Zachary Schrag on his new book and its lens on protecting democracy
Jul. 07, 2021
Philadelphia is rightly lauded as the birthplace of American republic: Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence here. The framers debated, drafted and signed the Constitution here. Merely as nosotros celebrate those monumental feats, it's likewise important to call back that Philadelphia symbolizes not only the triumphs, only likewise the trials of American republic.
One of the challenges American commonwealth faces today—and ever has—is how to promote toleration and peace across diverse socioeconomic, religious, and racial groups. As Zachary Schrag, a history professor at George Mason University, lays out in his new book, The Fires of Philadelphia: Citizen-Soldiers, Nativists, and the 1844 Riots Over the Soul of a Nation, our city in 1844 laid bare the claiming of maintaining social peace among our multifariousness. White Protestants, referring to themselves as "Native Americans," attacked Irish Catholics—many of them recent immigrants. Churches were burned; people were shot indiscriminately; democratically enacted constabulary and individual rights were momentarily overtaken by tribal violence.
More than ON POLICING, PROTESTS & GUN VIOLENCE
-
- A retired police sergeant on systemic law reform
- 5 good reasons to read An American Summer: Beloved and Death in Chicago
- Listen to our podcast about gun violence—causes and solutions—in Philly
- MSNBC's Ali Velshi on covering the 2022 protest for racial justice
- An statement for funding the police
Professor Schrag relates the harrowing story of how the city burst into flames in the summer of 1844. During the initial May anarchism in Kensington, "Native Americans" and Irish Catholics engaged in guerrilla-mode warfare in the streets. During the course of the riots, which stretched through July, two churches were burned to the ground and i church—Saint Philip Neri in Southwark—was assaulted by a nativist mob. (They fifty-fifty bombed the church building with cannon balls.)
Eventually, a ragtag grouping of militiamen were able to restore order, if not a genuine peace. In The Fires of Philadelphia, Schrag tells the forgotten story of how Philadelphia's tribal hatreds exploded into chaotic violence, engulfing parts of the city in literal flames.
Philadelphia—and America—are all the same not immune to these pressures and tensions today. We still grapple with tribal hatreds of diverse sorts, and sometimes these tensions bubble upward and threaten the rule of police force and democracy itself, as evidenced by the tumultuous year of 2020—and the Capitol coup on January vi of this year.
I reached out to Schrag to talk almost what the Philadelphia riots of 1844 can teach us near our electric current debates over American identity, tolerance, policing, and republic. What follows is an edited and condensed transcript of our conversation.
Thomas Koenig: Thanks and then much for joining the states, Professor Schrag. I desire to begin with a quick two-part question: What's your book about? And what'due south its significance for us today?
Zachary Schrag: The volume is a history of a series of riots that took place in Philadelphia in 1844. There was one moving ridge of violence in May of 1844, then a kind of uneasy peace for a few weeks, and so another outbreak of violence in July. And in both cases, these were essentially attacks on the Cosmic community, especially the Irish Catholic community, past a rising group of people who chosen themselves "Native Americans."
You might think of that term in terms of ethnic Americans, simply these were people primarily of Anglo Saxon descent, who were Protestants, who had been born in the United states of america, and who saw Irish Catholic immigrants as a dangerous menace to the American Republic.
There's probably never been a gilt age of responsible firearm ownership. Simply equally at that place's not been a gold age of policing. These accept been problems for a very long time.
I think this speaks to a number of concerns in the 21st century, the master ones being, outset of all, immigration where, obviously, that has resurged as a major political issue in the last ii years, with people existence concerned nigh both economic contest from new Americans and also cultural competition in terms of new religions and languages. And then the second major question that became all the more than pressing in 2022 and 2022 is that of mob violence, and the appropriate response to crowds, and protesters and mobs. Those are three unlike terms that kind of bleed into each other. But how do we desire our forces of order to respond when there is a big oversupply in the streets enervating some kind of political action?
TK: Right. Then the start riot in May 1844 starts out every bit a political rally in Irish Catholic Kensington by the "Native Americans," and before long plenty, information technology devolves into a anarchism, into violence. We saw a similar affair happen this past summertime when peaceful protests turned tearing in some places.
ZS: That'due south correct. We see this across places and periods. One time you take people in the street, whether it'due south a kind of organized group, similar a political rally, or parade or protest march or spontaneous gathering, it can very quickly turn into something more violent. And part of that is that crowds are made of lots of people who have different ideas and agendas. Then you can have a crowd with 1,000 people who are in that location to be peaceful and orderly. And you're going to have 20 teenagers who are not, and nevertheless those twenty teenagers, once they've started throwing rocks and bricks and bottles, especially at the police or whoever'southward there, can very easily turn the whole scene into chaos.
