Test of Time

Winston Churchill said “History is written by the victors.” However, it is also true that it is written by those who survive. The survivors are the last witness of real event that transpired and they would tell a different history. Yet over time even this would disappear unless told to others, an oral tradition. Such is the case of the Brooklyn Theater fire: however, even with 700 survivors and bystanders the history of the Brooklyn Theater fire has gotten lost in history. Few know of this tragic event, and to this day there is not even a sign at the location. An event that took the lives of 300 in 1876 passes unnoticed today. The Brooklyn Theater Fire is written in various historical archives ranging from the Brooklyn Historical Society to the New York Times interview with Kate Claxton. Kate Claxton is a primary source as her being an eyewitness to within the theater just prior and all the way through the fire. However the interview was conducted 9 years after the incident. On the other hand the historical files found in the Brooklyn Historical Society about the “Guide to The Brooklyn Theater Fire Relief Association Records, 1876-1879” was started following the event. However there is very little detail on the events inside the theater and what is provided is a paragraph on the whole event. This is seen as a secondary source. Therefore is seen as a slightly less reliable but more credible due to the fact that it should have been checked and confirmed by those involved in making it.

The melodrama, “The Two Orphans” was playing on the stage of the Brooklyn theatre on December 5, 1876 with a full house in attendance. Over a thousand people were packed inside with most of them in the upper gallery seats, comprised of families and large groups of people that came to see the show at an affordable price. The show had become quite popular and had been going on for some time, however that night’s performance at the Brooklyn theatre would be different. At 11:15 PM, shortly after the opening of the last act, a fire broke out, apparently caused by scenery touching the gas lights. A common problem with gas lamps inside structures back in the days of wooden frame and floors, especially a stage with props and backdrops. Much like the Titanic after itself the theater staff and performers were slow to respond to and inform the audience of the danger. Then when the fire started raging so did the people started panicking and running for the only two exits. The building had three levels of seats and only one staircase that ran the height of the building. These factors led to people collapsing down the steps and being trampled, adding to the jam that already existed. Many on the upper level died of asphyxiation or when the building finally collapsed on itself in fifteen to twenty minutes. Over 300 died that night, most of them being families and the not so well off. The top tier had no direct way down and a major jam developed on the second tier staircase. This led to trampling and falls, while the upper tier died of asphyxiation and falling debris. This is validated by historical records found at the Brooklyn Historical Society and “This Day in History” on history.com.

Nine years after the fire Kate Claxton recalled and told her story to the Philadelphia Times which later reach the home of the Brooklyn Theater Fire, New York and The Times. She recalled how the stage was set up and her laying down in character on straw for the play. She went on to say that she “was startled by a rumbling noise, which sounded as if the ceiling of the the theatre was falling”. Then the curtain rose and she did not dwell on the noise and remained in character. Then as she said her lines and the play progressed she heard the voice of Lilian Cleaves who said “save yourself for God’s sake: I am running now”. This news made Kate Claxton gaze up and spot the sparks and “little tongues of fire licking the edges of the drops and borders that hung in the flies”. Nevertheless, she played her part and did not show fear, same as Harry Murdoch and Mrs. Farren followed by Mr. J. B. Studley. However, Mrs. Farren whispered to her “the fire is steadily gaining”. At this time the fire could no longer be “concealed from the audience” as the sparks were falling on stage and yet they played on. Panic had taken full swing and only then did “we saw that it was useless to attempt to proceed”. In spite of this Mr. Studley said to the people: “ The play will go on and the fire will be put out. Be quiet Get back to your seats”. Kate Claxton then saw that “it was madness to delay longer as we were now almost surrounded by flames”. She went and took Mr. Murdoch by the arm to run but he pulled away in a daze and went to his dressing room where he and Claude Burroughs parished. At this time all of the exits were engulfed in flames and all seemed lost. However, it was at this time that Kate Claxton remembered of a subterranean passage built by Mrs. Conway to the box office from the star dressing room. This was Kate Claxton’s dressing room and she took her neighbour Maude Harrison with her through the tunnel and to the box office. After breaking through the door in the office they were safely outside.

This two accounts of December 5, 1876 during the Brooklyn Theater fire have the same beginning and end. The fire that would take the lives of 300 began at the start of the last act and yet none of the actors showed any sign of it to the audience. They played their parts as the fire grew and their chance to escape diminished along with that of the audience. Then when the fire was visible all went into panic and many died while attempting to flee. however; the details and view of events vary. First is a very basic overview of the causes and effects of the Brooklyn Theater fire told after it had come to pass by historical archives. Kate Claxton was in the middle of all of these events when they transpired and so it is more personal. There are a great deal of details that give us a clear understanding of her position and feelings at that time, one of them being her guilt over the fact that she went along with what everyone else was doing, covering up the truth from the audience. “The curtain should have been kept down until the flames had been extinguished or if it had been found impossible… the audience should have been calmly informed that… some unfortunate occurrence behind the scenery compiled a suspension of the performance….Raising the curtain created a draft which fanned the flames into fury”. There is no such notion in the historical database, no looking back at the event in another way only what happened in a very neutral tone. All the emotion was taken away along with the exaggeration that showed that this was viewed by people vs a machine. Like a true war story, people need to hear what the person saw or thought that they saw. Such as a man being swallowed whole by sea of panicking patrones as they dashed for their lives down the steps. Man dragging women and child back so they may be saved themselves. A likely compassion would be the events of the Titanic as all hope ran away with grace, and chivalry from the hearts and minds of all.

