[Editor’s Note: When Jacob Remes isn’t using his superpowers to fight crime, he toils as a PhD candidate in history at Duke University, where he’s writing a dissertation about the Salem Fire and the Halifax explosion. You can find more information here. And if you’d like to write a TDIH, please let me know.]
The workers at Korn Leather Company in Salem, Mass., made embossed patent leather by coating leather with a solution made of scrap celluloid film, alcohol, and amyl-acetate, and then applying steam heat. On this day in 1914, at about 1:30 in the afternoon, something went terribly wrong, and—perhaps not surprisingly given the flammable nature of the work—the whole rickety structure caught fire. Half an hour later, the fire had spread to fifteen more buildings, forcing 300 workers to flee. By 7:00 that evening, the fire crossed into the Point, a tightly packed neighborhood of three- and four-story tenements, filled with the immigrants who worked at Salem’s leather factories and the enormous Naumkeag Steam Cotton Company.
The Salem Evening News reported:
The rush of the flames through the Point district was the wildest of the conflagration, the flames leaping from house to house with incredible rapidity. Police officers and citizens went from house to house in the district when it was seen that it must fall a prey to the flames, warning the occupants to get out and get out as quickly as possible. Soon the streets were thronged with men, women and children, carrying in their arms all they could of their belongings, while wagons, push carts and now and then an automobile were pressed into service in the removal of goods.
The fire burned through the night, and by the time the fire reached the Naumkeag cotton mill, it was too hot; although the factory was equipped with modern devices to stop fires, it burned down, leaving 3,000 people without jobs. All told, the fire destroyed 3,150 houses and 50 factories and left 18,380 individuals homeless, jobless, or both. Of these people, nearly half were French-Canadian, the group that dominated the Point. “St. Joseph’s structure is not only destroyed, but the whole parish has been scattered to the winds,” the Salem Evening News wrote that week of the neighborhood’s French-Canadian parish. Many camped for weeks at nearby Forest River Park, under the watchful eye and armed authority of the National Guard.
Fires were endemic to 19th-century industrial cities. Just in the 35 years preceding the Salem Fire, Chicago (1871), Boston (1872), Seattle (1889), St. John’s, Nfld. (1892), Hull and Ottawa (1900), Jacksonville, Fla. (1901), Toronto (1904), Baltimore (1904), and San Francisco (1906), and Chelsea, Mass. (1908), among others, all suffered major conflagrations. But changes in building and firefighting meant that in the twentieth century, large-scale urban fires declined drastically. Automobiles required clear roadways, so the flammable material that used to often sit in streets, blocking fire engines and spreading fires, was gradually removed. Progressive building codes—like one proposed and rejected in Salem in 1910 that would have required noncombustible roofs—and ever-more professionalized fire-fighting helped too. If the Salem Fire was not the last of its kind, it was among the last. That at most six people died in Salem is testament to the strides made in preventing, containing and fighting fires, even when fire departments could not ultimately save property. In 1951, the National Fire Protection Association published a list of major conflagrations in the first half of the twentieth century. After 1914, only one urban fire came close to Salem’s in the number of buildings burned or the estimated dollar amount of damages: a fire in Astoria, Oregon, in 1922 that destroyed 30 city blocks and caused $10 million in damages.
Yet the decline of industrial conflagrations did not, of course, spell the end to urban disasters. Three and a half years after the Salem Fire, a ship explosion destroyed about a quarter of Halifax, N.S., killing around 2,000 people. The Halifax Explosion was an accident, but it heralded the urban destructions of the 20th century. All sides of the Second World War unleashed massive, unprecedented on cities. Geographer Ken Hewitt estimates that strategic bombing destroyed 39% of Germany’s total urban area and an astounding 50% of Japan’s. Neither these statistics nor the equally startling numbers of dead and bombed out (60,595 dead and 750,000 homeless in the U.K., 550,000 and 7,500,000, respectively in Germany, and 500,000 and 8,300,000 in Japan) adequately convey the destruction of families, communities, and institutions that came with these urban destructions. Twentieth century wars, their technology and ideology created a special brand of horror, which made their urban destructions starkly different from the industrial fires of the 19th century. When urban civilians became common targets, cities were made military symbols. It is not for nothing that terrorists have twice targeted the World Trade Center, a symbol of American urban might and culture.
If urban destruction in the 19th century was largely a result of industrial accidents and the destructions of the 20th century were from war, the 21st century may be a period of meteorological and seismological disasters. While there remains scientific disagreement about the effect of climate change on the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, there is mounting evidence that global warming has contributed to a greater proportion of storms being particularly bad. Global warming also contributes to other meteorological disasters, like floods, heat-waves, and droughts. Moreover, the chronic effects of global warming, especially coastal erosion, means that cities are less able to withstand extreme storms and floods. This means that cities will be more susceptible to destruction stemming from events that global warming will not increase, like tsunamis. There is some evidence, too, that even on land seismological disasters will likely become worse this century, since urbanization—especially the growth of shanties and slums in global megacities—leads to more death and destruction when earthquakes strike. As always, the social effects of these “natural” disasters are felt most by the poor, both globally and within developed countries.
13 comments
June 25, 2009 at 8:12 pm
ekogan
June 25, 2009 at 8:36 pm
ekogan
1923 Kanto earthquake – ~100,000 fatalities
1995 Kobe earthquake – 6,434 fatalities
Rich countries can mitigate earthquake damage with better building codes. Same with hurricanes and tsunamis. See Galveston, TX and it’s seawall
What really kills cities is economics.