And information technology'southward very difficult for the police to respond to that. Because, you know, once again, these 20 teenagers may be surrounded by 1,000 people, y'all can't arrest them all. So what exercise y'all do? Practice yous fire at the crowd? Practise y'all attempt to disperse it? Information technology's very challenging for whatsoever kind of police force that is trying to minimize injury while also protecting order and property.
And so the other factor beyond the sort of unpredictable composition of a crowd is that a kind of surprise event can very often turn things trigger-happy. If yous read accounts of riots, often a broken window, for example, seems to have a certain psychological effect. Spike Lee captures this in "Do the Right Affair" where that trashcan through the window of Sal'southward Pizzeria turns this protest into a riot. And we saw this in Baltimore, for example, with the Freddie Gray riots, that broken window, or a broken bottle can do it.
In Philadelphia in May of 1844, it was a sudden rainstorm that disrupted this political rally and what had been a somewhat anticipated, scripted protest, or heckling, turns kind of unpredictable and chaotic when that rain starts to fall, and everyone is running in new directions, and they find themselves in a different setting. So little things like that tin can turn a oversupply violent.
TK: One of my primary takeaways from the book was how disorganized and canaille policing was—or at least the Philadelphia constabulary forcefulness was—at the time. Ultimately the militia had to do most of the crowd control. In the aftermath of the violence, were there police reforms that brought forth some forms of modernization that inch us closer to the police as we know it today?
ZS: So the old Anglo Saxon tradition was to put policing in the hands of the community. You would have a sheriff and if he needed some help keeping things nether control, he could summon a posse merely like you've seen in the quondam western movies. There were posses in cities as well. And sometimes they worked—sometimes y'all could really get people to come out and try to overwhelm whatsoever disorganization is going on whether there'south a crime or riot, a bunch of men of good faith would show up and help the sheriff. And that begins to break down as cities get larger, more anonymous, in that location's more crime in the streets, and fewer men willing to hazard their lives to assist the sheriff.
Near of the violence of 1844 takes place in what were and then independent districts [within Philadelphia]. And these districts had most no police force forces. They had a few constables. And then they had nighttime watchmen who would light the lamps and rattle their rattles to call the hour, but were really no match for a determined mob.
TK: Obviously, nosotros demand a more modern police force than the posse being called up, only are there elements from that older model of community-based policing that you think could be revived today Philadelphia?
ZS: So this is a question I take for the people who are calling for defunding or abolishing the police, and for some of my swain historians who have talked about alternatives. The concept of "customs policing", or at to the lowest degree the term "community policing", shows up a lot. Merely I'g not really certain what that means in many cases.
You do have to be conscientious what you wish for because in some cases, a responsive police force is one that responds to the majority and is non ready to defend religious or ethnic minorities like the Irish Catholics or obviously racial minorities either—and you lot know this is going on in Philadelphia in the 1840s, likewise. In that location were attacks on the African American customs. And so one of the reasons that people call up a professional constabulary force would be more effective is that it would be neutral in terms of who it protected and served.
Simply this didn't work. Every bit presently as Philadelphia does establish a more professional police force in the 1850s, it about immediately becomes a football between those who desire it to be equanimous of native-built-in Americans and those who are willing to recruit—gauge who?— the Irish gaelic. Then the thought of the Irish cop comes out of this flow where politicians in New York and Philadelphia and elsewhere see this new police force as a bang-up way to get more Irish gaelic Americans onto the government payroll, and therefore more than Irish American votes at the ballot box.
TK: Yous recount an immense corporeality of gun violence during the 1844 riots in your volume. Today, when we take spikes in gun violence, inevitably we're going to have a contend about gun command. Was there whatever give-and-take of gun reform in the aftermath of the 1844 riots?
ZS: And so the only contend almost gun control that I really saw was about trying to keep guns out of the hands of specific groups. Whatever you say about the 2d amendment to the U.S. Constitution, no one cared about that in 1844; people cared most the Pennsylvania Land Constitution, and that had a broader correct to conduct arms than the U.S. Constitution did. And you could arguably create your own militia visitor without likewise much paperwork either. Philadelphia was a pretty well armed boondocks.
In improver to the deliberate violence, people are shooting family members by blow a lot, as they still do today. And then yous also have some drunken brawls. Just all kinds of mayhem, which I recollect reminds us that in that location'due south probably never been a golden age of responsible firearm ownership. But equally at that place's not been a gilt age of policing. These have been problems for a very long fourth dimension.
TK: To build off of that, your volume really indicates there'south also never been a aureate age of municipal governance writ large, at least in Philadelphia. You talk about burn down companies in the volume. What happened there?
