The Great Riots of New York: 1712-1873

So it’s fitting that Joel Tyler Headley opened this 1873 study of disorder with the revolt of Africans against their owners in 1712. This extraordinary event was not properly a riot. It was a rebellion, with slaves killing whites, and burning symbols of their authority, before retreating into the forests north of today’s Chambers Street. At least two of the African rebels chose to kill themselves rather than return to shackles and certain doom.
That rebellion played under much of what was to come in New York history and in Headley’s study. The bloodshed of 1712 was vivid proof that some human beings would not accept the authority of those who ruled them. They would not accept the power of distant kings, or any claim they might make to divine legitimacy. Now would they accept the authority of their local agents, secular or religious. In revolt they said: we are men, not chattel. We prefer to die on our feet.

Such a declaration (its purposes must be inferred because there are no known documents of rebellious intent) certainly played under the events of 1741. Modern scholars are divided over whether this was a true revolt or an exercise in paranoia similar to the witchcraft trials in Salem. But 1712 surely offered credence to the fears of 1741, with its mysterious fires, and rumors of an alliance of Africans with underclass Irish people. Before it was over, thirteen Africans were burned at the stake and sixteen were hanged, along with four whites (two of the whites were women). More than seventy were banished from New York, the Africans sent to the West Indies for "seasoning."

Much of the fear that ruled New York in 1741 came from the grand jury testimony of a white indentured servant named Mary Burton. Headley is wrong when he describes her as a slave; she was almost certainly Irish, and wanted desperately to be free of her indenture. At the end of her many days of testimony, she was given what the grand jurors had promised in exchange for informing: her freedom, plus a considerable sum of money. She then vanished from history, presumably into a colonial form of the witness protection program.

Headley’s account of the riot at the Astor Place Opera House in 1849 is a reasonably accurate outline of the events, but contains little social or political context. The riot, as Headley tells us, was based on the rivalry of two actors: the Englishman William MacReady and the American Edwin Forrest. Their feud took place on both sides of the Atlantic. Forrest was the darling of crowds in the theaters of the Bowery, who appreciated his vigorous, muscular style of performing Shakespeare. By all accounts, Macready’s style was subtler, more refined, with elocution counting more than vulgar passion. When Forrest brought his acting to London in 1846, he was heckled, and believed that MacReady was one of the instigators. He went to see Macready perform and heckled back. Then MacReady came to tour America in 1849, with a final stop in New York. The stage literally was set for confrontation.


			Excerpt: from Pete Hamill's intro to The Great Riots of New York: 1712-1873 The fear of disorder was part of the fabric of Anglo-Dutch New York from its beginnings in the 17th century. After the British Crown took over for the last time in TK, the conquered Dutch kept their own cautious, even surly distance from their conquerors. But they were not the primary cause of municipal unease among those who ruled the tiny town at the foot of Manhattan Island. The population of enslaved Africans were. At one point, almost a quarter of the population was made up of human beings who were owned by others, the way horses were owned.
	So it’s fitting that Joel Tyler Headley opened this 1873 study of disorder with the revolt of Africans against their owners in 1712. This extraordinary event was not properly a riot. It was a rebellion, with slaves killing whites, and burning symbols of their authority, before retreating into the forests north of today’s Chambers Street. At least two of the African rebels chose to kill themselves rather than return to shackles and certain doom. That rebellion played under much of what was to come in New York history and in Headley’s study. The bloodshed of 1712 was vivid proof that some human beings would not accept the authority of those who ruled them. They would not accept the power of distant kings, or any claim they might make to divine legitimacy. Now would they accept the authority of their local agents, secular or religious. In revolt they said: we are men, not chattel. We prefer to die on our feet. Such a declaration (its purposes must be inferred because there are no known documents of rebellious intent) certainly played under the events of 1741. Modern scholars are divided over whether this was a true revolt or an exercise in paranoia similar to the witchcraft trials in Salem. But 1712 surely offered credence to the fears of 1741, with its mysterious fires, and rumors of an alliance of Africans with underclass Irish people. Before it was over, thirteen Africans were burned at the stake and sixteen were hanged, along with four whites (two of the whites were women). More than seventy were banished from New York, the Africans sent to the West Indies for "seasoning." Much of the fear that ruled New York in 1741 came from the grand jury testimony of a white indentured servant named Mary Burton. Headley is wrong when he describes her as a slave; she was almost certainly Irish, and wanted desperately to be free of her indenture. At the end of her many days of testimony, she was given what the grand jurors had promised in exchange for informing: her freedom, plus a considerable sum of money. She then vanished from history, presumably into a colonial form of the witness protection program. Headley’s account of the riot at the Astor Place Opera House in 1849 is a reasonably accurate outline of the events, but contains little social or political context. The riot, as Headley tells us, was based on the rivalry of two actors: the Englishman William MacReady and the American Edwin Forrest. Their feud took place on both sides of the Atlantic. Forrest was the darling of crowds in the theaters of the Bowery, who appreciated his vigorous, muscular style of performing Shakespeare. By all accounts, Macready’s style was subtler, more refined, with elocution counting more than vulgar passion. When Forrest brought his acting to London in 1846, he was heckled, and believed that MacReady was one of the instigators. He went to see Macready perform and heckled back. Then MacReady came to tour America in 1849, with a final stop in New York. The stage literally was set for confrontation.