Example of Polished Essay One

To Destroy or not to Destroy?

            The riots that have taken place in America’s past are definitely kept safely away from society. Many people today would not know anything about the infamous Bread riots of 1837, The New York City Drafts Riots of 1863, and The Great Railroad Riots of 1877. In fact, when I was reading “The Bread Riots of 1836,” I actually thought I was reading fiction at first, just to explain how little many of us know about these huge historical events. Maybe these past events are just too controversial and can feed today’s working and lower class society with inner rebellion. Maybe some or most may find that the rioter’s rage full violence to be justified. Nevertheless, these riots are definitely worth knowing about for those who are curious. All the rioters of the text and film share one

moral view in which they believe they are victims of abuse of power. However, the authority in the text (government, merchants, and railroad owners) believes that violence by rioters cannot be justified, no matter how unjust that the rioters feel they are being treated.

            In J.T Headley’s “Flour Riot of 1837”, there is an idea that the rioters are being taken advantage of by the flour merchants. The reason for rioter’s violence is due to the “unfair” increasing flour prices by the merchants. Headley explains: “This was very probably true, as it is a rule with merchants, when they have a large stock of anything on hand, of which there threatens to be scarcity, to hold on in order to make the scarcity greater— thus forcing higher prices” (99). In the minds of the rioters, this can definitely be seen as an “abuse of power” because these merchants are using an unfair monopolistic strategy because they simply can, who is to stop them? The rioters have absolutely no say in these price hikes; it’s either pay the seventeen dollars a barrel or starve. This is probably how the rioters feel about the price hikes of flour. Furthermore, the rioters probably believe that there is no higher authority to help resolve this ethical dilemma they are faced with and also believe that the merchants are aware of this and simply taking advantage of it because it’s easy to attack someone or something that seems defenseless.

            In the New York City Draft Riots of 1863, Irish Immigrants felt resentment towards the way they were treated by the American government as well as the City of New York. After suffering in Ireland at the hands of the English for many dreadful years, the Irish thought they finally had their shot at freedom by coming to America and living the “American Dream.” The Irish were working the lowly sanitation jobs and felt as though climbing the ladder to better professions were being kept from them because of their ethnicity and because they are new comers to the city. The Irish felt as though they were purposely lied to for the sole purpose of remaining at the bottom of NYC’s social class in order to do all the lowly duties of the City. Naturally, the Irish resented the fact that NYC treated them so low. Consequently, the Irish felt they had the right to become angry and fight their point across even if it meant destruction because of the simple fact that they truly believed they were the victims which would then make the idea of causing violence seem as a justifiable response to the “evil” NYC government. To irritate the Irish even further, NYC began drafting men for the Civil War, and the Irish were targeted for this draft. The Irish truly believed that they were simply being used by the American system because of their low civilian rank in NYC. The Irish mostly likely believe that because their place in NYC society as a community of people who have no money or respect is an easy piece of defenseless prey that can easily be eaten by the American predator. The Irish are enraged at the thought of fighting a death promising war that isn't theirs; they only came to NYC around 5 years prior and now are forced to fight a Civil War?

            In the minds of the Railroad rioters of 1877, they feel as though they are victims of unfair wage cutting, and this is the root cause of the violence they start to use as response to their employers. In “The Great Railroad Riots of 1877,” J.T Headley states that “There is no doubt that rich men and rich companies, on the other hand, have in some cases taken advantage of the hard times for the sole and wicked purpose of making more money by reducing wages of their employees beyond what was necessary or just, and hence naturally caused a deal for complaint and bitter feeling” (350). The keywords from the text: “taken advantage of hard times” can be seen as the trigger that points and shoots at the railroad workers. Furthermore, these employees believe that a “poor economy” is just a hoax and is not the fair reason for their wage cuts, and what other reason besides a poor economy can justify reducing wages? The railroad companies are sure making their profits. Apparently, there is no other reason in the minds of the employees because their violent reaction suggests this idea.

J.T Headley also points out that acts of violence as a response to someone else’s injustice is not justifiable and people who commit these acts of violence should be treated as criminals. He argues that “The rioters who resort to violence may be perfectly just in their demands but, and yet the way they take to obtain them may be oppressive and unjust, but murder is the word oppression. They may cut down the price of wages, but that is not so criminal as to tear down house and make wreck of human property” (346). Headley often tries to provide reasoning for both the rioters and railroad owners. However, it is clear that he is ultimately on the side of the railroad owners. According to Headley, being victimized in any way that is not an example of violence does not give someone the right to take the law in to his/her own hands to commit violence until justice is served. In other words, obtaining justice with the use of violence is a contradiction. Furthermore, Railroad company owners may undoubtedly be displaying greed, but greed is not an act of violence and therefore may not seem deserving of violent revenge. So, railroad companies may simply argue that if workers don’t like the wages all they can really do is not work for them.

            Also in the Railroad riots of 1877, the U.S Government expresses its own moral views. President Rutherford B. Hayes writes a Proclamation that he feels addresses the domestic violence issue that is threatening American society. Although the bill of rights clearly states that citizens have the right to assemble and protest peacefully, this right is now suspended because of the violence that is caused by the rioters. From the perspective of the authority, now the right to assemble peacefully is questionable and may actually be an opportunity for rioters to assemble not peacefully but with the intent of violence and destruction. The reason behind the President’s decision is that the American government is responsible for protecting its citizens from the dangers of violence, even from its very own people who make up America. This can perhaps be the only justifiable excuse to suspend its very own rules as well as to put down its very own citizens. Whether this decision is right or wrong, it seems to have some moral value because it seeks to protect its people from danger at the end of the day.

            Although I am strongly against violence and putting people’s lives in danger, I still feel sympathy for the rioters and view them more as victims then violent criminals. I just don’t think that it’s fair for people to pay more for flour because merchants are greedy opportunists. It also doesn't seem fair to work and make less money as time goes by meanwhile the Railroad companies are continuing to make profits. These underpaid rioters have many laws to follow in life in order to lead a criminal free life. It isn't fair that these merchants and railroad companies don’t have many laws to follows well from a business perspective. Law is assembled by morals, so I don’t really see how it’s lawful or ethical for a merchant or company to raise flour prices or cut wages to simply gain more in wealth. There just doesn't seem to be a balance of fairness for these two sides to follow. For the rioters, there is really no option to peacefully contest the authority. Staying quiet is definitely not an option and should not be. Maybe the rioters do not want to cause violence but feel that it’s the only way.

WORKS CITED

Headley, J. T. Pen and Pencil Sketches of the Great Riots. New York: Arno, 1969. Print.

New York: A Documentary Film. Dir. Ric Burns. Perf. David Ogden Stiers. PBS, 1999. youtube.com.

T., Headley Joel. Great Riots of New York. S.l.: S.n., 1873. Print.