ZS: At the root of the trouble—and again, this spans different places and times—is that adolescent boys can be really awful. In Philadelphia, in the 1840s, a lot of these young men finish up associated with the volunteer burn down companies that start out saying, "we're going to fight fires," but they soon become a kind of set of rival gangs who are rushing to get to the showtime fireplug. And if they're second to the fireplug, well, they can at least cut the hose of the first company that got there and have the honor of fighting the burn down. And if in that location's no fire, well, maybe they tin even so raid the other company and steal its fire engine and smash it in the streets. And this just becomes a perpetual problem. And information technology's not every metropolis, simply it is several cities, Philadelphia and Baltimore are among the worst.
As a historian, I oftentimes cop out by saying, I'one thousand just telling the story and letting others figure out what to do with it. But it was obviously very troubling for me to run across what's happening, non just in 2020, merely in the years leading upwards to it, as nosotros fall into a lot of discord. In that location are no easy answers.
And so, professionalizing the firefighters turns out to be as important equally professionalizing the constabulary in terms of creating some kind of order. And that takes a very long fourth dimension. Ane of my favorite messages from Bishop Frances Patrick Kenrick, the Archbishop of Philadelphia at the time of the 1844 riots, is he's writing to someone and he says, "Oh, aye, we had some other trivial anarchism last weekend. But don't worry information technology was just the firemen." You know, because that'due south normal!
TK: Yeah, that'south simply par for the grade! I want to dissimilarity the riots of 1844 with what happened in Philly in 2020. The summertime of 2022 in Philadelphia was a tearing, tumultuous summer for the urban center. But there was non a ton of inter-group, inter-tribal violence, like in 1844. Nigh of the politically charged violence that did take place was betwixt citizens and police. Which is more unsafe to commonwealth? When you take the citizen and the state (i.e., the police) fighting like in 2020, or when you accept like in 1844 two groups of citizens fighting one some other?
ZS: That'south a really interesting distinction to make. So you're correct that for the 19th century and into the 20th we have a lot of intergroup violence. This yr, people are talking about the centennial of the Tulsa massacre that, yous know, was largely not-governmental white people raiding the black neighborhoods of Tulsa, a pogrom which was 1 of a large series from the 1910s and into the 1920s surrounding World War I.
And as historians accept noted, by the 1960s, peculiarly, that has changed where in what we call the race riots of the 1960s, there are many more citizens against forces of lodge, whether they were Police or National Guard or U.S. Regular army troops. These days, aye, if you do accept people who are right wingers and left wingers in the same place, there might often exist a line of police betwixt them. And it is e'er a question of which way are the police facing and which way are the shields? But I don't know that we've had that same kind of multi-day brawl betwixt rival civilian groups. So that is one thing that professionalization of the police has gotten u.s.. But every bit y'all say, having the different groups take turns attacking the constabulary, whether information technology'south in 2020, or the set on on the Capitol in 2021, is still pretty dismaying for people who promise democracy is a more than peaceful and deliberative process.
TK: Speaking of democracy, I want to close with the final lines of your book: "If nothing else, the riots reminded Americans that all deliberative politics and constabulary ultimately depend on the control of violence. Republic walks a narrow path between military oppression and mob rule." Is there a call to action for readers, when we reflect on how we can ensure that our metropolis and our nation stays on this narrow, democratic path?
ZS: You know, as a historian, I often cop out by saying, I'thou just telling the story and letting others figure out what to do with it. Just information technology was obviously very troubling for me to see what's happening, not just in 2020, but in the years leading up to it, as we fall into a lot of discord. And in the summer of 2020, specially, when at that place was a wave of ceremonious unrest that we've not seen since the 1970s. Then, in that location are no like shooting fish in a barrel answers.
In role, I found myself in an odd position of kind of rooting for the militia, peculiarly during the riot of July of 1844. They are risking their lives to defend a Catholic Church, some of them are Catholic, most of them are not, some of them are actually anti-Catholic, merely they all the same put duty alee of their own personal beliefs. And I practise think a commonwealth needs that. Alexis de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America" writes about the tyranny of bulk in terrifying terms, and he actually references an 1812 riot in Baltimore, where the militia merely wouldn't show up to defend people they disagreed with. And that's a terrible affair.
That said, it'due south very clear from what we've seen, from the George Floyd protests and the recent history of policing that too much policing is a unsafe matter. So when the Nativists complain about military rule, when they warn nearly the possibilities that the militia would unjustly block their speech and put newspaper editors under hazard of imprisonment, you can't dismiss that entirely, either.
And and then this is where I came up with that idea of the rather narrow path that nosotros are walking, that, y'all know, leaving everything to the constabulary or abolishing the police force are both very dangerous.
TK: Thanks, Professor Schrag.
ZS: Thanks. It's a pleasance.
Source: https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/the-narrow-path-that-were-walking/
0 Response to "Zachary Schrag on his new book and its lens on protecting democracy"
Post a Comment