Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on February 13, 2004, 12:45:47 PM
-
Please answer those questions without doing a search.
Dodge City is considered the wildest place of the Wild Wild West.
Would you care to estimate the number of murders commited in that city in its most violent year.
How about estimating an average murder rate in that town during the period of 1876–1885?
miko
-
586
400
-
Around 200
-
120
Avg rate: 60
WAG
h
-
I see Miko's been digging into the Economist archives again.
Link (http://www.texansforgunsafety.org/articles/archives/guns.htm) to the story.
Quote:
"The big industrial cities back East were actually far more violent than even the most notorious cowboy town. Robert Dykstra writes that 'during its most celebrated decade as a tough cattle town, only 15 persons died violently in Dodge City, 1876-85, for an average of just 1.5 killings per cowboy season.' Towns such as Tombstone (in Arizona) and Dodge City (in Kansas) had very low murder rates, mainly because drovers had their guns confiscated at the town limits. Not so in the East. In 1872 the Missouri Republican, for example, called New York a 'murderer’s paradise' and criticised its 'chronic indifference' in the face of 'the murdering business [that] is carried on with impunity.'"
Oops, did I just look that up instead of guessing?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
This (http://classicfilm.about.com/library/sounds/whitewomen.wav) is what started the brawls in Dodge City.
-
Not very much as Wild West is hollywood invention.
-
Historian Richard Shenkman: in Dodge City there were just five killings in 1878, the most homicidal year in the town's Frontier history.
Dodge City saw 15 people die violently from 1876–1885—an average of 1.5 per year.
Deadwood, South Dakota and Tombstone, Arizona (home of the O.K. Corral), during their worst years of violence saw four and five murders respectively.
All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885.
According to Dykstra and Richard M. Brown, while the Kansas code gave mayors the power to call a vigilante group from all the men in the town who ranged in ages from 18–50, it seems, at least in Kansas, that it was rarely done. In a span of 38 years, Kansas had only 19 vigilante movements that accounted for 18 deaths. In addition, between 1876 and 1886, no one was lynched or hanged illegally in Dodge City.
If anyone is wondering about the anarcho-capitalism and whether it is synonymous with lack of order, violence and chaos, there is hardly a better example of a functioning anarcho-capitalist society than the American West of the frontiere peripod.
miko
-
But everyone had GUNS!!!!!!!!!1
and you had to earn your living or STARVE!!!!
thats bad!
-
Bloody Kansas (http://www.kshs.org/publicat/history/1995summer_watts.pdf)wasn't so bloody.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
If anyone is wondering about the anarcho-capitalism and whether it is synonymous with lack of order, violence and chaos,
miko
Yes, this keeps me up nights. ;)
h
-
Don't worry - we'll be back to our old anarcho-capitalism ways when the oil runs out and the major industrial centers have been leveled by nukes.
-
2
-
Originally posted by miko2d
If anyone is wondering about the anarcho-capitalism and whether it is synonymous with lack of order, violence and chaos, there is hardly a better example of a functioning anarcho-capitalist society than the American West of the frontiere peripod.
That's because you're reading has a liberal bias.
The American Indians were Terrorists and hethens at best!
If Dubya was in charge of Dodge City... those 1.95 deaths would have been out sourced to New Mexico!
-
The ONLY people who have the RIGHT to talk about Dodge City Kansas are he ones that have been there ;)
miko you should go there and visit sometime, being one on them there city folk they might not take kindly to ya but they would treat you with respect.
-
These absolute numbers have me scratching my head. Obviously Dodge City had fewer murders than places like New York City, but that says nothing of the population differences and the actual murder rates (the number of murders per, say, 1000 or 100,000 people).
Now, finding census and murder rate figures online for this time period is pretty problematic. Here's what I found:
Dodge City Population (1878): ~2,000
New York City Population (1880): ~1,200,000
(data here (http://skyways.lib.ks.us/genweb/archives/1878/ford.shtml) and here (http://www.censusrecords.net/cities/new_york_city_census.htm))
We know that five people died in Dodge City in 1878, but let's just go with the average of 1.5 murdered per year. In New York City during this same period, according to this (http://www.bigelowconsulting.com/CRAweb/essay24.htm) website, the murder rate ranged from between 3 per 100,000 and 7 per 100,000 -- roughly 36 to 84 murders per year. Let's just say an average of 60 murders per year during this period for the sake of simplicity and since this isn't very scientific anyway.
