, the writers at the website (who, again, have consulted the right books) have inadvertantly provided duplicate support. Moreover, I have a copy of Sante's book. He also follows Asbury on the Plug Uglies. The only cited primary source in the section "Gangland," which includes the Plug Uglies quotes a newspaper article that mentions the Dead Rabbits but not the Plug Uglies.

Now both these books are terrific, and I would recommend them highly. Burrows and Wallace are writing a very large book of synthesis (almost 1400 pages) and could not possibly deeply research every aspect of New York City over more than a century. They necessarily rely on secondary sources-like Asbury on gangs. Sante's book is a terrific read, and he states clearly that he dug deep into Asbury's assertions. Quoting Sante (363), "It [Asbury's book] is a compelling if somewhat ragtag book, cobbled from legend, memory, police records, the self-aggrandizements of aging crooks, popular journalism, and solid historical research. Tracing some of Asbury's wilder assertions became a sub-theme to my research, and indeed I was able to take a number of them back several stages before reaching a dead end." But, on this narrow point about the Plug Uglies, his book follows Asbury. I looked at the newspaper accounts of the Police riots in 1857 and did not see the Plug Uglies mentioned. Again, I think that the Plug Uglies made it into Asbury's accounts because of the simultaneous fallout over the Baltimore Plug Uglies involvement in the Washington election riot.

What about John William Tuohy's piece? Tuohy is a successful journalist who writes widely about crime and violence. Again, I think he has properly consulted the right secondary sources. They unfortunately appear to include the same ones where Asbury's mistakes are repeated. Again, Tuohy is a very good writer doing his job well. I hope writers like him consult my book when relevant and use it to tell good stories that reach a larger audience. In this case, though, he, like others, has been misled. I have not contacted Tuohy, but I believe he would happily acknowledge that he had not consulted the primary sources on this piece. It is not his job to do so. That's mine.

The KnowGangs.com entry is similar in nature. The website describes those running it as gang consultants. Again, these are professionals who have gone to the right available sources to provide colorful and useful background for their website. They have been honest and diligent. But, I think they would also acknowledge that they are not familiar with the primary sources. And that's fine. They are doing another job.

So, really all these references trace back to one place. Asbury writes about the Plug Uglies. Burrows and Wallace and Sante naturally look there because that is the only source available. Journalists and professionals and gang enthusiasts then properly turn to all of these books and use the material there. The problem is not their work but that no one has really dug through the records on New York gangs. (Sante did so to a proper degree but gangs are only a small part of his story, and he could not be expected to make a full multi-year research effort on them.) It is a project I hope someone takes up.

Now, my intention was not to have anything to do with New York gangs. Baltimore (3-4th largest city at the time) seemed more manageable, and the sources were much closer. But I have stumbled over this error and think my case is very strong. I believe anyone looking at my book would certainly see the difference in terms of the evidence that I offer in contrast to what is in Asbury.

See my note on one of your profile pages. Tracy Matthew Melton

Changes to the Entry
I've gone ahead and corrected the site to show that the Plug Uglies were a Baltimore gang. I wanted to allow fair opportunity for my book and comments in this discussion to be evaluated. I also wanted to take one more look at the newspaper accounts of the New York riots of July 4, 1857, the incident to which the Plug Uglies of New York are most often linked.

Looking at them, I found positive evidence of New Yorkers of this period describing them as a Baltimore gang. I do not know what could be more solid evidence. A sub-headline in the New York Herald of July 6, 1857 does say "Plug Uglies Oudone". This reference, though, refers to the Washington riot a month earlier, which involved the Baltimore Plug Uglies, and only shows how the Baltimore gang's name was becoming synonymous with urban rowdyism. There is no mention of New York Plug Uglies taking part in any of the New York violence on July 4. Numerous witnesses testified at inquests and trials in the days following. They described in detail involvement by Dead Rabbits (described as an offshoot of the Roach Guard and apparently an obscure group), Bowery Boys, Kerryonians, and the Atlantic Guard. Not one witness mentioned Plug Uglies.

