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?