If we look at the number of murders per 1,000 people in each city, my calculations find:
Dodge City: 0.75 murders per 1,000 (or 75 murders per 100,000)
New York City: 0.05 murders per 1,000 (or 5 murders per 100,000)
During their high years (5 murders in Dodge City and 84 murders in New York City, if we can trust these figures), these numbers break down as:
Dodge City: 2.5 murders per 1,000 (or 250 murders per 100,000)
New York City: 0.07 murders per 1,000 (or 7 murders per 100,000)
Holy violent anarcho-capitalist societies, Batman!
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
ygsmilo: The ONLY people who have the RIGHT to talk about Dodge City Kansas are he ones that have been there ;)
I am sure the people who live there are decent folk but I am not talking about modern Dodge City Kansas and its current inhabitants. I am talking about the Dodge City Kansas as it was in 1870s and the people who lived there at the time.
My point was that the image of that city and the West in general as a murderous, violent, disorderly place was a Hollywood fantasy and does not correspond to reality.
The people who lived there there - probably the ancestors of many people living there now - had no problem maintaining orderly environment without much interference from the government.
If their values and ways got inherited by their descendants, I would not be surprised that they treat each other and the strangers with respect.
Dead Man Flying: If we look at the number of murders per 1,000 people in each city, my calculations find:
Dodge City: 2.5 murders per 1,000 (or 250 murders per 100,000)
New York City: 0.07 murders per 1,000 (or 7 murders per 100,000)
You are technically correct but you miss a few points here.
First, the resident population of the Dodge City could have been 2,000 but it does not account for much greater numbers of transients and visitors from the surrounding countryside.
Also I bet most of those killed were not result of a violent crime in the usual sense but the belligerent adults picking fights in saloons. The general violent crime (robbery, rape, etc.) was extremely low compared to ours.
Dodge City was supposedely the most violent place in the West and 5 murders was its worst year - while it's average year was 1.5 - 70 per 100,000.
It would also be curious to know the combined population of "All the big cattle towns of Kansas combined saw a total of 45 murders during the period of 1870-1885." - 3 murders a year including Dodge City. They must have been more than 4,000 total population, so the rates would drop even further.
Of course we know that there was a huge spike in murder rates after the end of Civil War - for obvious reasons, as soldiers came back.
Second, I am not comparing the Dodge City of 1870s with New York City of 1870s.
I am comparing it with the image Hollywood presents and with today's America where we have millions of people in jail, enourmous numbers of police and full-time law-enforcement, much wealthier society, etc. - and considerable crime rates.
What tax rates did they pay?
Give me New York City of 1870 or Dodge City of 1870 with their tax rates and safety any day - I will be happy too!
miko
-
Nice one, DMF.
Ravs
-
Miko, take those numbers and multilpy them by 100. There was not enough law reporting to say how many murders took place, and most of them were probably never even found. Pulp magazines aside, most white men in the West were killed by bushwhacking.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
Not very much as Wild West is hollywood invention.
Actually Buffalo Bill's Wild West Show and dime novels predate the movie industry.
-
Lizking: Miko, take those numbers and multilpy them by 100. There was not enough law reporting to say how many murders took place, and most of them were probably never even found. Pulp magazines aside, most white men in the West were killed by bushwhacking.
Why don't we multiply by 1,000?
Surely, the people were not eager to move west with their families and settle there in towns or in relatively isolated farms just to get slaughtered. Also, there is no reason to belive that people were not socially organised or illiterate or unaware of law. Or that people were easy to missplace in huge numbers without drawing attention.
I cited a historian who specialised in that period. You would have to present some justification for your assertions or sources to convince me I should multiply his numbers.
miko
-
they waited until they rode out of town and killed them in the hills ...
-
Robert Dykstra is not a histoian of the West that I recognise; do you have any further references to him?