June 25, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Ahistoricality
What really kills cities is economics.
And short-sighted, hubristic environmental mismanagement (c.f. New Orleans, California wildfires, etc.)
June 25, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Vance
Only six dead, with 3,000 houses burned down? Pretty impressive — makes me wonder if the figures were minimized.
Do you know what became of the suggestion, a few years ago, that the true death toll of the San Francisco fire was much higher than reported?
June 25, 2009 at 11:19 pm
andrew
The more info here link in the intro isn’t working.
June 26, 2009 at 4:26 am
Matt McKeon
One feature making bombing a different event than the massive 19th industrial fires is the repetition of the bombing. Cities weren’t bombed, they were bombed every day, for weeks or months.
June 26, 2009 at 6:16 am
jacob
Thanks for your comments, folks. I’m not sure if ekogan is offering a critique of my argument, or merely adding another point about the destruction of cities. It is certainly true that as cities and countries get richer, they are ordinarily better able to prevent fatalities in disasters, since building codes, rescue operations, and medical treatment all improve. It’s a corollary to the rule that poor people always suffer more from disasters, whether on a macro scale (on a global scale, poor countries suffer from more and worse disasters than rich ones) or on a micro scale (within a city, poorer people and neighborhoods will generally suffer more). If you’re interested, I recommend Ted Steinberg’s Acts of God and the first chapter of Karen Sawislak’s Smoldering City.
As for the death toll, Vance, no, I don’t think it’s likely that there were many unreported deaths. Handfuls (if that) of missing people were listed in newspapers, but then those listings were invariably followed by stories about how the missing person was found. If there had been more deaths, they probably would have been among the French Canadians, and I think I would have seen them discussed in the French-language newspaper. I think more likely is that the number of buildings destroyed is somewhat exaggerated. Among other things, in the aftermath, it was to Salem’s benefit to make the fire seem worse than it had been, because they were trying to get relief money from a reluctant federal congress. But more than that, I think it’s a real testament to the way that neighborhoods, given sufficient warning and enough prior organization, can mobilize and get people out. The newspaper article I quote is misleading; I don’t think that it was primarily to the police’s credit that people evacuated, but rather to the credit of friends, neighbors, and relatives.
I don’t know about the San Francisco question, but I wouldn’t be surprised. San Francisco boosters worked very hard to get the 1906 disaster called (and thought of) as a fire, rather than an earthquake, since fires could (and as you can in my list, did) happen anywhere, while earthquakes were specific to California. Minimizing the number of reported deaths seems of a piece with that.
As for the question of what kills cities, I think the best answer is that disasters don’t do it unaided. All the cities in that list of late 19th and early 20th c. fires came back–as did Salem and Halifax. Galveston declined as a port not because of the 1900 storm (shipping volume rather quickly exceeded pre-storm levels) but because it’s competitor, Houston, built a bigger and better port. We all know that it wasn’t Katrina that came so close to destroying New Orleans, but a failure of government.
Oh, and that first “more information” link should point to http://www.duke.edu/~jar20.
June 26, 2009 at 8:46 am
Matt McKeon
A small fact about the Halifax Explosion. Boston, and Massachusetts had send a lot of aid in the wake of the massive disaster, and the people of Nova Scotia have send a Christmas tree to Boston each year as a thanks.
June 26, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Sir Charles
ari,
I was born in Salem and lived there for a number of years — and had relatives who worked in both the leather and textile industries there. (I logged a lot of time at Forest River Park as a kid.)
I am shocked to say that I don’t think I ever knew about this huge fire — I’ll have to ask the parents about it this weekend.
I would imagine that 18,000 plus people jobless or homeless would have been at least half of the town in 1914, if not substantially more than that.
June 26, 2009 at 2:57 pm
andrew
The Canadian history resources link (following the more information link) looks incredibly useful. I’m not actually researching Canadian history, but I’m trying to keep track of reference pages on various topics.
On the post topic: are rumors of unreported deaths a regular occurrence following natural disasters? I’ve heard similar stories mentioned about other disasters.
Finally, I’m on a public computer that has only IE. I have no idea how people with that browser can read these threads. Too bad the wordpress people can’t figure out how to fix that.
June 27, 2009 at 9:29 am
jacob
Sir Charles- I’m very curious what your parents tell you about the fire. You’re right that it’s nearly entirely forgotten (though somewhere on Lafayette Street there’s a small park with a memorial flagpole). By the way, Salem’s population was about 45,000 I think (without checking my notes).
June 27, 2009 at 12:10 pm
fromlaurelstreet
I looked the Salem fire up in the Library of Congress photo archives.
The caption to one photo (thumbnail so not very legible) says:
There are also two panoramic photographs which show enormous devastation.
Go to the link and search “Salem Massachusetts 1914” and you’ll find them.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pp/pphome.html
June 27, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Sir Charles
Jacob,
My parents, who are in their late 70s, were very much aware of the fire. My mother grew up in Salem (just off of LaFayette Street) and said that for people of her parents’ generation that this was a huge and traumatic event. Evidently people resorted to living in tent cities on the Salem Common for a period of time.
By the time my mother was a young girl the city was evidently all rebuilt and retained a pretty thriving manufacturing sector until industries like leather and textiles began deserting it in the 1950s. (My father actually worked in one of the mills in the early 50s before the company ran away to North Carolina.)