February 2014 – Page 4 – American Disasters

February 12, 2014December 16, 2020

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.

February 10, 2014December 16, 2020

Searching for the Cause of the Chicago Fire

Eli doesn’t think the cow did it, Garrett thinks it was ‘Peg-Leg’ Sullivan, and Richard Bales seems to agree with both of them. After reading through Bales’ website (which I agree with Eli doesn’t seem to work as an extremely effective historiography, but proves interesting nonetheless), I came to the conclusion that whoever/whatever caused the initial spark of the Great Chicago fire can’t be held accountable for the whole disaster. On whomever one would like to ascribe the blame–Mrs. O’Leary, the cow, ‘Peg-Leg’, Regan–the disastrous outcome on the fire was ultimately a result of a combination of events on the night of October 8th.

Bales explains that Mrs. O’Leary was exonerated for 7 reasons, most of which were failures on the part of the Fire Department to accurately locate the fire quickly, as well as equipment malfunctions. Had such mistakes not occurred, Bales suggests that it is likely that the fire would not have caused such widespread damage.

I think that there is a tendency in history (and in society in general) to want to ascribe blame to one person or one group of people. For example, was the reason the Titanic disastrous because there weren’t enough lifeboats? There was complacency on the part of the crew? Not solid enough engineering efforts? Surely it was a combination of all of the aforementioned reasons. If we take a look at more recent disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the BP Oil Spill, there was an intense effort following each event to place blame. Perhaps it is a coping mechanism or a way to better comprehend the effects of a disaster, however, as students looking at history, instead of trying to find out the exact cause of disasters like the Chicago Fire, we should aim to gather a more comprehensive list of all the reasons the event turned into a disaster.

To quickly comment on Pernin’s account of the Peshtigo Fire, I agree with Catherine and Nate about the value of this particular primary source in better understanding historical events. I just wanted to pose a question about aside from Chicago being a more prominent locale, why does the Peshtigo Fire seem to be lost in memory?

February 10, 2014December 16, 2020

The Importance of Primary Sources in Disasters

I loved reading the primary source of Father Peter Pernin’s account of the Peshtigo Fire. Not only does he give a detailed account of the catastrophe, but he also writes with literary fluidity, which allows the reader to become even more engrossed in what occurred in Peshtigo. I agree with caschmidt in that reading a primary source of a disaster was very refreshing, and it is definitely necessary for better understanding natural disasters when primary sources are available.

Not only do primary sources give us a perceptive account of historical events, but they also give us an eye into what the people were like of the time and how that affected their outlook on the events. Knowing that Pernin is a priest, he was an important figure of the town as demonstrated by the many people who knew him during the events. This gives us a totally different perspective than one of the laborers in the town that were only there for a short while in order to build the railroad. I also like how Pernin pointed out that we learn from danger. That is the premise of this course and how to better understand natural disasters so that we can learn the most possible from them. Throughout the beginning of his account, he writes about the ill-prepared not making it through the disaster; this goes back to our discussion about preparedness and how that can affect the impact of the disaster on society. Preparedness, or lack thereof, is of utmost importance to preventing disasters, and this account shows that Peshtigo was not ready, and the people did not want to deal with disaster even when it was bearing down on their backs.

February 10, 2014December 16, 2020

The Peshtigo Fire: The Forgotten Stepsister of the Chicago Fire

Peter Pernin’s The Great Peshtigo Fire: An Eyewitness Account is a valuable source for what could be considered the ugly stepsister of the Great Chicago Fire. Had this disaster occurred at any other time, it would have garnered extensive national attention, but because of the media frenzy over the Chicago Fire, it was forgotten by contemporaries as well as historians. While the Bales hypothesis is fascinating and worthy of farther study, it shines an interesting light on the Peshtigo fire. Almost everyone knows the myth about Mrs. O’Leary and her cow starting the Chicago Fire, but the Peshtigo fire is much more unknown, although it took more lives and caused about the same about of property damage. An online source even goes so far as to call it the “forgotten fire.” How did this truly devastating fire that destroyed everything in its’ path begin? Was it the dry summer or the carelessness of locals, as Pernin describes? The lack of contemporary criminal investigation, such as the one that occurred in Chicago, shows the radically different treatment of the two disasters. In this, we see the different ways that disaster is perceived and portrayed due to its location in an urban or rural area. Although the Peshtigo fire took more lives, the Chicago fire impacted more lives directly, and was therefore given the priority in contemporary and historical analysis.

I would like to make a comparison that could be helpful to Eli’s argument: Bales’ ‘investigation’ seemed more like a CSI-type drama than a reliable historical account. While the medium that he is presenting his work must be considered, it does not excuse what feels like amateur detective work. Contrary to Eli’s further point on the irrationality of the townspeople’s actions in dealing with the looter, I find the irrationality in their behavior to be perfectly normal. The psychological effects of such a traumatic event must have been devastating, making rational thought and action impossible. Pernin himself acknowledges that he was incapable of caring for his flock due to the trauma.