-
"Towns such as Tombstone (in Arizona) and Dodge City (in Kansas) had very low murder rates, mainly because drovers had their guns confiscated at the town limits."
Wow, gun control works, even in the "wild west".
-
read DMF's breakdown.
Originally posted by Thrawn
"Towns such as Tombstone (in Arizona) and Dodge City (in Kansas) had very low murder rates, mainly because drovers had their guns confiscated at the town limits."
Wow, gun control works, even in the "wild west".
-
They shot em', then drove to Jersey and dumped them. ;)
Thorns
-
yea and the definition of murder was shooting an unarmed man or a child/woman most the time. almost all else was a fair fight. a good saturday night might have 3 or 4 dead cowboys but not a single murder, law was different alot was outside the court system. life was cheap.
check the number of deaths by gunshot wounds. or cemetary size.
-
had no problem maintaining orderly environment without much interference from the government.
They didn't have kids growing up with gansta rap either.
-
Isn't this interesting, for all the pro-gun people: "mainly because drovers had their guns confiscated at the town limits" ?
-
Fishu: Isn't this interesting, for all the pro-gun people: "mainly because drovers had their guns confiscated at the town limits" ?
Not really.
First, the phrase is merely a speculation by a historian. Some murders were likely prevented and some weren't. Many people were probably stabbed or clubbed, etc.
The townspeople - without interference from the federal government - established the rules on their property that suited them. Just like any adult american can go to a store and buy a rifle on the spot but a foreigner cannot arrive into the country with a rille.
They did not want armed strangers intent on getting drunk around - they made them surrendee the guns for safekeeping. The townspeople were not limited.
The visitors apparently did not object to being unarnmed in a city full of armed people because they were not worried about their safety.
lord dolf vader: yea and the definition of murder was...
True. A murder is when someone is killed unvoluntarily.
A duel is not a murder because each participand consents to being shot at.
a good saturday night might have 3 or 4 dead cowboys but not a single murder, law was different alot was outside the court system. life was cheap.
Any references on that?
Frankly, it does not sound right to me. In a society where "life is cheap", there is not much order, a lot of robbery and rape, etc. Families with children abandon such places rather than migrate into them.
That is nowhere near what the West looked like.
Why would the life would be cheap in a prosperous, dynamic and growing society where people had a lot of opportunity and looked into the future with optimism? Sure, there was a lot of risk-taking, but of creative type - investing, trying, discovering.
miko
-
Originally posted by Nakhui
2
3
-
Here lies Ned Moore
Took two slugs from a 44
No Ned No Moore
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Isn't this interesting, for all the pro-gun people: "mainly because drovers had their guns confiscated at the town limits" ?
Dodge City had two front streets, one on either side of the tracks. The city passed an ordinance that guns could not be worn or carried north of the "deadline" which was the railroad tracks. The south side where "anything went" was wide open. In 1876 the population was 1,200 and nineteen businesses were licensed to sell liquor.
-
well i cant offer references but the attitude of the not being involved in every killing was commonplace. why would they care? the law was paid by the towns people and really for the towns people the whole authority thing was a joke to most of the "drovers". this was how long after the civil war as i understand it alot of the cowboys were veterans of a brutal war just out to get drunk and exercise free will and willing to shoot anyone who pissed them off.
the law just didnt see most fights and didnt care to no profit in it.
-
If we accept Deadman's assertion that Dodge City was more violent than New York City, as well as Thrawn's assertion that gun control worked, even in the wild west, then we must accept two diametrically opposed notions. If the drovers had their guns confiscated at the city limits then why was their "murder rate" so much greater than New York City's?
Bye the bye, the most violent place in the wild west may have been southern Missouri, between Springfield and the Arkansas border. Returning Civil War veterans formed vigilante groups there to hunt down guerilla bands that had carried out muder, rape, and pillage without mercy against the farms and homesteads of that unfortunate region. The James and Younger brothers, so often romanticized by pulp fiction, were nothing more than violent thugs who had to flee the area after the "heat" became to intense.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If the drovers had their guns confiscated at the city limits then why was their "murder rate" so much greater than New York City's?
