Frank Steunenberg Assassination
This source was solely based off of Harry Orchard, the murderer that leaves a lot of unanswered questions. Though he explains the events leading up to the assassination in detail, I found myself still unsatisfied with his story. Not that I think it’s false, but because his story doesn’t put all the pieces together. Why wait 6 years? Why did Orchard do it; what was the benefit for him? Was Steunenberg’s assassination actually because of the WFM? The story that Orchard told was well-detailed, almost scripted, actually, but it only tells the story of what newspapers could have made out from the crime scene. The motives, reasons, benefits, and culprit(s) behind it all are left unanswered.
War in C’ouer D’Alene
This source was written by Spokane Weekly Review, which I am assuming is a magazine or newspaper of some sort. The source itself, I will trust, is very factual which in a lot of cases is a good thing to leave the biases aside. However, sometimes, it’s hard to determine what really went on when the tone of the oppressed and/or the tone of the oppressors are not present in the text. While in the source of the assassination of Frank Steunenberg lacked more outside facts, this source lack the inside biases. I wish this article from the magazine/newspaper came with full personal interviews with the people that were involved in the war–it’d be easier to paint a clearer picture.
The Ludlow Massacre
The title of this source already struck me surprised, “The United States Commission on Industrial Relations Charges the Colorado National Guard with Inticing Violence, 1913”. For so many years, from what I’ve read, the government has had no action towards labor violence to help oppressed workers. Yet this source claims to be blaming the violence on the Colorado National Guard, not the workers. What was so extreme about Ludlow that it trumped the near seventy massacred in C’ouer D’Alene?
The address by George Engel was completely surprising from a man who, according to him, was wrongly accused for murder. He stated that “[he] was in [his] apartment” when the bomb exploded in Haymarket Square which killed a number of people. However, instead of trying to clear his name, his address does the complete opposite. Boldly pointing out the corruption in the government towards the working class, he didn’t deny his stance as anti-capitalistic. His point in making the address was not to try to justify his actions or attempt to clear his name; it was to highlight the extortions made upon the working class. His choice to be anti-capitalistic was merely his choice, but the address gives light to the events that has led to numerous workers to protest and strike against companies. Is this problem still prevalent in our society today, even with the unions available? If so, are the unions doing a good job of preventing violent strikes such as the Haymarket Bombing?
Written by white journalists, the two accounts on Stono Rebellion was written to not to give a quick history lesson on what can be read off of Wikipedia. The accounts were written to point out, if any, the differences between the two stories that were told by two different races, which could put their stories in different perspectives as well. However, between the Family Account story and the unidentified white official account of the Stono Rebellion, the details of how it started, who was killed, when it happened, and where it happened didn’t seem to have much differences as I thought it would. I expected for the white official account of the rebellion to have taken the event into an over-exaggerated rebellion and paint it as a mass cold blooded murder, but it didn’t. In both accounts, the killings were accurate and the death toll was nearly the same. Meaning that, the Stono Rebellion was astoundingly frightening, to both the white Americans and the slaves, that no one could exaggerate or twist the story it any further.
Bottom line, the story that these two accounts create is a retaliation of angry laborers. Years and decades of mistreatment and unfairness finally drove a group of twenty slaves to lash out and let the white men get a taste of their own brutal medicine. America was in a dark and violent hole that didn’t seem to have an end to. I just wonder now, why is it that the slaves didn’t rebel earlier? Was it fear? Loyalty? Was their life worth decades and centuries of pain and suffering? And with that, if slaves did rebel earlier in our history, how could have things changed today? How could have discrimination and poverty been different?
There are many ways to answer this question, but I’d like to focus on one important contributing factor. A majority of people may say that the biggest reason as to why there is this never ending gang violence in society is because of the fight for territories and/or distribution of drugs. While I agree that they are correct, I think there is a side that is forgotten. What some people may overlook about gangs is that it is a safe haven and a brotherhood to some, if not all, of its members. A lot of times, these kids choose to become part of a gang because in the impoverished and dangerous neighborhood that they live in, a gang feels safe. A gang becomes a family that will fight for you to the death, literally. When a gang member is threatened by someone outside of the gang, the whole gang is threatened as well. Now say that the one who threatened is part of another gang from a different neighborhood. What then? Now we’ve got two gangs who are at war with each other to protect their members. Gang violence, is sparked not only by territories or drugs, but the fight for each other as well. The brotherhood that each member has committed to is for life, and for that, they fight for one another until they die.