Why has American society developed so violently?
Why has American society developed so violently?
Violence in American society is a vast topic starting at its birth in the 1776 Revolution and continuing to the present day. Despite the diversity of each period of violence there are common features that resurface in each one. The use of violence to found the nation and also to preserve it in Civil War, legitimatised it with the belief that "violence in a good cause pays"[1]. In many ways this accounts for the spill over of violence into society in the countless hostilities including whites against blacks and also Indians, struggles of labour against industrialists, clashes of religious and ethnic factions and also conflicts of ideologies. Violence has appeared on both the extreme right and left and the overriding factor in all cases seems to be a fear of the unknown, whether it is fear of the alien, his religion, his ideology or of change in the status quo.
The first group to arise, that made use of violence to achieve its aims, was the nativists. The term nativism is broad in scope covering hostility and violence against un-American people including Catholics, Native Indians, Irish, Jews and Orientals. It also covers violence against foreign ideologies such as communism, mostly seen in the two Red Scares (1920's and 1950's). Although nativism changed its features and the context of each crusade of persecution was different, the underlying message remained the same. Peoples and ideologies were intruders into the promised land of America threatening its paradise and all that it stood for. In many Americans' eyes they stood for disorder and were scapegoats for all the political, economic and social instability/change that was occurring. And they were prepared to use violence to stop them.
One group of nativists whose violence has been well documented was that campaigning against the "alien church"[2] of Catholicism. The revolution diminished much of the early Anti-Catholicism but violence soon reared its head again with the number of Catholics increasing through immigration. The burning of the Ursuline Convent in 1834 by a mob of Protestants was one of the first violent incidents. Many Catholics were also Irish, adding fuel to the nativists' beliefs that foreigners were organising all kinds of overthrow plots. Scenes of great rioting occurred between nativists and Irish Catholics, particularly in Philadelphia in the 1840's. Jews, Germans and also people from the Far East also found themselves persecuted. In the case of Jews, violence was often due to economic jealousy, whilst in the case of the Orientals it was commonly racist. Often people did not like the cultural heritage these groups brought and the fear of the alien brought violence.
These events however also have to be viewed in context as the times themselves were generally very violent. There were attacks on abolitionist leaders, and Mormons as well as urban riots in places like New Yorkwhere gangs embarked on murderous battles. Violence was indeed the tool of the day, and therefore was perhaps seen as a legitimate weapon especially if used at a low-level for a conservative cause. But the strand of American superiority and desire to resist the tide of change brought by vast numbers of immigrants, is also very obvious. By the 1850's this tide of nativism was swiftly divided with the advent of another cause - slavery.
Nativism was also evident in conflicts with the Native Americans, marked by often intense violence, continuing from 1607 for more than 300 years. More so than the hostility to immigrants, the hostility to Native Americans was characterised by a view of US superiority and domination. Initially a scientific case was put for Anglo-Saxon superiority but that diminished with the progress of science in the 19th century. It was racial prejudice and greed that had a brutalising influence on the UScharacter and pushed them to take rich land from the Indians, move them from place to place and also ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Nativism was also evident in conflicts with the Native Americans, marked by often intense violence, continuing from 1607 for more than 300 years. More so than the hostility to immigrants, the hostility to Native Americans was characterised by a view of US superiority and domination. Initially a scientific case was put for Anglo-Saxon superiority but that diminished with the progress of science in the 19th century. It was racial prejudice and greed that had a brutalising influence on the UScharacter and pushed them to take rich land from the Indians, move them from place to place and also deal ruthlessly with any resistance that they met. It was considered just, as it was promoting superior western civilisation, so violence was again the necessary means to a good end. Although again the context for why the violence took place was different, there is an underling fear of unknown people. Furthermore Brown argued that the Indian wars "furthered our proclivity to violence"[3] and formed a trigger happy nation. Violence became "our national nemesis"[4], too often resorted to when other means were available.
What most people think of when they consider American violence is violence between whites and blacks, dating from slavery into the 20th century and the civil rights movement. Although slave revolts had always been violently put down, real violence occurred much later. The debate on slavery began in the 1850's and its abolition after the civil war opened "one of the most violent periods of American history"[5]. It was a period when most violence against blacks was initiated by whites, in an attempt to gain control over the free blacks. It was characterised by lynching and riots as well as the emergence of the first of the Ku Klux Klans which used intimidation, violence and threats to force blacks into submission. From 1882-1903 at least 1,985 Negroes were killed by Southern lynch mobs and vigilante movements. This violence was often allowed due to the frontier regimes and the lack of law and order. Again the violence can be seen as a product of its time with the tool of assassination becoming more prominent, and countless violent family feuds occurring with general urban unrest due to economic expansion. Again the idea of white supremacy underlined fear of the blacks, not fear because they were new to America, but fear because their status had changed the existing order.
Hostility emerged again in the 60's and 70's with the civil rights movement. However there was a distinct change in this movement compared to earlier violence of the Progressive era. Now it was blacks being the aggressors, protesting at their squalid conditions in the ghettos whilst whites experienced higher standards of living. This new feature was brought about by an increase in black pride, a heavier concentration of blacks in the cities and an increase in white respect for blacks. From 1963-70 there were over 500 race riots with 263 people killed. This second period of white-black violence is very different from the first and did not have the goal of preserving the status quo (nativism) but rather of progress and equality. Nativist groups like third Ku Klux Klan did try to counteract it with more violence, nevertheless reforms were won. Again we have an example of violence achieving positive results, the end being increased rights and desegregation. It happened in a general "climate of confrontation and threat of violence"[6] but was a different kind of violence, now an oppressed group stood up for its rights.
