My name is Eric Chan and I am currently a student in LaGuardia community college. In the class “Violence in American Art and Culture” we study some of the causes as well as the effects or major riots in American History. For the first major assignment the goal is to identify and discuss the morals of both rioters and authorities (the opposition). One thing I’d like to examine in my essay is the justification both factions would give in regards to killing another person.   

The passage I decided to focus occurs in page 362 of Headley’s account of the Railroad Riots of 1877. In this passage he describes the precise moment in which the conflict between soldiers and rioters escalates into gunfire. The soldiers began by firing a volley above the heads of the mob in hopes of de-escalating the situation. This however causes the mob the return fire and the situation becomes progressively more lethal. The resulting conflict would leave thirty to forty people wounded or killed with 9 confirmed deaths.

In this scenario I believe one of the morals possessed by both the rioters and, to a lesser degree, the solders is the right of self-defense. Killing in self-defense is one of the few circumstances in which a normal person would be willing to kill someone else. In a life or death situation it would certainly be easier to morally justify such an act, at least to themselves.  In addition the physiological response (fight or flight reaction) caused by such a high stress situation would seriously affect rational thinking.  

My questions now are does lethal violence follow a similar pattern in any other American riots?

What are the other grounds in which rioters and authorities believed they were justified in killing other people?

My initial thoughts on the reading were fairly scattered due to the style in which it was written. As a result I chose to focus my analysis on the last two pages of the passage particularly on the outbreak of violence that occurs near the end of the story. After the class discussion however some of my ideas became clearer. Professor Cooper called several details to my attention that I had previously not picked up upon. The “Genius of the Valley” rising from the burial mound as well as the referral to the riot organizers as “chiefs” led to me to believe that perhaps similarities were being drawn between the rioters and Native Americans. That after the Native Americans had been successfully displaced (killed), poor workers would eventually become the next group of people to be persecuted.              

Prior to putting my opinions on paper I decided to consult with a friend who, being an English major, I hoped would be more familiar with the writing style. In her opinion the story had elements of Romantic literature and so I decided to analyze the story again within that context.  The use of flowery and dramatic language, the detailed descriptions of nature, as well as well as the date in which the story was written all matched up with my research regarding Romantic literature. In addition the Romantic Era peaked between 1800 and 1850 which corresponds to the date the story was published.  

Rereading the story with the knowledge that Romanticism emphasized an appreciation for untamed nature, I now believed the story is a warning about the dangers of rapid industrialization. While the author describes the St. Louis of the future as awe inspiring he includes details such as the noise, the dirty streets, and the endless clouds of smoke. This is meant to contrast with his earlier descriptions of nature in the Illinois countryside. That same contrast can be seen again in the author’s description of the violence just prior to him waking up back in the idyllic countryside. Finally the author ends their story with what is essentially a warning to the reader to think deeply about what he has just written. My questions now are who was the writer directing this warning towards and does the tone and style compare to other pieces of Romantic Literature?

Relevant Links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism