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.