February 10, 2014December 16, 2020

Response to Disasters and Placing Blame

In the wake of disasters such as the Peshtigo Fire, we are left to consider whether or not these horrific events were an act of God. Peter Pernin believed that the Peshtigo Fire constituted an act of God. Pernin argued, “No reasoning succeeds so quickly in making men comprehend the greatness of God and their own insignificance (262).” Pernin’s worldview is clearly biased; his teachings and core beliefs cause him to attribute the Peshtigo Fire to God. I do not seek to refute his viewpoint, but I want to point out that Pernin offers evidence that seems to contradict his belief that the fire was an act of God.

Pernin’s anecdote about his hunting trip with the young boy illustrates how easy it was to start a forest fire and how quickly a disaster could happen. Additionally, Pernin explains how Indians and Hunters carelessly forgot to extinguish their fires. I believe that we attribute our own meaning to events of this magnitude, but it seems like Pernin’s work is slightly contradictory when it comes to placing blame.

On a slightly unrelated note, I wanted to comment on the significance of the tabernacle and how survivors attribute meaning to miracles or seemingly unnatural signs or symbols. Immediately after reading about how the tabernacle was still intact after the ravaging fire, I thought of the cross that was formed out of steel beams from the Twin Towers. Pernin viewed the survival of the tabernacle and the other sacred objects, “as trophies of God’s exceeding mercy snatched so marvelously from destruction (266).” Additionally, survivors of the 9/11 terror attacks attributed meaning to the Ground Zero Cross. Like Pernin and the other survivors of the Peshtigo fire, 9/11 survivors see religious symbolism in the cross. Both of these events offered solace and comfort to the traumatized survivors. These miracles or symbols and the cultural responses they create are an important part of understanding disasters. The responses to disasters are just as important to the disasters themselves.

February 10, 2014December 16, 2020

$192,000,000 Worth of Damage to the City of Chicago and nobody prosecuted?

The O’Leary Barn will forever be enshrined in the history of Chicago as being the location from which emanated the 1871 Great Chicago Fire. Is it urban legend that the kerosene lantern used by Mrs. O’Leary for milking her dairy cow in the evening was the spark igniting a fire that would leave 100,000 people homeless and 300 people dead? Upon browsing www.thechicagofire.com interesting discourse is revealed about the people, actions, and confusion leading up to and after the fire. The information given to the reader on the website, in my opinion, attempts to prove the misalignment between the actual accounts from eye witnesses with the urban legend.

Unfortunately similar to the judicial system of the time I to find myself scratching my head, in a perplexed manner, at the details and evidence affiliated with the fire itself. Newspapers and other social mediums of the time exploited the story of Mrs. O’Leary’s cow because it made for good news and allowed those directly affected by the fire to find solace. The case against Daniel “Peg Leg” Sullivan seems to be a more fitting explanation for the cause of the fire. In the related texts addressing Daniel Sullivan, he admits to multiple accounts of trespassing and his association with Dennis Regan predisposes him to commit acts of debauchery. Sullivan admitted to visiting the O’Leary’s barn “In the evening over a hundred times in the past”, which Mrs. O’Leary had no knowledge of. The incrimination of Daniel Sullivan seemed even more practical to me after interpreting the diagram of the O’Leary’s home and their surrounding neighbors, http://www.thechicagofire.com/diagram.php. In Sullivan’s inquiry he described his location at the time of the fire to be resting against a fence, which from that fence his view of the O’Leary’s barn would’ve been entirely obstructed.

Even further primary source readings, which included Mrs. O’Leary’s testimony to the Board of Police and Fire Commissions, builds a case against Sullivan. In her testimony she recounts the night and provides evidence to support her claim of innocence. The O’Leary’s rented out the front rooms of their home and claimed their renters were throwing a party the night of the fire, which would have increased their inability to be awaken by early alarms of the incineration of their barn. Even Sullivan in his inquiry supports the O’Leary’s claim because he used the partygoers as a “false” alibi. In Mrs. O’Leary’s testimony she also describes the inefficiencies with the Chicago Fire Department because it was brought up that the fire engine reporting to the seen broke down in the midst of fighting the fire.

The http://www.thechicagofire.com does a good job providing its readers with a shallow, but effective collection of primary sources. The reader can leave with their own opinion and ruling on who started the Chicago Fire of 1871 and even debunk the myth of Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow. With links to suggested readings, visitors can continue with more intensive research, if so desired. Overall, the website does its job of educating its readers with sources available and allows he or she to come to their own conclusion as to which actions instigated the Chicago Fire of 1871.

