The Importance of Primary Sources in Disasters


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

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.

The Peshtigo Fire: The Forgotten Stepsister of the Chicago Fire


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

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.

Salvation through Primary Sources


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

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.

I don’t think the cow did it


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

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.