The Great Chicago Fire: Recovery and Retaliation

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

Carl Smith writes that the Chicago Fire of 1871 invigorated the religiousness of the city and created an increased awareness of social order in “Faith and Doubt”. While he does supply various examples to support both arguments, the theme most apparent to me was that the Great Fire reinforced classism by allowing white Christian males to dominate the reconstruction of the city.

The religious writing after this disaster probably stemmed from account’s like Father Peter Pernin’s who acknowledged the Godly forces that caused calamity and purified the land. Pernin also writes that those who had healthy relationships with God were those who survived, which inadvertently suggests the reason he was able to write the account.

Many of the survivors, who became homeless, were cared for by the swift surge of heroes in the area. Chicagoans were willing to break into burning buildings, donate capital, and all the while maintain modesty in events such as weddings. As Smith notes, they “were eager to point out that the destruction certainly seemed to have an egalitarian disregard for class distinctions that was beneficial to those who seemed to lose the most” (137). Mortality-focused reactions to contemporary disasters have come a long way from the renovational attitudes that were that era. Eli points out “today, our public figures are quicker to mourn the losses than to highlight the silver lining of a disaster. Leaders in the Gilded Age, however, seemed to remain relentlessly positive in the face of disaster”

Boosters, a distinguishable breed of Chicago residents, would emphasize the altruism and recovery of the great city, however, whom were these heroes helping? The slums suffered equally, if not worse, to other neighbors, and resource deprivation led to unorthodox methods of obtaining help. The system is accustomed to reciprocating “‘thieves, burglars and cut-throats, bent on plunder, and who will not hesitate to burn, pillage and even murder’” and “rape, arson, and murder” with lynching and death. Instead of an age of religious renewal, it is more accurate to say this was an “age of terror” (148) mirroring the tragedies the north had fought so hard to defeat less than ten years prior.

It is not that crime is justifiable, nor do I doubt that in this time people were psychologically prepared to combat crime. Quite honestly, I am not sure how I would react if I were driven from my house, leaving behind material possessions, and later saw someone of a lower socio-economic status enter my house to scavenge through my personal items. It is interesting to reflect on the dimensions of “loss”.

This disparity between the promoted images of recovery and hospitality and the accounts of violence and corruption remind me Rozario’s article, “What Comes Down Must Go Up,” which describes the economic vitality of San Francisco following the Earthquake in 1906 at the expense of the lower class who could not afford housing and were forced to the outskirts of town.