The Brooklyn Theater Fire is written in various historical archives ranging from the Brooklyn Historical Society to the New York Times. Nevertheless, what is written in one may be found wanting in the other. Kate Claxton first hand account has detail that is not available in the historical documents and yet it told much later, giving time a chance to warp memories. Yet it is still a primary source from which other sources could be built on. In the end both tell a woeful tale of a great loss of life, yet one is filled with life and emotion. Those who live are the real winners and history is theirs. “the pen is mightier than the sword”.

Robert, S. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://brooklynhistory.org/library/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/arms_1977_049_theatre.pdf

(n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/hundreds-die-in-brooklyn-theater-fire

Montrose, M. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.brownstoner.com/blog/2010/06/walkabout-the-b-2/

The brooklyn theater fire . (1885, November 30). The New York Times . Retrieved from http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F50D11FD355A1A738DDDA90B94D9415B8

Richman, R. (2011, June 17th). “the two orphans,” with a new home. Retrieved from http://www.green-wood.com/2011/the-two-orphans-with-a-new-home/

The Brooklyn Bridge is the first thing someone might think about Brooklyn, there are various reasons why. When we think of the Brooklyn Bridge all we see are the tangible features that it offers us. The events that occurred while developing the bridge and even after it was built are not visible to us which means many people are not aware of them. Thousands of New York residents cross this bridge every day yet not many would know of controversies that have occurred involving the Brooklyn Bridge. Two distinct stories lie in the death of John A. Roebling and the Stampede of 1883. One story revolves around the architect responsible of the Bridge and his death while the other story revolves a tragedy that could’ve been prevented. These accounts have similarities and differences in which we will analyze.

The man responsible for the Brooklyn Bridge went by the name of John A. Roebling. He planned to make the Bridge the biggest suspension bridge during its time due to new ways of building suspension bridges[1]. After construction began, tragedy soon struck. Roebling, while being the architect was also assisting in building the bridge. He was on site one day taking compass readings on some pilings at a ferry slip. He wasn’t aware when the boat banged into the slip, his foot was violently caught on the pilings[2]. He was rushed to his sons house in Brooklyn Heights, not too far from where the bridge stands today. There the doctors amputated his toes and all seemed to be fine. That was until he passed away three weeks later on due to an illness. The tragedy wouldn’t end here as his son took over the project, his son and various workers died to diseases coming from working at the Bridge. This controversy would spread throughout Brooklyn as it was historical tragedies.

The Bridge was alas opened to the public on May 24, 1883. It took just 6 days for a tragedy to happen. The Bridge, being new was asked to be tested on its endurance by a man by the name of P.T Barnum. He proposed an elephant march along with various animals to promote his circus and at the same time prove to the public that the bridge was safe and stable[3]. He was denied this event but on May 30, 1883, a huge stampede was unleashed. On the day of May 30^th, rumors spread throughout the bridge that it was going to collapse. This let out a huge fear on people as they rushed to get off the bridge, trampling people without care as their main goal was to save their own lives. No one trusted the bridge so when those comments where made, a terrible stampede began. In the end, 12 people were trampled and 36 left injured[4]. The scene was terrible and controversy let out because if P.T Barnum would’ve been allowed to do his elephant march, this tragedy could’ve been prevented.

These two accounts are surrounded by death and sorrow as the lives of innocent people were lost. That is what is similar between the death of the man responsible for the Brooklyn Bridge, John A. Roebling and the Stampede of 1883. Another similarity is that both of these events could’ve been prevented. The death of Roebling could’ve been prevented if he would’ve never been out on the work site as he was not a construction worker. The stampede could’ve also been prevented if P.T Barnum would’ve been allowed to perform his elephant march. Let’s move on to what differentiates both of these accounts. The death of Roebling was cause by machinery and unawareness of his surroundings while the deaths of the stampede were cause by human beings trampling others to death. Another difference is the after math, after Roebling died, his son and other workers also died constructing the Brooklyn Bridge while a year after the stampede, P.T Barnum was able to perform his march to prevent such event from happening again[5].

Now history can be defined as an argument on how we interpret the past[6]. This mean that many people view these accounts different as they can be viewed differently. Although both of these stories that revolve around the bridge are tragedies, they are also controversial and occurred through different events. One had a positive aftermath while another resulted in more deaths. They are distinct but also similar at the same time. It can be an example of how history can be found in years after an event occurred no matter how different or indifferent they may seem to be.