Guns were not confiscated at the edge of town, but at the train track passing through the middle.
Guns were theoretically banned north of the tracks, but the south side was a free fire zone.
-
Shuckins: If we accept Deadman's assertion that Dodge City was more violent than New York City, as well as Thrawn's assertion that gun control worked, even in the wild west, then we must accept two diametrically opposed notions. If the drovers had their guns confiscated at the city limits then why was their "murder rate" so much greater than New York City's?
I am speculating here that he was comparing the counties or state in general to the New York City - not just the small towns where the murders were concentrated.
Most death in a city happen in the hospital - not because the hospital is much more deadly place than the surrounding area but because people from the surrounding area come to die there. So averaging the death rate of the city block that contains the hospital would give very skewed pictures of death rates inside and outside that block.
19 saloons for a town of 1200 resident souls were not serving just the local population.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
First, the resident population of the Dodge City could have been 2,000 but it does not account for much greater numbers of transients and visitors from the surrounding countryside.
[/B]
And New York City did not enjoy multitudes of transients and visitors from the surrounding areas? An enormous amount of rail traffic carried visitors to and from New York City during this era. If you're suggesting that these transients lower the overall murder rate in Dodge City, then I'd agree with you. However, the ratio between the murder rates of New York City and Dodge City probably remain identical despite this.
Also I bet most of those killed were not result of a violent crime in the usual sense but the belligerent adults picking fights in saloons. The general violent crime (robbery, rape, etc.) was extremely low compared to ours.
[/B]
Again, I'm not sure how much this differs from large urban areas at the time. I have no evidence to suggest one way or another, and we're just supposing at this point. I'd guess, but I wouldn't know for sure, that much of the violence in New York City was gang-related during this period and not typically focused at the general population.
Dodge City was supposedely the most violent place in the West and 5 murders was its worst year - while it's average year was 1.5 - 70 per 100,000.
[/B]
Well, my point in comparing Dodge City to New York City, particularly given the article I quoted, was to show that Dodge City was relatively more violent than large urban areas. If you read that last link I provided, it actually notes that South Carolina throughout the late 1870s and 1880s suffered from 130 murders per 100,000 citizens -- almost double that of Dodge City! So perhaps Dodge City was the most violent city in the West, but it was most certainly not the most violent place in the Union.
Second, I am not comparing the Dodge City of 1870s with New York City of 1870s.
[/B]
I know, but the point of the comparison was to show how Dodge City might have earned this reputation. Relatively speaking, Dodge City was more violent than the largest urban center on the East Coast. I can see how such a reputation might have persisted even if the absolute numbers suggested otherwise. Nonetheless, the probability of dying by murder in Dodge City was quite a bit higher than in New York City.
I am comparing it with the image Hollywood presents and with today's America where we have millions of people in jail, enourmous numbers of police and full-time law-enforcement, much wealthier society, etc. - and considerable crime rates.
What tax rates did they pay?
[/B]
Hollywood distorts many images into what it believes sells best to the population. I have no problems with that so long as we always take Hollywood history with a large grain of salt.
We can compare murder rates between eras however, though obviously society has changed so dramatically since then that any comparisons present problems. I suppose it's possible to make an index of violence and taxation where we could "score" cities and eras based on the relative levels of taxation and violence. So if one era was ten times more violent but enjoyed 1/100th the taxation, it would score higher.
I don't have taxation information, but I did look up New York City murder rates for 2001 and 2002. The city population during that time was just over 17.6 million people. They are:
New York City (2001 - 646 murders): 3.67 murders per 100,000
New York City (2002 - 575 murders): 3.27 murders per 100,000
Thus modern-day New York City averages near the lower boundary of the 1880-era New York City which probably averaged about twice that many murders per 100,000. The overall crime rate in New York City in 2002 was 3,100 per 100,000; I have no comparable numbers for 1880, so I have no idea if we could say that it was safer from other crimes back then, though it's important to keep in mind that probably more things constitute crimes nowadays than they did back then.
