Johnstown Flood
Essay Preview: Johnstown Flood
Report this essay
McCullough presents a meticulously researched, detailed account of the Johnstown Flood of May 31st 1889, which provides arguments for why the disaster was both “the work of man” and “a visitation of providence”. However, it is apparent that McCullough believes that man was more responsible than nature/god for the extent of the catastrophe. In McCulloughs opinion, the storm that caused the flood was no more than the inevitable stimulus of the disaster, whereas the deferred maintenance and poor repairs on the dam were the primary reason that Johnstown was devastated in 1889. McCullough exposes the failed duties of Benjamin Ruff and other members of the South Fork Fishing and Hunting Club, whilst simultaneously questioning the responsibility of the Johnstown folk who were concerned about the safety of the dam but complacently trusted the wealthy, powerful club members to fulfil their responsibilities. McCullough clearly explains the debate that took place immediately after the flood, on what or whom was to blame for the disaster, by explaining the views of the press, the townspeople and the lawsuits that were filed. McCulloughs view is evident from the sub-title of his book. By placing the word “natural” within quotation marks, McCullough immediately suggests that the flood was unusual to any other, and implies that mankind has displaced its blame onto nature.
McCullough explains how Johnstown became an example of The Gilded Age industrialization prior to the 1889 disaster. The canal made Johnstown the busiest place in Cambria County in the 1820s. By the 1850s the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Cambria Iron Company began, and the population increased. There were about 30,000 people in the area before the flood. The Western Reservoir was built in the 1840s, but became generally known as the South Fork dam. It was designed to supply extra water for the Main Line canal from Johnstown to Pittsburgh. By saving the spring floods, water could be released during the dry summers. When the dam was completed in 1852, the Pennsylvania Railroad completed the track from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh, and the canal business began its decline. The state offered to sell the canal, the railroad company bought it for the right of ways yet had no need to maintain the dam, which due to neglect, broke for the first time in 1862. McCullough stresses that man was responsible for the dam and its weaknesses nearly thirty years before the great flood as he explains how the initial repair work was carried out by unqualified people and how the discharge pipes were blocked up. He also explains how heavy rainfall in 1879 and 1881 caused further damage. This information sets a precedent for the disaster of 1889.
McCullough once again reiterates the responsibility of man prior to the 1889 disaster with the example of Daniel J. Morrells concerns in 1880. He sent John Fulton on behalf of the Cambria Iron Works to inspect the dam, where two major structural problems were found: there was no discharge pipe to reduce water in the dam, and, the previous repair left a leak that cut into the dam. This initial warning and advice was rejected, even after their offer to pay for repairs. McCullough then points out that there were in fact four other crucial problems that needed to be repaired that had not been noticed by Fulton. The height of the dam had been lowered, reducing the height between the crest and the spillway. A screen of iron rods were put across the spillway, which would decrease its capacity when clogged by debris. The dam sagged in the center so it was lower than at the ends when the center should have been highest and strongest. Lastly, the club brought the level of the lake nearly to the top so there was no reserve capacity for a severe storm. By indicating the many problems with the dam prior to the great flood of 1889 and the South Fork Clubs refusal to acknowledge the potential danger, McCullough is leaving little doubt to the reader of his position. Subsequently he brings about an interesting perspective, that the Johnstown flood can not be considered purely a natural disaster as man had the chance (but refused) to take measures that would have prevented such destruction.
McCullough presents the Clubs argument that the flood would have occurred and had the same damaging impact on Johnstown