February 9, 2014December 16, 2020

Salvation through Primary Sources

The social science students of Davidson often find themselves reading secondary sources to understand a critical evaluation of a fundamental document or theory. In fact, up until the assigned reading for February 11, the previous articles for Disasters of the American Gilded Age were not artifacts, but rather materials distorted to reflect the opinions of the author. Father Peter Pernin’s account in The Great Peshtigo Fire: An Eyewitness Account varies from these other readings because it serves as a participant’s reaction to an event he survived.

Through his descriptive discourse, one is reminded of the tragically humane aspect of disasters. It is less emotionally unsettling, and therefore more difficult to understand the extent of the disaster, by reading about “five acres of stores, offices, factories, hotels, and homes had been destroyed, and many hundreds of people were dead” in a secondary source than to read about “charred carcasses of horses, cows, oxen, and other animals” and “the bodies of the human victims- men, women, and children- had been already collected and decently interred-their number being easily ascertained by counting the rows of freshly-made graves” as phrased by Father Peter Pernin (Rozario, 72; 263).

This data is not without bias or personal opinion, which emphasizes the advantages of reading more impartial reflections by secondary source authors. One undergoes a spiritualistic experience by reading Pernin’s article. Eli describes the literary eloquence of Pernin’s account in his post and how this style “elegantly describes what must have been a horrifying experience for everyone involved”. Aside from the repetitive calls to God, the flamboyant symbol of the hellish fire taking all those who did not bathe themselves in the river is manifested as Pernin writes, “At the same moment I heard a splash of the water along the river’s brink. All had followed my example. It was time; the air was no longer fit for inhalation, whilst the intensity of the heat was increasing. A few minutes more and no living thing could have resisted its fiery breath” (257). Pernin expands on the baptizing characteristics of the river as he continues a few pages later, “I came out of the river about half past three in the morning, and from that time I was in a very different condition, both morally and physically, to that in which I had previously been” (259).

Fortunately, the religious qualities of “The Great Peshtigo Fire” are blatant enough that one can choose interpret the work omitting or including them. The reader’s and secondary source’s decision to interpret the primary source at will reiterates the importance of returning to the original data. In this way, the source being reflected on is not limited to the analysis of a third party.

I think Cronon would have appreciated Pernin’s account because, despite it’s artistic approach, he does not distinguish the humans from their environment. Pernin describes the animals’ foreshadowing of and reaction to disaster equal to the humans’. Additionally, he intertwines natural and anthropogenically-induced causes of the Peshitgo Fire, blaming the final product of a dry season and ignorance.

February 6, 2014December 16, 2020

Disaster Boosterism and Fear of the Poor

Carl Smith’s intense analysis of the narrative which formed around the Chicago fire in its aftermath is both fascinating and telling. I think it is, perhaps, an even more revealing analysis than any direct analysis of the fire might be, because the particulars of his investigation expose the thoughts, fears, and culture of Chicago’s narrative-makers.

Clearly, we saw in Cronon’s work that Chicago possessed ample boosters. Yet, boosterism in the face of disaster might still be unexpected; yet, it persisted. To Chicago’s boosters, and indeed many of its citizens, the fire marked Chicago as a great city: “Greater than the catastrophes that consumed Rome, London, and other world capitals, the fire proved that Chicago and America had already surpassed or would soon supersede these other cities in all respects”(130). The logic feels backward, but perhaps it is sound. Indeed, only a significant city could have a disaster on the scale of the Chicago fire of 1871. This is likely true of many disasters; as we have discussed, disasters are the confluence of nature and humanity, with the human element emerging as a decisive division between disasters and events. 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.

On the other hand, the fire brought to light the fear of social instability. The rhetoric that emerged from disaster posited that the ‘respectable’ elements had banded together, unified and determined to survive. The poor were the most significant losers, altogether. From one perspective, they were the malefactors and miscreants who encouraged and spread the fire, looted, raped vulnerable women, and inconsiderately occupied crowded spaces with the wealthy. From another, they were helpless: “Others among the poor died because they evidently lacked the character and resolve to save themselves, which was also why they were poor in the first place”(150). In this case, Smith is merely explaining the narrative that existed, rather than asserting the above himself. These two narratives seem contradictory: these helpless poor, unable to save themselves, were amply able to terrorize the respectable citizens already traumatized by the approaching flames. Displacing the natural horror of the fire with fears of social unrest likely served to reinforce existing social order, implying that through a control of the ‘less respectable’ citizenry, the elite and middle class might be more able to exert control over such uncontrollable events as fire.