If you have access to taxation information from the 1880s and today, I'd love to see them. It wouldn't be hard to make some sort of desirability index based on that info, though it would certainly paint an incomplete picture of life during both eras.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Isn't this interesting, for all the pro-gun people: "mainly because drovers had their guns confiscated at the town limits" ?
If anything, my analysis contested this point by the author once we look at the murder rates. Dodge City was a relatively more violent place to live than other, more gun-tolerant places such as New York City.
I don't have numbers related to gun homicides during this period, so it's also very difficult to determine how much of a role guns played in the murder rates.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Lizking
Robert Dykstra is not a histoian of the West that I recognise; do you have any further references to him?
None that I know of. That was merely a quote from an Economist article that cited him. I don't pretend to be an expert on this era; I just like to crunch the numbers. :)
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
If the drovers had their guns confiscated at the city limits then why was their "murder rate" so much greater than New York City's?
Perhaps the violence in Dodge City was not gun-related. There are more ways to kill a man than shooting him.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I am speculating here that he was comparing the counties or state in general to the New York City - not just the small towns where the murders were concentrated.
I was only comparing the murder rate specifically mentioned for Dodge City given the specific population of Dodge City at this time. With some looking around, it's probably possible to find the average number of murders in the state or area for this era and compare that to New York City or other places. I have no idea how those numbers would break down comparatively, as I have not seen them.
I only use New York City as a means of comparison since the Economist article seemed to argue that NYC was considered far more violent during this era by some media pundits, but the murder rates seem to suggest otherwise.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Dead Man Flying,
Sorry if I was unclear in that statement. My question was an attempt to point out the contradictory natures of the two premises put forward by you and Thrawn. His claim that gun control worked in Dodge City to keep down violent crime was spurious at best, especially in light of your statement that Dodge City's rate of violent crime was higher than New York City's.
Regards, Shuckins
-
well... from what I have read of the west... self defense and duels were not considered murder. Most towns tried to keep the "red light" districts firearm free except for the property owners. In many towns the cowboys that came in hadn't seen a buck or a woman or a drink or even a town in many months... they were also young and in prime shape. Shooting up main street was VERY common... the no gun laws were not to prevent murder but to prevent accidents by drunks and property damage... A plate glass window might cost a months wages and take 6 months to get to the western establishment that had it shot out by a drunken cowboy.
I don't believe drunks (or druggies) should have firearms. I put drunks in the same mental classification as mental defectives and children.
lazs
-
Dead Man Flying: I was only comparing the murder rate specifically mentioned for Dodge City given the specific population of Dodge City at this time.
I understand. But since specific resident population of Dodge City had very little to do with actual population of that city at any one time, the stats woudl be hugely skewed by the "tourists".
I only use New York City as a means of comparison since the Economist article seemed to argue that NYC was considered far more violent during this era by some media pundits, but the murder rates seem to suggest otherwise.
I think the Economist used people's opinions rather than hard numbers about comparisons.
Many people did not consider "duels" to be violence - at least not the kind of violence they worried about. On the other hand people consider rapes and robberies violence. The "frontier town" was allegedely a much safer place for a woman to walk unescorted at night than NYC of the same period.
miko
-
Dueling was agin the law in every state east of the Mississippi by the time of the Civil War. Since most of the west's residents were immigrants from the east, they probably shared that region's attitudes about shoot-em-ups in the city streets. Perpetrators were arrested. That is probably why most murderers shot their victims in the back at night, or on some lonesome trail.
Shuckins
-
Shuckins: Dueling was agin the law in every state east of the Mississippi by the time of the Civil War. Since most of the west's residents were immigrants from the east, they probably shared that region's attitudes about shoot-em-ups in the city streets.
Or maybe they did not - and had run away from the East to the West exactly to escape that region's attitudes of government interference.
miko
-
lots of things were illeagl but were enforced in a very uneven manner. Law was spred pretty thin and most large ranchers controled the law for vast tracts of land. That part the movies got right. Most sherrifs and gunfighters/outlaws were one and the same... they switched careers seamlessly.. being handy with a gun was the most important factor in sheriffing.
Time life (one of my least favorite companies) did a pretty good series about the west a while back.
lazs