The examples above are of violence concerning those on the Right, the more conservative people of America. However the left have also employed and rebuffed their fair share of violence. The main theme of violence has been between labour organisations and industrialists, particular during the Progressive era of spectacular growth where the capitalists took on the militant unions in their demands for higher wages. The use of strikes was a major weapon for labour organisations and in many cases violence broke out but was countered with violence from employers, troops and Pinkerton detectives. Industrial growth had grouped workers together thus providing them with opportunities to join unions such as the AFL. Inflation as well as the frustration of the working class over immigrants having jobs during periods of depression incited them to violence. Violent strikes were generated out of a fear of what industrialisation was bringing and a desire for reform of the current unstable situation. Workers showed fear through strikes which on most occasions became synonymous with violence.
The other violence that was associated with the left was during the two Red Scares. In both cases there was a change from a fixation on un-American religions, peoples or economic conditions to a fear of alien ideologies. This can be seen as a new form of nativism, of defending American ideology. The first Red Scare was stimulated by Great War nationalism as well as a desire for scapegoats to blame for all the strikes and walk outs. Divisions were set up in the Justice Department to look into un-American activities. In late 1919/early 1920 agents conducted the Palmer raids breaking into meeting places, arresting and beating up everyone present. Most of those arrested were innocent but were badly treated in custody and following that 3,500 people were deported. Many historians look at this Red Scare in context, seeing its uniqueness in that the violence was conducted this time by the government, both federal and state whereas previous nativists never really had any government power. Others said it was a response to the social stress of the war as it had changed traditional values and the scare offered opportunities to some trying to get back to stable order. It was also during an age of uneven expansion where not all prospered equally, there being many losers, especially small town folk. This led to the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, which unlike its predecessor and successor, concentrated not so much on blacks but more against the well to do and immoral who were from the same backgrounds as themselves. It was small wonder that a lot of violence came from the less well off, rural folk protesting at the inequality. But the simple underlying fact is - they feared the changes that were taking place.
The second Red scare, from 1946-68, although born in completely different circumstances, produced violence of a similar nature for similar reasons. The international Cold War climate whipped by hysteria with events such as the Korean War of the 1950's, Communist Victory in China and the USSR's explosion of its first atomic bomb in 1949, all turning the tide against the red menace. The person to exploit this fear was Senator Joseph McCarthy, who proclaimed that he had lists of communist working within government. This produced a violent purge of employees with many put in prison and harassed, even though in most cases they were innocent. Several people were executed, the most notorious case being the trial of the Rosenbergs, who were executed in 1953. But again the era was notable for its violence particularly the violence of assassination (President Kennedy & Martin Luther King in particular). There was widespread civil disobedience in protest over the Vietnam War and civil rights for blacks. So in no sense should this violence surprise us as American society in general was "reacting to the upheavals of the age"[7] with people hitting out against what they disliked or feared, whether it be wars, ideologies, or bad living conditions.
Many historians such as Richard Brown have claimed that "violence has accompanied virtually every stage and aspect of our national existence"[8] and indeed many of the main struggles of US history were won with violence. Often violence was seen as an inglorious means to a glorious end and Brown argued that its frequent use to resolve problems meant that people perhaps didn't view its consequences so seriously. It can also be argued that American was simply experiencing over a shorter length of time, the struggles that all nations experienced with immigration and industrialisation and therefore was no more violent than any other country. Jeffreys-Jones takes this view, claiming that the assumption that America is "a violence country with a violent past"[9] can be wrong as violence always receives a disproportionate amount of attention and is exaggerated because it sells and was commonly highlighted by politicians for political motives. Ayers agrees with this point claiming that many are "blinded by our preconceptions"[10] and shouldn't generalise all American society as being violent. Bennet claimed that the antialien movements that brought about so much violence were results of people becoming uncomfortable with all the social mobility and changes in environment. They sought comfort in communities within a subculture and called it America and were able to react violently to anything outside it, in defence of their values. The contexts always have to be taken into account when looking at each period of violence as they do shed a lot of light on why each one happened. But one overriding fear that has and always will incite people to violence is fear of the unknown. This is what most violence in American demonstrates.
Bibliography
David H. Bennett, "The Party of Fear", Chapel Hill & London, 1988
Edward L. Ayers, "Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the 19th Century American South", Oxford, 1984
Richard M. Brown, "Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American violence and vigilantism", Oxford, 1975
Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, "Violence and Reform in American History", New York 1978
Richard M. Brown "American Violence" Spectrum Books, 1970
[1] Richard M. Brown, "Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American violence and vigilantism", P42
[2] David H. Bennett, "The Party of Fear",
[3] Richard M. Brown, "Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American violence and vigilantism", P26
[4] Richard M. Brown "American Violence" P4
[5] Richard M. Brown, "Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American violence and vigilantism", P7
[6] David H. Bennett, "The Party of Fear", P332
[7] David H. Bennett, "The Party of Fear", P9
[8] Richard M. Brown, "Strain of Violence: Historical Studies of American violence and vigilantism", P3
[9] Rhodri Jeffreys-Jones, "Violence and Reform in American History", P3
[10] Edward L. Ayers, "Vengeance and Justice: Crime and Punishment in the 19th Century American South", P 3