I take a more cynical view of preserved and “natural” spaces, such as National Parks, than does Emily. I think that the preservation of these natural spaces is as much a part of the capitalist culture as anything else. National parks and outdoor spaces have been commodified within the ethos of our consumer culture. People drive to these “natural” spaces, spend a day there, bring their own food or purchase it their. Trips down rivers are often guided. My own extensive time spent canoeing Wisconsin’s beautiful waterways has sent me past as many riverside houses, park ranger stations, and farms as anything else. We consume this preserved nature in small doses, which we can easily control. It certainly has an inherent appeal; however, that does not extricate it from capitalism. Capitalism does not judge the things we consume, but makes them available in the most appetizing portions for our consumption. Natural spaces in America have been packaged and labeled for our consumption, and we suspend our knowledge that they are just as “unnatural” as Manhattan as we consume them.

February 5, 2014December 16, 2020

I don’t think the cow did it

And even if it did, it’s a cow, so is it really to blame?

Richard Bales’ investigation of the Chicago fire of 1871 seems like a crime scene investigation, more than historiographical work. I certainly share his chagrin that the investigatory committee did not further investigate “Peg Leg” Sullivan and Dennis Regan more, since their testimony does seem strange and not very believable. I wonder, also, why none of Bales’ documents include testimony from anyone at the McLaughlin party, since they were closest to the barn and were still, according to Mrs. O’Leary’s testimony, awake at the time. It seems deeply unfair that Mrs. O’Leary was assumed to be instantly guilty. Her testimony as well, in my opinion, seems somewhat jumbled, which cannot have favorably impacted her case.

Denser, lengthier and yet more interesting was Father Pernin’s account of the Peshtigo fire. I don’t think that I could have chosen a better person to describe such an event: his command of language, combined with his spiritual attitude of morality driving results, and belief that the fire may be the apocalypse itself makes for quite an interesting description. For instance: “I perceived above the the dense cloud of smoke overhanding the earth, a vivid red reflection of immense extent, and then suddenly struck on my ear, strangely audible in the preternatural silence reigning around, a distant roaring, yet muffled sound, announcing that the elements were in commotion somewhere” (253). Such a description balances ominous portents with matter-of-fact description to create a chilling and vivid scene. He also seems to imply, on some occasions, that certain people died in the inferno due to their misbegotten behavior: the guests of the party who laughed at him, the dog that didn’t come with him, his horse that wouldn’t follow (even when he used its name, if you can believe that!).

All in all, he creates a scene of grand chaos, which elegantly describes what must have been a horrifying experience for everyone involved. Certainly, little can be worse than surviving such horror, only to return to bury the dead and care for the dying. One thing that I found particularly odd was that the townspeople chose to hang the man looting corpses, but then let him go. I suppose that there was no modicum of punishment available in this particular case, what with the fire and all.

Finally, I want to disagree with Marston’s claim that Cronon underestimated the role of technology, science and industrialization in driving Chicago’s rise. Cronon’s analysis continually examines the ways in which the “natural advantages” of Chicago–the river, the location near the lake, the surrounding plains–were often fraught with drawbacks. He documents well the ways in which Chicago and her boosters subverted nature in order to create a city from the mud. Ultimately, Cronon’s vision of Chicago is much more of a city crafted from “capital geography” than its natural counterpart.

February 5, 2014December 16, 2020

The Difficulty in Defining What is “Natural”/”Unnatural”

In reading Cronon’s Natures Metropolis, I was particularly taken by his contention that the boundary between what is natural and unnatural might not be as clear cut as is often thought. It seems that my classmates have taken particular interest in this same point, as everyone mentioned this notion to some degree or another in their blog posts. For me, having grown up primarily in large, urban cities, I have always seen rural life as separate and unfamiliar–perhaps even ignorantly, less “modern”. To then read Cronon’s take on cities forced me to think more deeply about how I view urban vs. rural spaces in relation to one another. Further, Cronon’s argument that, “City and country might be separate places, but [are] hardly isolated,” led me to consider whether cities and the country are truly independent spaces. As Cronon writes, “The more I learned the history of my home state, the more I realized that the human hand lay nearly as heavily on rural Wisconsin as on Chicago” (p. 7). Even further, cities and countrysides are quite interdependent. It is at this point where defining what is natural vs. unnatural becomes problematic.

I see the same issues in defining nature as in defining disaster. Wells brings up in his post Cronon’s idea of “First Nature” and “Second Nature.” I think these terms are helpful tools when discussing what is/is not nature. In my historiography paper, I discussed the vagueness of the word disaster and it’s potential to be problematic in the field of disaster study, but concluded (through examination of Bergman, Hewitt, and Biel) that it may not be that problematic after all. A changing/vague definition forces us to constantly reconsider the subject, perhaps leading to some new, previously overlooked, ideas on the subject.

Going now in a slightly different direction, I enjoyed Amani’s discussion of the morality of city and country. I think her question is a great one because there does seem to be a widely accepted notion that country represents the natural, which is better than cities which represent the unnatural. But if we consider Cronon’s argument that the two are interdependent, and that rural farms are not as natural as we might think, then this ascription of moral adjectives is no longer viable.