Account of the Terrific and Fatal Riot at the New-York Astor Place Opera House
February 23, 2018, by Anshul
The exploration of the events that took place on the night of the 10th of May 1849 seeks to explain what events in the city during and leading up to the riot were responsible for its formulation. However, in this account, we find that there is much more to the event than a disagreement between actors Mr. Forest and Mr. Macready stemming from their professional rivalry in the United States theatre industry. The narrative that exists behind this argument between the two dramatists and their supporters ultimately resulted in one that was representative of the disparity between the aristocracy against the people, and a United States against English mentality (17). Furthermore, the riot and the undercurrents that it represented between various groups of people in New York evidences the way that the opera as an institution held a historical position of importance for the people living in New York. The piece emphasizes the way that New York for many years was considered to be a “very quiet city” (19). This lack of serious disturbances and conflict amongst the city’s people for the longest time is directly compared to the extensive and disgraceful outrages that would often take place in Philadelphia. However, the meanings that had become attached to the two unique sides of this argument and the actors that were their respective figureheads was one that elucidated a disagreement that had long been fermenting in the city’s consciousness, and to an extent, the national one. The classical narrative between the rich and the poor and the hatred of wealth and privilege, which Macready had come to represent because of the status of his aristocratic supporters, would ultimately come to life at the opera during this riot. It had gone on to eclipse the original argument between Forest and Macready, which helped explain why both actors played so passive a role in what originally began as a disagreement between the two, as well as the reason why so many individuals felt involved enough in the argument so as to commit to participating in a riot that could have potentially fatal consequences. The account’s conclusion seeks to explain where the blame for this horrible event lies. This exploration is one that reaffirms our original assertion about the minimal role that both Mr. Forest and Mr. Macready would come to play in the actual riot. The discussion regarding the zeal for the rights of Macready and his friends being commendable but failing to understand the bigger picture reinforces the idea that the riot was a matter that brought the aristocrat vs. people narrative bubbling up to the surface of society’s consciousness. The observation that providing the ignorant men who caused the riot to happen would have not necessarily committed this horrible act had society managed to fulfil its duty to them (32) is an extremely powerful one, and is an interesting observation about the historical social issues that plagued both New York and the entire nation.