The fact that the sub-headline refers to the Baltimore Plug Uglies is made clear in the quotation from the same story that I have provided on the "Plug Uglies" Wikipedia page (and the same one with the Plug Uglies sub-headline). They are explicity identified as a Baltimore gang. A similar quotation appears in the New York Times the following day. The New York Times for this period is available on microfilm and now online at almost every university library. By providing solid, verifiable evidence that in newspaper accounts clearly read by Asbury (every, or almost every, gang identified in his book as operating in the pre-Civil War period appear in the newspaper accounts in the 4-5 days following the riots) the Plug Uglies are described as a Baltimore gang, I think I have established by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that Asbury was incorrect in listing the Plug Uglies with the New York gangs. It was proper to describe the Plug Uglies as a New York gang before, but it is not now. Users of this site have a right to accurate information.

Again, I intend no offense in making these changes. I don't really have much interest in making Wikipedia entries. But this is something I know a tremendous amount about. I also understand how helpful it is to get accurate information when doing research. It just seems wrong that info we now know is incorrect should appear when the actual story is known. I have only removed the old references because they lead users to outdated and incorrect information. If any of these did more than repeat the descriptions in Asbury, they would be more relevant.

This discussion has been extremely useful. I think this entry is an improvement on my original Baltimore Plug Ugly entry. It has also forced me to show more conclusively that there were no Plug Uglies in New York. I feel that I've learned a great deal in the process. And I hope that anyone reading this discussion page will also find the hashing out of the issue enlightening.

I do firmly feel that the site should continue to show the historical fact that the Plug Uglies were a Baltimore gang. Tracy Matthew Melton

Historical gangs of New York City Category?
Greetings. If the Plug Uglies was a Baltimore Gang (and I believe they are) why is it still listed under Historical gangs of New York City category even after other more reliable sources prove they're from Baltimore? I’d delete it from that category but I’m not from New York area or Baltimore and I’m not a full expert on Asbury’s books but I am interested in this era. Thanks.--Pilot expert 10:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Tone
I've placed a "tone" tag on this article, as it is unencyclopedic in its intent to "debunk" the view that this gang was a New York gang. Right or wrong, it has turned this article into something of an advocacy piece. It actually referred readers to this discussion page! WTF? Coretheapple (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not to get involved in this dispute, but I glanced through the Times archives and yes, in fact, the "Plug Uglies" are referred to as a Baltimore gang in contemporary accounts with one exception: a 1927 feature article on the decline of gangs. That is one year before the Asbury book, but it is not detailed enough to be of much value. Nine years later, in an interview with an old judge by Meyer Berger, the judge says that"Plug Uglies lived in the neighborhood." He may have been influenced by Asbury, maybe not, but our role is to simply say that Asbury made the claim and that it is disputed, and to lay out the evidence. It's not our job to be "mythbusters" even though, as I just discovered myself researching an article an an Old New York policeman, the amount of sheer bullocks out there is significant. This isn't quite my area, but I may try to redo this article to make it more neutral and less advocacy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Original research
This article contained enormous amounts of original research that I have removed. It was basically structured as a "response to Asbury," and such a response or contradiction belongs in this article only if someone other than Wikipedia editors have raised the point in reliable secondary sources. Coretheapple (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Origin of phrase, or a more generic usage?
Fyi, New Yorkers Have Been Illicitly Cracking Open Fire Hydrants For Centuries, by Dan Nosowitz / 30 Jul 2015, says in passing: ''Water mains, which were only accessible by the rich, ran in limited numbers underneath the city, made mostly of hollowed-out logs. If a fire department needed water, they’d drill a hole in the pipe, take what they needed, and then leave a cylindrical wooden “fireplug” in the hole they’d just made. (Most cities, including New York, had competing fire departments in the 1700s. Whoever actually put out the fire would get paid, so the departments would have their biggest, toughest guys guard their plugs to stop other companies from tapping their holes. That’s where the term “plug uglies” comes from.)''. 98.216.110.49 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)