Research Proposal: The Cholera Epidemic of 1832


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

Research Proposal 

Blog Post 5 (for Thursday, 2/27)

Tentative title: “Disease in the Modern World: The Cholera Epidemic of 1832”

 The cholera epidemic of 1832 killed thousands of people and caused panic cross multiple continents. Seemingly healthy individuals could become diseased and die within hours. The circumstances of modernity— industrialization, urbanization, globalization and immigration — especially exacerbated the outbreak of cholera in New York City. Industrialization eroded the air and water in urban environments. Urbanization resulted in areas of highly concentrated population. Globalization connected the world in unprecedented ways, allowing for the transfer of goods and people. Immigrants brought disease along with them. The cholera epidemic of 1832 exemplified the relationship between modernity and disaster during the Gilded Age. It also demonstrated class disparity. Because the disease was spread through water supplies, members of the lower class were far more susceptible. Wealthy residents had access to cleaner water and better medical attention. Those who had the means fled the city seeking refuge.

The cholera epidemic of 1832 suggests the following historical questions: what was the relationship between American industrialization, immigration, globalization and the conditions that led to the cholera epidemic of 1832? What was the significance of class disparity during the cholera epidemic? To what extent was nature responsible for the cholera epidemic, and to what extent was mankind? What makes a Gilded Age/Progressive Era disaster different from other kinds of disaster, and in what ways does the cholera panic demonstrate this distinction? How do reactions to this particular epidemic illuminate contemporary perspectives of disaster?

There are many different angles from which to view the cholera epidemic of 1832, and as a result, there are many different types of relevant sources. Secondary sources are useful for gaining context for some of the larger themes surrounding the disaster, such as industrialization, urbanization, globalization, immigration and class disparity. I wasn’t able to find any articles that synthesized these broad but indisputably linked themes, unfortunately. Certain books, however, seemed promising. For example, Silent Travelers by Alan Kraut examines the connection between immigration and the transfer of disease during the Gilded Age/Progressive Era, and how this connection contributed to xenophobia. Primary sources would be useful to tease out the tones with which people spoke about immigration and class disparity. Medical journals would be useful to explain how the disease works, how it is transmitted, and the processes for treating it. A study of relationship between modernity and the cholera epidemic of 1832 would necessarily include a wide range of sources.

Who is to Blame?


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

After a disaster of such magnitude like the Johnstown Flood, the natural inclination is to attempt to blame somebody(s) or something for the tragic event. The cause of the flood could be attributed to the deforestation, cyclical flooding, and industrialization like Schmidt points out. The people of Johnstown were accustomed to frequent floods and viewed them as a part of life. On the other hand, the owners of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club and the expert they hired to assess the strength of the dam could also be at fault. Ruff, the man hired to oversee the maintenance of the dam could also be a culprit since he ignored the advice of John Fulton who believed the dam would break.

I believe the improper maintenance of the dam is to blame for the disaster, while environmental factors exacerbated the damage. If the dam had been properly managed the incredible magnitude of the flood could have been averted. The question now becomes: whose job was it to maintain the dam? Were the owners of South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club responsible? Or was Ruff guilty of ignoring the danger the dam presented? Both parties share a portion of the blame. As a proprietor of a piece of land, it becomes the responsibility of an owner to ensure all structures on the land are sturdy—especially when not doing so places human lives in danger. Ruff was guilty of ignoring voices that said the dam was structurally unsound. Both Ruff and the owners were negligent but in different ways.

Lastly, I want to comment on how the Johnstown Flood fits into the narrative of the Gilded Age made by Edwards. Edwards presents the notion of The Wedge to explain the distance between the working class and the rich industrialists. Seemingly, the relationship between the wealthy residents of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club and the working class inhabitants of Johnstown fits into this narrative. I think this, however, would oversimplify the relationship. McCullough mentions the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club employing local residents of Johnstown to do construction work. Additionally, Johnstownians were proud that they had such wealthy neighbors. While there is clearly an economic and geographical wedge, this situation does not fit into the category of extreme disconnect that Edwards believes in. There seems to be a comfortable homeostasis between the two groups.